, Volume 134, Issue 1, pp 89–97 | Cite as

The capture of heritable variation for genetic quality through social competition

  • Jason B. Wolf
  • W. Edwin Harris
  • Nick J. Royle


In theory, females of many species choose mates based on traits that are indicators of male genetic quality. A fundamental question in evolutionary biology is why genetic variation for such indicator traits persists despite strong persistent selection imposed by female preference, which is known as the lek paradox. One potential solution to the lek paradox suggests that the traits that are targets of mate choice should evolve condition-dependent expression and that condition should have a large genetic variance. Condition is expected to exhibit high genetic variance because it is affected by a large number of physiological processes and hence, condition-dependent traits should ‘capture’ variation contributed by a large number of loci. We suggest that a potentially important cause of variation in condition is competition for limited resources. Here, we discuss a pair of models to analyze the evolutionary genetics of traits affected by success in social competition for resources. We show that competition can contribute to genetic variation of ‘competition-dependent’ traits that have fundamentally different evolutionary properties than other sources of variation. Competition dependence can make traits honest indicators of genetic quality by revealing the relative competitive ability of males, can provide a component of heritable variation that does not contribute to trait evolution, and can help maintain heritable variation under directional selection. Here we provide a general introduction to the concept of competition dependence and briefly introduce two models to demonstrate the potential evolutionary consequences of competition-dependent trait expression.


Competition Genetic quality Competition-dependent traits Condition-dependent traits Lek paradox Genic capture 



We thank Allen Moore, Susan Riechert, Joshua Mutic and Richard Preziosi for discussions that have influenced our work on this topic. This work was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (USA), the Natural Environment Research Council (UK) and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (UK).


  1. Adell JC, Molina V, Castro JA et al (1989) Unmasking frequency-dependent selection in tri-cultures of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetica 79:77–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Asmussen MA, Basnayake E (1990) Frequency-dependent selection: the high potential for permanent genetic variation in the diallelic, pairwise interaction model. Genetics 125:215–230PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bijma P, Muir WM, Ellen E et al (2007) Multilevel selection 2: estimating the genetic parameters determining inheritance and response selection. Genetics 175:289–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borgia G (1979) Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. In: Blum MS, Blum MN (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in the insects. Academic Press, London, pp 19–80Google Scholar
  6. Bürger R (2000) The mathematical theory of selection, recombination, and mutation. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Bürger R, Gimelfarb A (2004) The effects of intraspecific comeptition and stabilizing selection on a polygenic trait. Genetics 167:1425–1443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castro JA, Moya A, Mènsua JL (1985) Comeptitive selection in mono-, di- and tri-genotype cultures of Drosophila melanogaster. Zeitschrift Zool System Evol 23:214–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colegrave N (1993) Does larval competition affect fecundity independently of its effect on adult weight? Ecol Entomol 18:275–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickerson GE (1955) Genetic slippage in response to selection for multiple objectives. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 20:213–224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Frank SA, Slatkin M (1992) Fisher’s fundamental theorum of natural selection. Trends Ecol Evol 7:92–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites?. Science 218:384–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harris WE, McKane AJ, and Wolf JB (in press) The maintenance of heritable variation through social competition. EvolutionGoogle Scholar
  15. Hemmat M, Eggleston P (1989) Analysis of competitive interactions in tricultures of Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 64:215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Höglund J, Alatalo RV (1995) Leks. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  17. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A (1994) The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution 48:853–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The “handicap” principle. Evolution 45:1431–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jennions MD, Petrie M (1997) Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev (Cambridge) 72:283–327Google Scholar
  20. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ (1991) The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kotiaho JS, Simmons LW, Tomkins JL (2001) Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410:684–686PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. de Miranda JR, Hemmat M, Eggleston P (1991) The competition diallel and the exploitation and interference components of larval competition in Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 66:333–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moore AJ, Brodie ED III, Wolf JB (1997) Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process: I. direct and indirect genetic effects of social interactions. Evolution 51:1352–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mousseau TA, Sinervo B, Endler JA (2000) Adaptive genetic variation in the wild. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Mueller LD (1988) Evolution of competitive ability in Drosophila by density-dependent natural selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 85:4383–4286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muir WM (2005) Incorporation of competitive effects in forest tree or animal breeding programs. Genetics 170:1247–1259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Partridge L, Endler JA (1987) Life history constraints on sexual selection. In: Bradbury JW, Andersson M (eds) Sexual selection: testing the alternatives. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, pp 265–277Google Scholar
  29. Pèrez-Tomè JM, Toro MA (1982) Competition of similar and non-similar genotypes. Nature 299:153–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pomiankowski A, Møller AP (1995) A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 260:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rowe L, Houle D (1996) The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variation by condition dependent traits. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 263:1415–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sinervo B, Lively CM (1996) The rock-paper-scissors game and the evolution of alternative male strategies. Nature 380:240–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tomkins JL, Radawan J, Kotiaho JS et al (2004) Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol Evol 19:323–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weisbrot DR (1966) Genotypic interactions among competing strains and species of Drosophila. Genetics 53:422–435Google Scholar
  35. Wolf J (2003) Genetic architecture and evolutionary constraint when the environment contains genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:4655–4660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wolf JB, Brodie ED III, Cheverud JM et al (1998) Evolutionary consequences of indirect genetic effects. Trends Ecol Evol 13:64–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason B. Wolf
    • 1
  • W. Edwin Harris
    • 1
  • Nick J. Royle
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Life SciencesThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.Centre for Ecology & Conservation, School of BiosciencesUniversity of ExeterPenrynUK

Personalised recommendations