BACKGROUND Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex tackled the two main controversies arising from the Origin of Species: the evolution of humans from animal ancestors and the evolution of sexual ornaments. Most of the book focuses on the latter, Darwin’s theory of sexual selection. Research since supports his conjecture that songs, perfumes, and intricate dances evolve because they help secure mating partners. Evidence is overwhelming for a primary role of both male and female mate choice in sexual selection—not only through premating courtship but also through intimate interactions during and long after mating. But what makes one prospective mate more enticing than another? Darwin, shaped by misogyny and sexual prudery, invoked a “taste for the beautiful” without speculating on the origin of the “taste.” How to explain when the “final marriage ceremony” is between two rams? What of oral sex in bats, cloacal rubbing in bonobos, or the sexual spectrum in humans, all observable in Darwin’s time? By explaining desire through the lens of those male traits that caught his eyes and those of his gender and culture, Darwin elided these data in his theory of sexual evolution. Work since Darwin has focused on how traits and preferences coevolve. Preferences can evolve even if attractive signals only predict offspring attractiveness, but most attention has gone to the intuitive but tenuous premise that mating with gorgeous partners yields vigorous offspring. By focusing on those aspects of mating preferences that coevolve with male traits, many of Darwin’s influential followers have followed the same narrow path. The sexual selection debate in the 1980s was framed as “good genes versus runaway”: Do preferences coevolve with traits because traits predict genetic benefits, or simply because they are beautiful? To the broader world this is still the conversation. ADVANCES Even as they evolve toward ever-more-beautiful signals and healthier offspring, mate-choice mechanisms and courter traits are locked in an arms race of coercion and resistance, persuasion and skepticism. Traits favored by sexual selection often do so at the expense of chooser fitness, creating sexual conflict. Choosers then evolve preferences in response to the costs imposed by courters. Often, though, the current traits of courters tell us little about how preferences arise. Sensory systems are often tuned to nonsexual cues like food, favoring mating signals resembling those cues. And preferences can emerge simply from selection on choosing conspecifics. Sexual selection can therefore arise from chooser biases that have nothing to do with ornaments. Choice may occur before mating, as Darwin emphasized, but individuals mate multiple times and bias fertilization and offspring care toward favored partners. Mate choice can thus occur in myriad ways after mating, through behavioral, morphological, and physiological mechanisms. Like other biological traits, mating preferences vary among individuals and species along multiple dimensions. Some of this is likely adaptive, as different individuals will have different optimal mates. Indeed, mate choice may be more about choosing compatible partners than picking the “best” mate in the absolute sense. Compatibility-based choice can drive or reinforce genetic divergence and lead to speciation. The mechanisms underlying the “taste for the beautiful” determine whether mate choice accelerates or inhibits reproductive isolation. If preferences are learned from parents, or covary with ecological differences like the sensory environment, then choice can promote genetic divergence. If everyone shares preferences for attractive ornaments, then choice promotes gene flow between lineages. OUTLOOK Two major trends continue to shift the emphasis away from male “beauty” and toward how and why individuals make sexual choices. The first integrates neuroscience, genomics, and physiology. We need not limit ourselves to the feathers and dances that dazzled Darwin, which gives us a vastly richer picture of mate choice. The second is that despite persistent structural inequities in academia, a broader range of people study a broader range of questions. This new focus confirms Darwin’s insight that mate choice makes a primary contribution to sexual selection, but suggests that sexual selection is often tangential to mate choice. This conclusion challenges a persistent belief with sinister roots, whereby mate choice is all about male ornaments. Under this view, females evolve to prefer handsome males who provide healthy offspring, or alternatively, to express flighty whims for arbitrary traits. But mate-choice mechanisms also evolve for a host of other reasons Understanding mate choice mechanisms is key to understanding how sexual decisions underlie speciation and adaptation to environmental change. New theory and technology allow us to explicitly connect decision-making mechanisms with their evolutionary consequences. A century and a half after Darwin, we can shift our focus to females and males as choosers, rather than the gaudy by-products of mate choice. Mate choice mechanisms across domains of life. Sensory periphery for stimulus detection (yellow), brain for perceptual integration and evaluation (orange), and reproductive structures for postmating choice among pollen or sperm (teal). ILLUSTRATION: KELLIE HOLOSKI/ SCIENCE
more »
« less
Trade-offs, Pleiotropy, and Shared Molecular Pathways: A Unified View of Constraints on Adaptation
Synopsis The concept of trade-offs permeates our thinking about adaptive evolution because they are exhibited at every level of biological organization, from molecular and cellular processes to organismal and ecological functions. Trade-offs inevitably arise because different traits do not occur in isolation, but instead are imbedded within complex, integrated systems that make up whole organisms. The genetic and mechanistic underpinning of trade-offs can be found in the pleiotropic nodes that occur in the biological pathways shared between traits. Yet, often trade-offs are only understood as statistical correlations, limiting the ability to evaluate the interplay between how selection and constraint interact during adaptive evolution. Here, we first review the classic paradigms in which physiologists and evolutionary biologists have studied trade-offs and highlight the ways in which network and molecular pathway approaches unify these paradigms. We discuss how these approaches allow researchers to evaluate why trade-offs arise and how selection can act to overcome trait correlations and evolutionary constraints. We argue that understanding how the conserved molecular pathways are shared between different traits and functions provides a conceptual framework for evolutionary biologists, physiologists, and molecular biologists to meaningfully work together toward the goal of understanding why correlations and trade-offs occur between traits. We briefly highlight the melanocortin system and the hormonal control of osmoregulation as two case studies where an understanding of shared molecular pathways reveals why trade-offs occur between seemingly unrelated traits. While we recognize that applying such approaches poses challenges and limitations particularly in the context of natural populations, we advocate for the view that focusing on the biological pathways responsible for trade-offs provides a unified conceptual context accessible to a broad range of integrative biologists.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1927470
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10196258
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Integrative and Comparative Biology
- Volume:
- 60
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 1540-7063
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 332 to 347
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
more » « less
Synopsis It has long been known that the outcome of species interactions depends on the environmental context in which they occur. Climate change research has sparked a renewed interest in context-dependent species interactions because rapidly changing abiotic environments will cause species interactions to occur in novel contexts and researchers must incorporate this in their predictions of species’ responses to climate change. Here, we argue that predicting how the environment will alter the outcome of species interactions requires an integrative biology approach that focuses on the traits, mechanisms, and processes that bridge disciplines such as physiology, biomechanics, ecology, and evolutionary biology. Specifically, we advocate for quantifying how species differ in their tolerance and performance to both environmental challenges independent of species interactions, and in interactions with other species as a function of the environment. Such an approach increases our understanding of the mechanisms underlying outcomes of species interactions across different environmental contexts. This understanding will help determine how the outcome of species interactions affects the relative abundance and distribution of the interacting species in nature. A general theme that emerges from this perspective is that species are unable to maintain high levels of performance across different environmental contexts because of trade-offs between physiological tolerance to environmental challenges and performance in species interactions. Thus, an integrative biology paradigm that focuses on the trade-offs across environments, the physiological mechanisms involved, and how the ecological context impacts the outcome of species interactions provides a stronger framework to understand why species interactions are context dependent.
-
more » « less
ABSTRACT While a large body of research has focused on the physiological effects of multiple environmental stressors, how behavioural and life‐history plasticity mediate multiple‐stressor effects remains underexplored. Behavioural plasticity can not only drive organism‐level responses to stressors directly but can also mediate physiological responses. Here, we provide a conceptual framework incorporating four fundamental trade‐offs that explicitly link animal behaviour to life‐history‐based pathways for energy allocation, shaping the impact of multiple stressors on fitness. We first address how small‐scale behavioural changes can either mediate or drive conflicts between the effects of multiple stressors and alternative physiological responses. We then discuss how animal behaviour gives rise to three additional understudied and interrelated trade‐offs: balancing the benefits and risks of obtaining the energy needed to cope with stressors, allocation of energy between life‐history traits and stressor responses, and larger‐scale escape from stressors in space or time
via large‐scale movement or dormancy. Finally, we outline how these trade‐offs interactively affect fitness and qualitative ecological outcomes resulting from multiple stressors. Our framework suggests that explicitly considering animal behaviour should enrich our mechanistic understanding of stressor effects, help explain extensive context dependence observed in these effects, and highlight promising avenues for future empirical and theoretical research. -
The relationship between plant functional traits and demographic performance forms the foundation of trait-based ecology. It also serves as the natural linkage between trait-based ecology and much of evolutionary biology. Despite these important aspects, plant trait–demographic performance relationships reported in the literature are typically weak or nonexistent, and a synthetic picture of how traits are related to ecological and evolutionary patterns remains underdeveloped. Here, we begin by presenting an overview of the shortcomings in functional trait–demographic performance research and why weak results are more common than trait-based ecologists like to admit. We then discuss why there should be a natural synthesis between trait-based ecology and evolutionary ecology and potential reasons for why this synthesis has yet to emerge. Finally, we present a series of conceptual and empirical foci that should be incorporated into future trait–demographic performance research that will hopefully solidify the foundation of trait-based ecology and catalyze a synthesis with evolutionary ecology. These include (1) focusing on individuals as the fundamental unit of study instead of relying on population or species mean values for traits and demographic rates; (2) placing more emphasis on phenotypic integration, alternative designs, and performance landscapes; (3) coming to terms with the importance of regional- and local-scale context on plant performance; (4) an appreciation of the varied drivers of life-stage transitions and what aspects of function should be linked to those transitions; and (5) determining how the drivers of plant mortality act independently and in concert and what aspects of plant function best predict these outcomes. Our goal is to help highlight the shortcomings of trait–demographic performance research as it stands and areas where this research could course correct, ultimately, with the hope of promoting a trait-based research program that speaks to both ecologists and evolutionary biologists.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract How behaviors vary among individuals and covary with other behaviors has been a major topic of interest over the last two decades, particularly in research on animal personality, behavioral syndromes, and trade-offs with life-history traits. Unfortunately, proposed theoretical and conceptual frameworks explaining the seemingly ubiquitous observation of behavioral (co)variation have rarely successfully generalized. For example, the “pace-of-life syndrome hypothesis” proposes that behaviors, life-history, and physiological traits should be correlated in a predictable manner. However, these predictions are not consistently upheld. Two observations perhaps explain this failure: First, phenotypic correlations between behaviors are more strongly influenced by correlated and reversible plastic changes in behavior than by among-individual correlations which stem from the joint effects of genetics and developmental plasticity. Second, while trait correlations are frequently assumed to arise via trade-offs, the observed pattern of correlations is not consistent with simple pair-wise trade-offs. A possible resolution to the apparent inconsistency between observed correlations and a role for trade-offs is provided by state-behavior feedbacks. This is critical because the inconsistency between data and theory represents a major failure in our understanding of behavioral evolution. These two primary observations emphasize the importance of an increased research focus on correlated reversible plasticity in behavior—frequently estimated and then disregarded as within-individual covariances.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icaa056
