The evolution of mating preferences for genetic attractiveness and quality in the presence of sensory bias
The aesthetic preferences of potential mates have driven the evolution of a baffling diversity of elaborate ornaments. Which fitness benefit-if any-choosers gain from expressing such preferences is controversial, however. Here, we simulate the evolution of preferences for multiple ornament types (e....
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS 2022-08, Vol.119 (33), p.e2206262119-e2206262119 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e2206262119 |
---|---|
container_issue | 33 |
container_start_page | e2206262119 |
container_title | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS |
container_volume | 119 |
creator | Henshaw, Jonathan M Fromhage, Lutz Jones, Adam G |
description | The aesthetic preferences of potential mates have driven the evolution of a baffling diversity of elaborate ornaments. Which fitness benefit-if any-choosers gain from expressing such preferences is controversial, however. Here, we simulate the evolution of preferences for multiple ornament types (e.g., "Fisherian," "handicap," and "indicator" ornaments) that differ in their associations with genes for attractiveness and other components of fitness. We model the costs of preference expression in a biologically plausible way, which decouples costly mate search from cost-free preferences. Ornaments of all types evolved in our model, but their occurrence was far from random. Females typically preferred ornaments that carried information about a male's quality, defined here as his ability to acquire and metabolize resources. Highly salient ornaments, which key into preexisting perceptual biases, were also more likely to evolve. When males expressed quality-dependent ornaments, females invested readily in costly mate search to locate preferred males. In contrast, the genetic benefits associated with purely arbitrary ornaments were insufficient to sustain highly costly mate search. Arbitrary ornaments could nonetheless "piggyback" on mate-search effort favored by other, quality-dependent ornaments. We further show that the potential to produce attractive male offspring ("sexy sons") can be as important as producing offspring of high general quality ("good genes") in shaping female preferences, even when preferred ornaments are quality dependent. Our model highlights the importance of mate-search effort as a driver of aesthetic coevolution. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1073/pnas.2206262119 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9388091</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2700315705</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c421t-f14c83e6ef21b2c8466e1724731fff5d0b7393a4f26da7635b07c49b477359343</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkc1LHDEYxoModbU9eysBL72MvvmYyeRSKGJVELzYc8hkkzXLbLImmYX9783gR1tPScjveXif90HojMAFAcEut0HnC0qhox0lRB6gBQFJmo5LOEQLACqanlN-jE5yXgOAbHv4go5ZK5kUwBdo_fhksd3FcSo-Bhwd3ujiwwpvk3U22WBsxi4mvLLBFm-wLiVpU_yuvnPGOizx86RHX_bYB1yqW1XmWTeb1UuOaY8Hr_NXdOT0mO23t_MU_fl9_Xh129w_3Nxd_bpvDKekNI5w0zPbWUfJQE3Pu84SQblgxDnXLmEQTDLNHe2WWnSsHUAYLgcuxByLs1P089V3Ow0buzQ21IlHtU1-o9NeRe3V_z_BP6lV3CnJ-r5urxr8eDNI8XmyuaiNz8aOow42TllRAcBIK6Ct6PkndB2nFGq8meIMeC9n6vKVMinmXBf7MQwBNfeo5h7V3x6r4vu_GT749-LYCw9AmuM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2704304895</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The evolution of mating preferences for genetic attractiveness and quality in the presence of sensory bias</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Henshaw, Jonathan M ; Fromhage, Lutz ; Jones, Adam G</creator><creatorcontrib>Henshaw, Jonathan M ; Fromhage, Lutz ; Jones, Adam G</creatorcontrib><description>The aesthetic preferences of potential mates have driven the evolution of a baffling diversity of elaborate ornaments. Which fitness benefit-if any-choosers gain from expressing such preferences is controversial, however. Here, we simulate the evolution of preferences for multiple ornament types (e.g., "Fisherian," "handicap," and "indicator" ornaments) that differ in their associations with genes for attractiveness and other components of fitness. We model the costs of preference expression in a biologically plausible way, which decouples costly mate search from cost-free preferences. Ornaments of all types evolved in our model, but their occurrence was far from random. Females typically preferred ornaments that carried information about a male's quality, defined here as his ability to acquire and metabolize resources. Highly salient ornaments, which key into preexisting perceptual biases, were also more likely to evolve. When males expressed quality-dependent ornaments, females invested readily in costly mate search to locate preferred males. In contrast, the genetic benefits associated with purely arbitrary ornaments were insufficient to sustain highly costly mate search. Arbitrary ornaments could nonetheless "piggyback" on mate-search effort favored by other, quality-dependent ornaments. We further show that the potential to produce attractive male offspring ("sexy sons") can be as important as producing offspring of high general quality ("good genes") in shaping female preferences, even when preferred ornaments are quality dependent. Our model highlights the importance of mate-search effort as a driver of aesthetic coevolution.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0027-8424</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1091-6490</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2206262119</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35939704</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: National Academy of Sciences</publisher><subject>Animals ; Attraction ; Biological Evolution ; Biological Sciences ; Coevolution ; Evolution ; Female ; Females ; Fitness ; Genes ; Genetic Fitness ; Male ; Males ; Mating Preference, Animal ; Offspring ; Reproductive fitness ; Searching ; Sexual Selection</subject><ispartof>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 2022-08, Vol.119 (33), p.e2206262119-e2206262119</ispartof><rights>Copyright National Academy of Sciences Aug 16, 2022</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by PNAS. 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c421t-f14c83e6ef21b2c8466e1724731fff5d0b7393a4f26da7635b07c49b477359343</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c421t-f14c83e6ef21b2c8466e1724731fff5d0b7393a4f26da7635b07c49b477359343</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7306-170X ; 0000-0003-0228-7124 ; 0000-0001-5560-6673</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9388091/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9388091/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35939704$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Henshaw, Jonathan M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fromhage, Lutz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Adam G</creatorcontrib><title>The evolution of mating preferences for genetic attractiveness and quality in the presence of sensory bias</title><title>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS</title><addtitle>Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A</addtitle><description>The aesthetic preferences of potential mates have driven the evolution of a baffling diversity of elaborate ornaments. Which fitness benefit-if any-choosers gain from expressing such preferences is controversial, however. Here, we simulate the evolution of preferences for multiple ornament types (e.g., "Fisherian," "handicap," and "indicator" ornaments) that differ in their associations with genes for attractiveness and other components of fitness. We model the costs of preference expression in a biologically plausible way, which decouples costly mate search from cost-free preferences. Ornaments of all types evolved in our model, but their occurrence was far from random. Females typically preferred ornaments that carried information about a male's quality, defined here as his ability to acquire and metabolize resources. Highly salient ornaments, which key into preexisting perceptual biases, were also more likely to evolve. When males expressed quality-dependent ornaments, females invested readily in costly mate search to locate preferred males. In contrast, the genetic benefits associated with purely arbitrary ornaments were insufficient to sustain highly costly mate search. Arbitrary ornaments could nonetheless "piggyback" on mate-search effort favored by other, quality-dependent ornaments. We further show that the potential to produce attractive male offspring ("sexy sons") can be as important as producing offspring of high general quality ("good genes") in shaping female preferences, even when preferred ornaments are quality dependent. Our model highlights the importance of mate-search effort as a driver of aesthetic coevolution.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Attraction</subject><subject>Biological Evolution</subject><subject>Biological Sciences</subject><subject>Coevolution</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Females</subject><subject>Fitness</subject><subject>Genes</subject><subject>Genetic Fitness</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Males</subject><subject>Mating Preference, Animal</subject><subject>Offspring</subject><subject>Reproductive fitness</subject><subject>Searching</subject><subject>Sexual Selection</subject><issn>0027-8424</issn><issn>1091-6490</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkc1LHDEYxoModbU9eysBL72MvvmYyeRSKGJVELzYc8hkkzXLbLImmYX9783gR1tPScjveXif90HojMAFAcEut0HnC0qhox0lRB6gBQFJmo5LOEQLACqanlN-jE5yXgOAbHv4go5ZK5kUwBdo_fhksd3FcSo-Bhwd3ujiwwpvk3U22WBsxi4mvLLBFm-wLiVpU_yuvnPGOizx86RHX_bYB1yqW1XmWTeb1UuOaY8Hr_NXdOT0mO23t_MU_fl9_Xh129w_3Nxd_bpvDKekNI5w0zPbWUfJQE3Pu84SQblgxDnXLmEQTDLNHe2WWnSsHUAYLgcuxByLs1P089V3Ow0buzQ21IlHtU1-o9NeRe3V_z_BP6lV3CnJ-r5urxr8eDNI8XmyuaiNz8aOow42TllRAcBIK6Ct6PkndB2nFGq8meIMeC9n6vKVMinmXBf7MQwBNfeo5h7V3x6r4vu_GT749-LYCw9AmuM</recordid><startdate>20220816</startdate><enddate>20220816</enddate><creator>Henshaw, Jonathan M</creator><creator>Fromhage, Lutz</creator><creator>Jones, Adam G</creator><general>National Academy of Sciences</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7QR</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7306-170X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0228-7124</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5560-6673</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220816</creationdate><title>The evolution of mating preferences for genetic attractiveness and quality in the presence of sensory bias</title><author>Henshaw, Jonathan M ; Fromhage, Lutz ; Jones, Adam G</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c421t-f14c83e6ef21b2c8466e1724731fff5d0b7393a4f26da7635b07c49b477359343</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Attraction</topic><topic>Biological Evolution</topic><topic>Biological Sciences</topic><topic>Coevolution</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Females</topic><topic>Fitness</topic><topic>Genes</topic><topic>Genetic Fitness</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Males</topic><topic>Mating Preference, Animal</topic><topic>Offspring</topic><topic>Reproductive fitness</topic><topic>Searching</topic><topic>Sexual Selection</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Henshaw, Jonathan M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fromhage, Lutz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Adam G</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Chemoreception Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Henshaw, Jonathan M</au><au>Fromhage, Lutz</au><au>Jones, Adam G</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The evolution of mating preferences for genetic attractiveness and quality in the presence of sensory bias</atitle><jtitle>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS</jtitle><addtitle>Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A</addtitle><date>2022-08-16</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>119</volume><issue>33</issue><spage>e2206262119</spage><epage>e2206262119</epage><pages>e2206262119-e2206262119</pages><issn>0027-8424</issn><eissn>1091-6490</eissn><abstract>The aesthetic preferences of potential mates have driven the evolution of a baffling diversity of elaborate ornaments. Which fitness benefit-if any-choosers gain from expressing such preferences is controversial, however. Here, we simulate the evolution of preferences for multiple ornament types (e.g., "Fisherian," "handicap," and "indicator" ornaments) that differ in their associations with genes for attractiveness and other components of fitness. We model the costs of preference expression in a biologically plausible way, which decouples costly mate search from cost-free preferences. Ornaments of all types evolved in our model, but their occurrence was far from random. Females typically preferred ornaments that carried information about a male's quality, defined here as his ability to acquire and metabolize resources. Highly salient ornaments, which key into preexisting perceptual biases, were also more likely to evolve. When males expressed quality-dependent ornaments, females invested readily in costly mate search to locate preferred males. In contrast, the genetic benefits associated with purely arbitrary ornaments were insufficient to sustain highly costly mate search. Arbitrary ornaments could nonetheless "piggyback" on mate-search effort favored by other, quality-dependent ornaments. We further show that the potential to produce attractive male offspring ("sexy sons") can be as important as producing offspring of high general quality ("good genes") in shaping female preferences, even when preferred ornaments are quality dependent. Our model highlights the importance of mate-search effort as a driver of aesthetic coevolution.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>National Academy of Sciences</pub><pmid>35939704</pmid><doi>10.1073/pnas.2206262119</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7306-170X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0228-7124</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5560-6673</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0027-8424 |
ispartof | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 2022-08, Vol.119 (33), p.e2206262119-e2206262119 |
issn | 0027-8424 1091-6490 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9388091 |
source | MEDLINE; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Animals Attraction Biological Evolution Biological Sciences Coevolution Evolution Female Females Fitness Genes Genetic Fitness Male Males Mating Preference, Animal Offspring Reproductive fitness Searching Sexual Selection |
title | The evolution of mating preferences for genetic attractiveness and quality in the presence of sensory bias |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T09%3A09%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20evolution%20of%20mating%20preferences%20for%20genetic%20attractiveness%20and%20quality%20in%20the%20presence%20of%20sensory%20bias&rft.jtitle=Proceedings%20of%20the%20National%20Academy%20of%20Sciences%20-%20PNAS&rft.au=Henshaw,%20Jonathan%20M&rft.date=2022-08-16&rft.volume=119&rft.issue=33&rft.spage=e2206262119&rft.epage=e2206262119&rft.pages=e2206262119-e2206262119&rft.issn=0027-8424&rft.eissn=1091-6490&rft_id=info:doi/10.1073/pnas.2206262119&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2700315705%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2704304895&rft_id=info:pmid/35939704&rfr_iscdi=true |