Sensory bias and the adaptiveness of female choice
Sensory bias and the adaptiveness of female choice
复制标题
DOI:
10.1086/285964
复制
发表时间:
1996-11-01
影响因子:
2.9
通讯作者:
Guilford, T
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Dawkins, MS;Guilford, T
Theories of the evolution of female choice are commonly divided (Bradbury and Andersson 1987; Hill 1994; Pomiankowski 1994) into those that are described as adaptive (eg, the female gains" good genes" as a result of choosing one male rather than another) and those that are described as nonadaptive or arbitrary. Into the" adaptive" category go theories of honest advertisement of male quality because females are held to pass on genetic benefits to both their male and their female offspring by choosing males with costly ornaments that indicate" quality"(Zahavi 1977; Andersson 1982; Hamilton and Zuk 1982). Into the nonadaptive category go theories of" sensory bias,"" sensory exploitation"(Basolo 1990; Endler 1993; Ryan and Rand 1993), or" sensory traps"(West-Eberhard 1983), which are often taken to imply that females may respond to particular signals from males because their sensory systems just happen to be preadapted to such stimulation. Fisher's" runaway" theory (Fisher 1958; Lande 1981) sits uneasily between the two, described as nonadaptive by some on the grounds that the females do not gain viability genes for their offspring(Bradbury and Andersson 1987; Hill 1994), but being clearly adaptive in the sense that the females gain genetically through the attractiveness of their sons. This distinction between adaptive and nonadaptive theories is, however, misleading if" adaptive" is taken as synonymous only with obtaining genes for viability. Thus, Hill (1994) contrasts" models of adaptive mate choice"(which he specifically equates with honest advertisement models; p. 64) with" truly arbitrary mate choice" such as sensory bias models. He argues that" biases in the sensory systems of females can promote a preference for male display traits independent of sexual selection"(p. 64). Kirkpatrick(1987) similarly refers to female preferences" that are built into the sensory modality being used and may have no intrinsic adaptive value"(p. 68). The implication is that the only way in which female choice can be described as adaptive is if the choice results in offspring with genes for increased viability. However, there are numerous other ways in which female preferences for a trait might affect he survival or mating success of the female or her offspring and thus constitute an adaptive trait. Just because a female gains no beneficial genetic effects from mating with one male rather than another does not mean that her choice is nonadaptive since she may still obtain direct benefits (Kirkpatrick 1987; Reynolds and Gross 1990; Kirkpatrick and Ryan 1991) such as resources. But we now suggest that she can also independently gain from responding to a sensory bias. We argue that before it can properly be claimed that female sensory biases are nonadaptive, it must be