Bateman, A. J. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity (Edinb). 2, 349–368 (1948).
Trivers, R. L. Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man (Ed. B. Campbell.) 136–179 (Aldinc, Chicago, 1972).
Parker, G. A. & Pizzari, T. Sexual selection: the logical imperative. In Current Perspectives on Sexual Selection: What’s Left After Darwin? (Ed. T. Horquet.) 119–163 (Springer, Dordrecht, 2015).
Clutton-Brock, T. Reproductive competition and sexual selection. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Biol. B Sci. 372, 20160310 (2017).
Kokko, H., Brooks, R., Jennions, M. D. & Morley, J. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. London. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 270, 653–664 (2003).
Ihle, M., Kempenaers, B. & Forstmeier, W. Fitness benefits of mate choice for compatibility in a socially monogamous species. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002248 (2015).
Fromhage, L. & Jennions, M. D. Coevolution of parental investment and sexually selected traits drives sex-role divergence. Nat. Commun. 7, 12517 (2016).
Courtiol, A., Etienne, L., Feron, R., Godelle, B. & Rousset, F. The evolution of mutual mate choice under direct benefits. Am. Nat. 188, 521–538 (2016).
Byrne, P. G. & Rice, W. R. Evidence for adaptive male mate choice in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 273, 917–922 (2006).
Simmons, L. W., Lüpold, S. & Fitzpatrick, J. L. Evolutionary trade-off between secondary sexual traits and ejaculates. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 964–976 (2017).
Gwynne, D. T. Sexual competition among females: What causes courtship-role reversal?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 6, 118–121 (1991).
Edward, D. A. & Chapman, T. The evolution and significance of male mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 647–654 (2011).
Vallejos, J. G., Grafe, T. U., Sah, H. H. A. & Wells, K. D. Calling behavior of males and females of a Bornean frog with male parental care and possible sex-role reversal. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71, 95 (2017).
Amundsen, T. & Forsgren, E. Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98, 13155–13160 (2001).
Bonduriansky, R. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: A synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol. Rev. 76, 305–339 (2001).
Servedio, M. R. & Lande, R. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution (N. Y.). 60, 674–685 (2006).
Lailvaux, S. P. & Irschick, D. J. A functional perspective on sexual selection: Insights and future prospects. Anim. Behav. 72, 263–273 (2006).
Kirkpatrick, M., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. Mate choice rules in animals. Anim. Behav. 71, 1215–1225 (2006).
Holveck, M.-J. & Riebel, K. Low-quality females prefer low-quality males when choosing a mate. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 277, 153–160 (2009).
Aquiloni, L. & Gherardi, F. Mutual mate choice in crayfish: Large body size is selected by both sexes, virginity by males only. J. Zool. 274, 171–179 (2008).
Honěk, A. Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects: a general relationship. Oikos 66, 483–492 (1993).
Monroe, M. J., South, S. H. & Alonzo, S. H. The evolution of fecundity is associated with female body size but not female-biased sexual size dimorphism among frogs. J. Evol. Biol. 28, 1793–1803 (2015).
Pincheira-Donoso, D. & Hunt, J. Fecundity selection theory: Concepts and evidence. Biol. Rev. 92, 341–356 (2017).
Dosen, L. D. & Montgomerie, R. Female size influences mate preferences of male guppies. Ethology 110, 245–255 (2004).
Kokko, H., Jennions, M. D. & Brooks, R. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 43–66 (2006).
Booksmythe, I., Mautz, B., Davis, J., Nakagawa, S. & Jennions, M. D. Facultative adjustment of the offspring sex ratio and male attractiveness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Biol. Rev. 92, 108–134 (2017).
Hamilton, W. D. & Zuk, M. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: A role for parasites?. Science 218, 384–387 (1982).
Dunn, P. O., Garvin, J. C., Whittingham, L. A., Freeman-Gallant, C. R. & Hasselquist, D. Carotenoid and melanin-based ornaments signal similar aspects of male quality in two populations of the common yellowthroat. Funct. Ecol. 24, 149–158 (2010).
Emlen, D. J., Warren, I. A., Johns, A., Dworkin, I. & Lavine, L. C. A mechanism of extreme growth and reliable signaling in sexually selected ornaments and weapons. Science (80-). 337, 860–864 (2012).
Dhole, S., Stern, C. A. & Servedio, M. R. Direct detection of male quality can facilitate the evolution of female choosiness and indicators of good genes: Evolution across a continuum of indicator mechanisms. Evolution (N.Y.). 72, 770–784 (2018).
Roberts, M. L., Buchanan, K. L. & Evans, M. R. Testing the immunocompetence handicap hypothesis: A review of the evidence. Anim. Behav. 68, 227–239 (2004).
Joye, P. & Kawecki, T. J. Sexual selection favours good or bad genes for pathogen resistance depending on males’ pathogen exposure. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20190226 (2019).
Able, D. J. The contagion indicator hypothesis for parasite-mediated sexual selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 93, 2229–2233 (1996).
Penn, D. & Potts, W. K. Chemical signals and parasite-mediated sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 391–396 (1998).
Arakawa, H., Cruz, S. & Deak, T. From models to mechanisms: Odorant communication as a key determinant of social behavior in rodents during illness-associated states. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 35, 1916–1928 (2011).
Beltran-Bech, S. & Richard, F.-J. Impact of infection on mate choice. Anim. Behav. 90, 159–170 (2014).
Rantala, M. J., Kortet, R., Kotiaho, J. S., Vainikka, A. & Suhonen, J. Condition dependence of pheromones and immune function in the grain beetle, Tenebrio molitor. Funct. Ecol. 17, 534–540 (2003).
Wyatt, T. D. Pheromones. Curr. Biol. 27, R739–R743 (2017).
Johansson, B. G. & Jones, T. M. The role of chemical communication in mate choice. Biol. Rev. 82, 265–289 (2007).
Koh, T. H., Seah, W. K., Yap, L.-M.Y.L. & Li, D. Pheromone-based female mate choice and its effect on reproductive investment in a spitting spider. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63, 923–930 (2009).
Peso, M., Elgar, M. A. & Barron, A. B. Pheromonal control: Reconciling physiological mechanism with signalling theory. Biol. Rev. 90, 542–559 (2015).
Roberts, S. C., Gosling, L. M., Thornton, E. A. & McClung, J. Scent-marking by male mice under the risk of predation. Behav. Ecol. 12, 698–705 (2001).
Foster, S. P. & Anderson, K. G. Sex pheromones in mate assessment: Analysis of nutrient cost of sex pheromone production by females of the moth, Heliothis virescens. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 1252–1258 (2015).
Happ, G. M. Multiple sex pheromones of the mealworm beetle, Tenebrio molitor L.. Nature 222, 180 (1969).
Stökl, J. & Steiger, S. Evolutionary origin of insect pheromones. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 24, 36–42 (2017).
Roitberg, B. D. Chemical communication. in Insect Behavior: From Mechanisms to Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences (eds. Córdoba-Aguilar et al.) vol. I 416 (Oxford University Press, 2018).
Hurd, H. & Parry, G. Metacestode-induced depression of the production of, and response to, sex pheromone in the intermediate host, Tenebrio molitor. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 58, 82–87 (1991).
McConnell, M. W. & Judge, K. A. Body size and lifespan are condition dependent in the mealworm beetle, Tenebrio molitor, but not sexually selected traits. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 72, 32 (2018).
Bryning, G. P., Chambers, J. & Wakefield, M. E. Identification of a sex pheromone from male yellow mealworm beetles, Tenebrio molitor. J. Chem. Ecol. 31, 2721–2730 (2005).
Nielsen, M. L. & Holman, L. Terminal investment in multiple sexual signals: Immune-challenged males produce more attractive pheromones. Funct. Ecol. 26, 20–28 (2012).
Worden, B. D., Parker, P. G. & Pappas, P. W. Parasites reduce attractiveness and reproductive success in male grain beetles. Anim. Behav. 59, 543–550 (2000).
Worden, B. D. & Parker, P. G. Females prefer noninfected males as mates in the grain beetle Tenebrio molitor: Evidence in pre-and postcopulatory behaviours. Anim. Behav. 70, 1047–1053 (2005).
Sadd, B. et al. Modulation of sexual signalling by immune challenged male mealworm beetles (Tenebrio molitor, L.): Evidence for terminal investment and dishonesty. J. Evol. Biol. 19, 321–325 (2006).
Krams, I. A. et al. Male mealworm beetles increase resting metabolic rate under terminal investment. J. Evol. Biol. 27, 541–550 (2014).
Kivleniece, I., Krams, I., Daukšte, J., Krama, T. & Rantala, M. J. Sexual attractiveness of immune-challenged male mealworm beetles suggests terminal investment in reproduction. Anim. Behav. 80, 1015–1021 (2010).
Reyes-Ramírez, A., Enríquez-Vara, J. N., Rocha-Ortega, M., Téllez-García, A. & Córdoba-Aguilar, A. Female choice for sick males over healthy males: Consequences for offspring. Ethology 125, 241–249 (2019).
Oliveira, A. S., Braga, G. U. L. & Rangel, D. E. N. Metarhizium robertsii illuminated during mycelial growth produces conidia with increased germination speed and virulence. Fungal Biol. 122, 555–562 (2018).
Sasan, R. K. & Bidochka, M. J. The insect-pathogenic fungus Metarhizium robertsii (Clavicipitaceae) is also an endophyte that stimulates plant root development. Am. J. Bot. 99, 101–107 (2012).
Barelli, L., Moonjely, S., Behie, S. W. & Bidochka, M. J. Fungi with multifunctional lifestyles: Endophytic insect pathogenic fungi. Plant Mol. Biol. 90, 657–664 (2016).
Branine, M., Bazzicalupo, A. & Branco, S. Biology and applications of endophytic insect-pathogenic fungi. PLoS Pathog. 15, e1007831 (2019).
Keyser, C. A., Thorup-Kristensen, K. & Meyling, N. V. Metarhizium seed treatment mediates fungal dispersal via roots and induces infections in insects. Fungal. Ecol. 11, 122–131 (2014).
Castro, T. et al. Persistence of Brazilian isolates of the entomopathogenic fungi Metarhizium anisopliae and M. robertsii in strawberry crop soil after soil drench application. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 233, 361–369 (2016).
Härdling, R. & Kokko, H. The evolution of prudent choice. Evol. Ecol. Res. 7, 697–715 (2005).
Venner, S., Bernstein, C., Dray, S. & Bel-Venner, M.-C. Make love not war: When should less competitive males choose low-quality but defendable females?. Am. Nat. 175, 650–661 (2010).
Bhattacharya, A. K., Ameel, J. J. & Waldbauer, G. P. A method for sexing living pupal and adult yellow mealworms. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 63, 1783 (1970).
Silva, W. O. B., Mitidieri, S., Schrank, A. & Vainstein, M. H. Production and extraction of an extracellular lipase from the entomopathogenic fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae. Process Biochem. 40, 321–326 (2005).
Zhou, J., Jiang, W., Ding, J., Zhang, X. & Gao, S. Effect of Tween 80 and β-cyclodextrin on degradation of decabromodiphenyl ether (BDE-209) by white rot fungi. Chemosphere 70, 172–177 (2007).
Liu, Y.-S. & Wu, J.-Y. Effects of Tween 80 and pH on mycelial pellets and exopolysaccharide production in liquid culture of a medicinal fungus. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 39, 623–628 (2012).
Gerber, G. H. Reproductive behaviour and physiology of Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). III. Histogenetic changes in the internal genitalia, mesenteron, and cuticle during sexual maturation. Can. J. Zool. 54, 990–1002 (1976).
Briscoe, A. D. & Chittka, L. The evolution of color vision in insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 46, 471–510 (2001).
Team, R. C. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Found. Stat. Comput. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org (2017).
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv Prepr. arXiv1406.5823 (2014).
Jaeger, B. Package ‘r2glmm’. R Found. Stat. Comput. Vienna Avail. CRAN R-Project org/package=R2glmm Stat https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3429 (2017).
Williams, G. C. Natural selection, the costs of reproduction, and a refinement of Lack’s principle. Am. Nat. 100, 687–690 (1966).
Clutton-Brock, T. H. Reproductive effort and terminal investment in iteroparous animals. Am. Nat. 123, 212–229 (1984).
Duffield, K. R., Bowers, E. K., Sakaluk, S. K. & Sadd, B. M. A dynamic threshold model for terminal investment. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71, 185 (2017).
Jones, K. M., Monaghan, P. & Nager, R. G. Male mate choice and female fecundity in zebra finches. Anim. Behav. 62, 1021–1026 (2001).
Griggio, M., Valera, F., Casas, A. & Pilastro, A. Males prefer ornamented females: A field experiment of male choice in the rock sparrow. Anim. Behav. 69, 1243–1250 (2005).
Naud, M.-J., Curtis, J. M. R., Woodall, L. C. & Gaspar, M. B. Mate choice, operational sex ratio, and social promiscuity in a wild population of the long-snouted seahorse Hippocampus guttulatus. Behav. Ecol. 20, 160–164 (2008).
Cutrera, A. P., Fanjul, M. S. & Zenuto, R. R. Females prefer good genes: MHC-associated mate choice in wild and captive tuco-tucos. Anim. Behav. 83, 847–856 (2012).
Mobley, K. B., Chakra, M. A. & Jones, A. G. No evidence for size-assortative mating in the wild despite mutual mate choice in sex-role-reversed pipefishes. Ecol. Evol. 4, 67–78 (2014).
Tschinkel, W. R. & Willson, C. D. Inhibition of pupation due to crowding in some tenebrionid beetles. J. Exp. Zool. 176, 137–145 (1971).
Morales-Ramos, J. A. & Rojas, M. G. Effect of larval density on food utilization efficiency of Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 108, 2259–2267 (2015).
Morales-Ramos, J. A., Rojas, M. G., Kay, S., Shapiro-Ilan, D. I. & Tedders, W. L. Impact of adult weight, density, and age on reproduction of Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 47, 208–220 (2012).
Kraak, S. B. M. & Bakker, T. C. M. Mutual mate choice in sticklebacks: Attractive males choose big females, which lay big eggs. Anim. Behav. 56, 859–866 (1998).
Sandvik, M., Rosenqvist, G. & Berglund, A. Male and female mate choice affects offspring quality in a sex–role–reversed pipefish. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 267, 2151–2155 (2000).
Drickamer, L. C., Gowaty, P. A. & Wagner, D. M. Free mutual mate preferences in house mice affect reproductive success and offspring performance. Anim. Behav. 65, 105–114 (2003).
Bertram, S. M. et al. Linking mating preferences to sexually selected traits and offspring viability: Good versus complementary genes hypotheses. Anim. Behav. 119, 75–86 (2016).
Bowers, E. K. et al. Sex-biased terminal investment in offspring induced by maternal immune challenge in the house wren (Troglodytes aedon). Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279, 2891–2898 (2012).
Poulin, R. & Maure, F. Host manipulation by parasites: A look back before moving forward. Trends Parasitol. 31, 563–570 (2015).
August, C. J. The role of male and female pheromones in the mating behaviour of Tenebrio molitor. J. Insect Physiol. 17, 739–751 (1971).
Font, E. & Desfilis, E. Courtship, mating, and sex pheromones in the mealworm beetle (Tenebrio molitor). In Exploring Animal Behavior in Laboratory and Field (eds. Ploger, B. J. & Yasukawa, K.) 43–58 (Elsevier, New York, 2003).
Obata, S. & Hidaka, T. Experimental analysis of mating behavior in Tenebrio molitor L. (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 17, 60–66 (1982).
Source: Ecology - nature.com
