Sensory Bias as an Explanation for the Evolution of Mate Preferences
- 1 October 2005
- journal article
- Published by University of Chicago Press in The American Naturalist
- Vol. 166 (4), 437-446
- https://doi.org/10.1086/444443
Abstract
The sensory bias model of sexual selection posits that female mating preferences are by-products of natural selection on sensory systems. Although sensory bias was proposed 20 years ago, its critical assumptions remain untested. This paradox arises because sensory bias has been used to explain two different phenomena. First, it has been used as a hypothesis about signal design, that is, that males evolve traits that stimulate female sensory systems. Second, sensory bias has been used as a hypothesis for the evolution of female preference itself, that is, to explain why females exhibit particular preferences. We focus on this second facet. First, we clarify the unique features of sensory bias relative to the alternative models by considering each in the same quantitative genetic framework. The key assumptions of sensory bias are that natural selection is the predominant evolutionary mechanism that affects preference and that sexual selection on preferences is quantitatively negligible. We describe four studies that would test these assumptions and review what we can and cannot infer about sensory bias from existing studies. We suggest that the importance of sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of female preferences remains to be determined.Keywords
This publication has 66 references indexed in Scilit:
- Measuring Nonlinear SelectionThe American Naturalist, 2003
- RUNAWAY SEXUAL SELECTION WHEN FEMALE PREFERENCES ARE DIRECTLY SELECTEDEvolution, 2000
- Good Parent and Good Genes Models of Handicap EvolutionJournal of Theoretical Biology, 1999
- Sexual selectionTrends in Ecology & Evolution, 1996
- Sensory biases and the evolution of sensory systemsTrends in Ecology & Evolution, 1995
- Genetic correlations as tests for sensory exploitation?Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 1995
- Costs and Benefits of Female Mate Choice: Is There a Lek Paradox?The American Naturalist, 1990
- Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosusNature, 1990
- The costs of choice in sexual selectionJournal of Theoretical Biology, 1987
- Sexual selection: the handicap principle does work – sometimesProceedings of the Royal Society of London. B. Biological Sciences, 1987