Menu
Home
People
Places
Arts
History
Plants & Animals
Science
Life & Culture
Technology
Reference.org
Lek paradox
open-in-new
<h2 id="background">Background</h2> <p class="note">Main article: <a href="/facts/Lek_mating/8XLxKDbm">Lek mating</a></p> <p>A lek is a type of <a href="/facts/Mating_system/nglnu71K">mating system</a> characterized by the aggregation of male animals for the purpose of competitive <a href="/facts/Courtship_display/U8Jl6SFq">courtship displays</a>. This behavior, known as lekking, is a strategy employed by various species to attract females for mating. Leks are most commonly observed in <a href="/facts/Birds/RJF6zwLP">birds</a>, but also occur in other <a href="/facts/Vertebrates/tT54FSTT">vertebrates</a> such as some <a href="/facts/Bony_fish/nXoXEj3a">bony fish</a>, <a href="/facts/Amphibians/r2BleD2W">amphibians</a>, <a href="/facts/Reptiles/04n1uKf1">reptiles</a>, and <a href="/facts/Mammals/phSwTzBo">mammals</a>, as well as certain <a href="/facts/Arthropods/JKJLTFzp">arthropods</a> including <a href="/facts/Crustaceans/PBobIVJP">crustaceans</a> and <a href="/facts/Insects/IgDNvnUL">insects</a>. In a typical lek, males gather in a specific area to perform elaborate displays, while females visit to select a mate. This system is notable for its strong <a href="/facts/Female_choice/rMjIUJaP">female choice</a> in mate selection and the absence of male parental care. Leks can be classified as classical (where male territories are in close proximity) or exploded (with more widely separated territories). </p> <h2 id="the-paradox">The paradox</h2> <p>The lek paradox is the conundrum of how additive or beneficial genetic variation is maintained in <a href="/facts/Lek_mating/8XLxKDbm">lek mating</a> species in the face of consistent <a href="/facts/Sexual_selection/AjDd8Tam">sexual selection</a> based on female preferences. While many studies have attempted to explain how the lek paradox fits into <a href="/facts/Natural_selection/JXTte6en">Darwinian theory</a>, the paradox remains. Persistent female choice for particular male <a href="/facts/Trait_(biology)/seYSUTul">trait</a> values should erode <a href="/facts/Genetic_diversity/GIymbUr8">genetic diversity</a> in male traits and thereby remove the benefits of choice, yet choice persists.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:1" href="#fn:1"><sup>1</sup></a> This paradox can be somewhat alleviated by the occurrence of <a href="/facts/Mutation/Ee4NnWbY">mutations</a> introducing potential differences, as well as the possibility that traits of interest have more or less favorable recessive <a href="/facts/Alleles/8FxCS9KA">alleles</a>. </p> <h2 id="causes-and-conditions">Causes and conditions</h2> <p>The basis of the lek paradox is continuous genetic variation in spite of strong female preference for certain traits. There are two conditions in which the lek paradox arises. The first is that males contribute only genes and the second is that female preference does not affect fecundity.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:2" href="#fn:2"><sup>2</sup></a> Female choice should lead to directional <a href="/facts/Fisherian_runaway/orT06R4N">runaway selection</a>, resulting in a greater prevalence for the selected traits. Stronger selection should lead to impaired survival, as it decreases genetic variance and ensures that more offspring have similar traits.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:3" href="#fn:3"><sup>3</sup></a> However, lekking species do not exhibit runaway selection. </p> <h2 id="male-characteristics-and-female-benefits">Male Characteristics and Female Benefits</h2> <p>In a lekking reproductive system, what male sexual characteristics can signal to females is limited, as the males provide no resources to females or parental care to their offspring.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:4" href="#fn:4"><sup>4</sup></a> This implies that a female gains indirect benefits from her choice in the form of "good genes" for her offspring.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:5" href="#fn:5"><sup>5</sup></a> Hypothetically, in choosing a male that excels at courtship displays, females gain genes for their offspring that increase their survival or reproductive <a href="/facts/Fitness_(biology)/MYpAGGey">fitness</a>. </p> <h2 id="handicap-principle">Handicap Principle</h2> <p><a href="/facts/Amotz_Zahavi/QweP4tp5">Amotz Zahavi</a> declared that male sexual characteristics only convey useful information to the females if these traits confer a handicap on the male.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:6" href="#fn:6"><sup>6</sup></a> Otherwise, males could simply cheat: if the courtship displays have a neutral effect on survival, males could all perform equally and it would signify nothing to the females. But if the courtship display is somehow deleterious to the male’s survival—such as increased predator risk or time and energy expenditure—it becomes a test by which females can assess male quality. Under the <a href="/facts/Handicap_principle/VNByTzXs">handicap principle</a>, males who excel at the courtship displays prove that they are of better quality and genotype, as they have already withstood the costs to having these traits.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:7" href="#fn:7"><sup>7</sup></a> Resolutions have been formed to explain why strong female mate choice does not lead to runaway selection. The handicap principle describes how costly male ornaments provide females with information about the male’s inheritable fitness.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:8" href="#fn:8"><sup>8</sup></a> The handicap principle may be a resolution to the lek paradox, for if females select for the condition of male ornaments, then their offspring have better <a href="/facts/Fitness_(biology)/MYpAGGey">fitness</a>. </p> <h2 id="genic-capture-hypothesis">Genic Capture Hypothesis</h2> <p>One potential resolution to the lek paradox is Rowe and Houle's theory of condition-dependent expression of male sexually selected traits. Similar to the handicap principle, Rowe and Houle argue that sexually selected traits depend on physical condition. Condition, in turn, summarizes a large number of genetic loci, including those involved in <a href="/facts/Metabolism/WxDrm8k5">metabolism</a>, <a href="/facts/Muscle/dmxrL8pH">muscular</a> mass, nutrition, etc. Rowe and Houle claim that condition dependence maintains <a href="/facts/Genetic_variation/f2wzYLbI">genetic variation</a> in the face of persistent female choice, as the male trait is correlated with abundant genetic variation in condition.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:9" href="#fn:9"><sup>9</sup></a> This is the <a href="/facts/Genic_capture/ffxG7M1F">genic capture</a> hypothesis, which describes how a significant amount of the genome is involved in shaping the traits that are sexually selected.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:10" href="#fn:10"><sup>10</sup></a> There are two criteria in the genic capture hypothesis: the first is that sexually selected traits are dependent upon condition and the second is that general condition is attributable to high genetic variance.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:11" href="#fn:11"><sup>11</sup></a> </p> <h2 id="genetic-variation-and-environmental-effects">Genetic Variation and Environmental Effects</h2> <p>Genetic variation in condition-dependent traits may be further maintained through mutations and environmental effects. <a href="/facts/Genotypes/MlzK1Mfz">Genotypes</a> may be more effective in developing condition dependent sexual characteristics in different environments, while mutations may be deleterious in one environment and advantageous in another.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:12" href="#fn:12"><sup>12</sup></a> Thus genetic variance remains in populations through <a href="/facts/Gene_flow/EuvXPhHt">gene flow</a> across environments or generation overlap. According to the genic capture hypothesis, female selection does not deplete the genetic variance, as <a href="/facts/Sexual_selection/AjDd8Tam">sexual selection</a> operates on condition dependence traits, thereby accumulating genetic variance within the selected for trait.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:13" href="#fn:13"><sup>13</sup></a> Therefore, females are actually selecting for high genetic variance. </p> <h2 id="parasite-resistance-hypothesis">Parasite Resistance Hypothesis</h2> <p>In an alternate but non-exclusionary hypothesis, <a href="/facts/W._D._Hamilton/TRMHdePq">W. D. Hamilton</a> and M. Zuk proposed that successful development of sexually selected traits signal resistance to <a href="/facts/Parasites/HWPcgky7">parasites</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:14" href="#fn:14"><sup>14</sup></a> Parasites can significantly stress their hosts so that they are unable to develop sexually selected traits as well as healthy males. According to this theory, a male who vigorously displays demonstrates that he has parasite-resistant genes to the females. In support of this theory, Hamilton and Zuk found that male sexual ornaments were significantly correlated with levels of incidence of six blood diseases in North American <a href="/facts/Passerine/qby0MANo">passerine</a> bird species. The Hamilton and Zuk model addresses the lek paradox, arguing that the cycles of <a href="/facts/Co-adaptation/KXb2fHjs">co-adaptation</a> between host and parasite resist a stable equilibrium point. Hosts continue to evolve resistance to parasites and parasites continue to bypass resistant mechanisms, continuously generating genetic variation.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:15" href="#fn:15"><sup>15</sup></a> The <a href="/facts/Genic_capture/ffxG7M1F">genic capture</a> and parasite resistance hypotheses could logically co-occur in the same population. </p><p>One resolution to the lek paradox involves female preferences and how preference alone does not cause a drastic enough directional selection to diminish the genetic variance in fitness.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:16" href="#fn:16"><sup>16</sup></a> Another conclusion is that the preferred trait is not naturally selected for or against and the trait is maintained because it implies increased attractiveness to the male.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:17" href="#fn:17"><sup>17</sup></a> Thus, there may be no paradox. </p> <h2 id="references">References</h2> <ol> <li id="fn:1"><p>Miller, Christine; Moore, Allen (2007). "A potential resolution to the lek paradox through indirect genetic effects". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 274 (1615): 1279–1286. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0054. PMC 2176171. PMID 17341455. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2176171" target="_blank">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2176171</a> <a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:2"><p>Kirkpatrick, M (1982). "Sexual Selection and the Evolution of Female Choice". Evolution. 36 (1): 1–12. doi:10.2307/2407961. JSTOR 2407961. PMID 28581098. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:3"><p>Kirkpatrick, M.; Ryan, M. (1991). "The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek". Nature. 350 (6313): 33–38. Bibcode:1991Natur.350...33K. doi:10.1038/350033a0. S2CID 4366707. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:4"><p>Tomkins, Joseph L.; Radwan, Jacek; Kotiaho, Janne S.; Tregenza, Tom (June 2004). "Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 19 (6): 323–328. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.029. PMID 16701278. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:4" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:5"><p>Rowe, Locke; Houle, David (1996). "The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 263 (1375): 1415–1421. Bibcode:1996RSPSB.263.1415R. doi:10.1098/rspb.1996.0207. JSTOR 50503. S2CID 85631446. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:5" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:6"><p>Zahavi, Amotz (September 1975). "Mate selection—A selection for a handicap". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 53 (1): 205–214. Bibcode:1975JThBi..53..205Z. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.586.3819. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3. PMID 1195756. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:6" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:7"><p>Zahavi, Amotz (September 1975). "Mate selection—A selection for a handicap". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 53 (1): 205–214. Bibcode:1975JThBi..53..205Z. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.586.3819. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3. PMID 1195756. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:7" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:8"><p>Iwasa, Y.; Pomiankowski, A.; Nee, S. (1991). "The Evolution of Costly Mate Preferences II: The 'Handicap' Principle". Evolution. 45 (6): 1431–1442. doi:10.2307/2409890. JSTOR 2409890. PMID 28563835. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:8" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:9"><p>Rowe, Locke; Houle, David (1996). "The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 263 (1375): 1415–1421. Bibcode:1996RSPSB.263.1415R. doi:10.1098/rspb.1996.0207. JSTOR 50503. S2CID 85631446. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:9" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:10"><p>Tomkins, Joseph L.; Radwan, Jacek; Kotiaho, Janne S.; Tregenza, Tom (June 2004). "Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 19 (6): 323–328. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.029. PMID 16701278. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:11"><p>Rowe, Locke; Houle, David (1996). "The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 263 (1375): 1415–1421. Bibcode:1996RSPSB.263.1415R. doi:10.1098/rspb.1996.0207. JSTOR 50503. S2CID 85631446. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:11" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:12"><p>Tomkins, Joseph L.; Radwan, Jacek; Kotiaho, Janne S.; Tregenza, Tom (June 2004). "Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 19 (6): 323–328. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.029. PMID 16701278. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:12" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:13"><p>Rowe, Locke; Houle, David (1996). "The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 263 (1375): 1415–1421. Bibcode:1996RSPSB.263.1415R. doi:10.1098/rspb.1996.0207. JSTOR 50503. S2CID 85631446. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:13" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:14"><p>Hamilton, William D.; Zuk, Marlene (22 October 1982). "Heritable True Fitness and Bright Birds: A Role for Parasites?". Science. 218 (4570): 384–387. Bibcode:1982Sci...218..384H. doi:10.1126/science.7123238. PMID 7123238. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:14" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:15"><p>Hamilton, William D.; Zuk, Marlene (22 October 1982). "Heritable True Fitness and Bright Birds: A Role for Parasites?". Science. 218 (4570): 384–387. Bibcode:1982Sci...218..384H. doi:10.1126/science.7123238. PMID 7123238. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:15" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:16"><p>Pomiankowski, A; Moller, A P (1995). "A Resolution of the Lek Paradox". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 260 (1357): 21–29. doi:10.1098/rspb.1995.0054. S2CID 43984154. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:16" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:17"><p>Kirkpatrick, M (1982). "Sexual Selection and the Evolution of Female Choice". Evolution. 36 (1): 1–12. doi:10.2307/2407961. JSTOR 2407961. PMID 28581098. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:17" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> </ol>