Conflicting intersexual mate choices maintain interspecific sexual interactions
Tóm tắt
Reproductive interference, interspecific sexual interactions that affect reproductive success, is found in various taxa and has been considered as a fundamental source of reproductive character displacement (RCD). Once RCD has occurred, persistent interspecific sexual interactions between species pairs are expected to diminish. However, reproductive interference has been reported from some species pairs that sympatrically coexist. Thus, the question arises, can reproductive interference persist even after RCD? We modeled the evolutionary dynamics of signal traits and mate recognition that determine whether interspecific sexual interactions occur. Our models incorporate male decision making based on the recognition of signal traits, whereas most previous models incorporate only female decision making in mate selection. Our models predict the following: (1) even when male decision making is incorporated, males remain promiscuous; (2) nevertheless, the frequency of interspecific mating is maintained at a low level after trait divergence; (3) the rarity of interspecific mating is due to strict female mate recognition and the consequent refusal of interspecific courtship by females; and (4) the frequency of interspecific mating becomes higher as the cost to females of refusing interspecific courtship increases. These predictions are consistent with empirical observations that males of some species engage in infrequent heterospecific mating. Thus, our models predict that reproductive interference can persist even after RCD occurred.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Andersson MB (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Bateman AJ (1948) Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368
Crudgington HS, Siva-Jothy MT (2000) Genital damage, kicking and early death. Nature 407:855–856
D’Amore A, Kirby E, Hemingway V (2009) Reproductive interference by an invasive species: an evolutionary trap? Herpetol Conserv Biol 4:325–330
Dame EA, Petren K (2006) Behavioural mechanisms of invasion and displacement in Pacific island geckos (Hemidactylus). Anim Behav 71:1165–1173
Dukas R (2004) Male fruit flies learn to avoid interspecific courtship. Behav Ecol 15:695–698
Gavrilets S (2004) Fitness landscape and the origin of species. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Gerhardt HC (1994) Reproductive character displacement of female mate choice in the grey treefrog, Hyla chrysoscelis. Anim Behav 47:959–969
Gröning J, Hochkirch A (2008) Reproductive interference between animal species. Q Rev Biol 83:257–282
Gröning J, Lücke N, Finger A, Hochkirch A (2007) Reproductive interference in two ground-hopper species: testing hypotheses of coexistence in the field. Oikos 116:1449–1460
Hettyey A, Pearman PB (2003) Social environment and reproductive interference affect reproductive success in the frog Rana latastei. Behav Ecol 14:294–300
Hochkirch A, Bücker A, Gröning J (2008) Reproductive interference between the common ground-hopper Tetrix undulata and the slender ground-hopper Tetrix subulata (Orthoptera, Tetrigidae). Bull Entomol Res 98:605–612
Howard DJ (1999) Conspecific sperm and pollen precedence and speciation. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:109–132
Kirkpatrick M, Servedio MR (1999) The reinforcement of mating preference on an island. Genetics 151:865–884
Kishi S, Nishida T, Tsubaki Y (2009) Reproductive interference determines persistence and exclusion in species interactions. J Anim Ecol 78:1043–1049
Konuma J, Chiba S (2007) Ecological character displacement caused by reproductive interference. J Theor Biol 247:354–364
Kraak SB, Bakker TC (1998) Mutual mate choice in sticklebacks: attractive males choose big females, which lay big eggs. Anim Behav 56:859–866
Kuno E (1992) Competitive exclusion through reproductive interference. Res Popul Ecol 34:275–284
Kyogoku D (2015) Reproductive interference: ecological and evolutionary consequences of interspecific promiscuity. Popul Ecol doi:10.1007/s10144-015-0486-1
Lande R (1976) Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution. Evolution 30:314–334
Liou LW, Price TD (1994) Speciation by reinforcement of premating isolation. Evolution 48:1451–1459
Liu SS, De Barro PJ, Xu J, Luan JB, Zang LS, Ruan YM, Wan FH (2007) Asymmetric mating interactions drive widespread invasion and displacement in a whitefly. Science 318:1769–1772
Magnhagen C (1991) Predation risk as a cost of reproduction. Trends Ecol Evol 6:183–186
Marshall JL, Arnold ML, Howard DJ (2002) Reinforcement: the road not taken. Trends Ecol Evol 17:558–563
McLain DK, Pratt AE (1999) The cost of sexual coercion and heterospecific sexual harassment on the fecundity of a host-specific, seed-eating insect (Neacoryphus bicrucis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:164–170
McPeek MA, Gavrilets S (2006) The evolution of female mating preferences: differentiation from species with promiscuous males can promote speciation. Evolution 60:1967–1980
Noriyuki S, Osawa N, Nishida T (2012) Asymmetric reproductive interference between specialist and generalist predatory ladybirds. J Anim Ecol 81:1077–1085
Okamoto KW, Grether GF (2013) The evolution of species recognition in competitive and mating contexts: the relative efficacy of alternative mechanisms of character displacement. Ecol Lett 16:670–678
Pfennig KS, Pfennig DW (2009) Character displacement: ecological and reproductive responses to a common evolutionary problem. Q Rev Biol 84:253–276
Ribeiro JMC, Spielman A (1986) The Satyr effect: a model predicting parapatry and species extinction. Am Nat 128:513–528
Servedio MR, Kirkpatrick M (1997) The effects of gene flow on reinforcement. Evolution 51:1764–1772
Sheldon BC (1993) Sexually transmitted disease in birds: occurrence and evolutionary significance. Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci 339:491–497
Shuker DM, Currie N, Hoole T, Burdfield-Steel ER (2015) The extent and costs of reproductive interference among four species of true bug. Popul Ecol. doi:10.1007/s10144-014-0470-1
Smadja C, Ganem G (2005) Asymmetrical reproductive character displacement in the house mouse. J Evol Biol 18:1485–1493
Takakura KI, Fujii S (2015) Island biogeography as a test of reproductive interference. Popul Ecol doi:10.1007/s10144-015-0489-y
Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and descent of man, 1871–1971. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, pp 136–179
Waage JK (1979) Reproductive character displacement in Calopteryx (Odonata: Calopterygidae). Evolution 33:104–116
Wang P, Crowder DW, Liu SS (2012) Roles of mating behavioural interactions and life history traits in the competition between alien and indigenous whiteflies. Bull Entomol Res 102:395–405
Wasserman M, Koepfer HR (1977) Character displacement for sexual isolation between Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonensis. Evolution 31:812–823
Watson PJ, Stallmann RR, Arnqvist G (1998) Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Am Nat 151:46–58
Whalen MD (1978) Reproductive character displacement and floral diversity in Solanum section Androceras. Syst Bot 3:77–86