Effects of female preference intensity on the permissiveness of sexual trait polymorphisms

Abstract

Recent developments in sexual selection theory suggest that on their own, mate preferences can promote the maintenance of sexual trait diversity. However, how mate preferences constrain the permissiveness of sexual trait diversity in different environmental regimes remains an open question. Here, we examine how a range of mate choice parameters affect the permissiveness of sexual trait polymorphism under several selection regimes. We use the null model of sexual selection and show that environments with strong assortative mating significantly increase the permissiveness of sexual trait polymorphism. We show that for a given change in mate choice parameters, the permissiveness of polymorphism changes more in environments with strong natural selection on sexual traits than in environments with weak selection. Sets of nearly stable polymorphic populations with weak assortative mating are more likely to show accidental divergence in sexual traits than sets of populations with strong assortative mating. The permissiveness of sexual trait polymorphism critically depends upon particular combinations of natural selection and mate choice parameters.

Joint effects of female preference intensity and frequency‐dependent predation on the polymorphism maintenance in aposematic sexual traits

“…For a combination of PFD strength ( β ) and mate preferences ( α 1 and α 2 ), joint trait‐preference starting frequencies that will maintain polymorphism in T at equilibrium form a zone in the trait‐preference frequency space (Figure 1b). Following Ponkshe and Endler (Ponkshe & Endler, 2018, 2019), we refer this zone as polymorphic zone. The polymorphic zone has two distinct boundaries.…”

“…Variable Strawberry poison‐dart frog ( Oophaga pumilio ) is an iconic example of such interaction where both males and females express warning colors and females use visual cues during mate choice (Maan & Cummings, 2008; Siddiqi et al, 2004; Summers et al, 1999) and prefer matching males over non‐matching males (Reynolds & Fitzpatrick, 2007). Recent developments in sexual selection theory suggest that on their own, mate preferences can promote the maintenance of sexual trait diversity (M'Gonigle et al, 2012; Ponkshe & Endler, 2018; Servedio & Bürger, 2014). However, how mate preferences contribute to the maintenance of polymorphism in PFD‐affected sexual traits is largely neglected.…”

Strong spatial population structure shapes the temporal coevolutionary dynamics of costly female preference and male display

“…Costly female preferences for local male displays could then be maintained by recurring immigration (Day 2000; Proulx 2001; Reinhold 2004). This mechanism could be commonplace if mating preferences and resulting sexual selection vary spatially (Payne and Krakauer 1997; Day 2000; Brooks 2002; Kingston et al 2003; Chunco et al 2007; Gray and McKinnon 2007; M’Gonigle et al 2012; Wellenreuther et al 2014; Ponkshe and Endler 2018; Dytham and Thom 2020). Indeed, several models have shown that evolution of divergent female preferences can cause spatially variable sexual selection, for example given spatially varying natural selection on male display (Lande 1982; Day 2000), varying male dispersal depending on mating success (Payne and Krakauer 1997) and spatial variation in carrying capacity combined with mate-search costs in females (M’Gonigle et al 2012).…”

Strong spatial population structure shapes the temporal coevolutionary dynamics of costly female preference and male display

“…2012; Wellenreuther et al. 2014; Ponkshe and Endler 2018; Dytham and Thom 2020). Indeed, several models have shown that evolution of divergent female preferences can cause spatially variable sexual selection, for example, given spatially varying natural selection on male display (Lande 1982; Day 2000), varying male dispersal depending on mating success (Payne and Krakauer 1997), and spatial variation in carrying capacity combined with mate‐search costs in females (M'Gonigle et al.…”

“…Costly female preferences for local male displays could then be maintained by recurring immigration (Day 2000;Proulx 2001;Reinhold 2004). This mechanism could be commonplace if mating preferences and resulting sexual selection vary spatially (Payne and Krakauer 1997;Day 2000;Brooks 2002;Kingston et al 2003;Chunco et al 2007;Gray and McKinnon 2007;M'Gonigle et al 2012;Wellenreuther et al 2014;Ponkshe and Endler 2018;Dytham and Thom 2020). Indeed, several models have shown that evolution of divergent female preferences can cause spatially variable sexual selection, for example, given spatially varying natural selection on male display (Lande 1982;Day 2000), varying male dispersal depending on mating success (Payne and Krakauer 1997), and spatial variation in carrying capacity combined with mate-search costs in females (M'Gonigle et al 2012).…”