Literature DB >> 16011920

Speciation: more likely through a genetic or through a learned habitat preference?

J B Beltman1, J A J Metz.   

Abstract

A problem in understanding sympatric speciation is establishing how reproductive isolation can arise when there is disruptive selection on an ecological trait. One of the solutions that has been proposed is that a habitat preference evolves, and that mates are chosen within the preferred habitat. We present a model where the habitat preference can evolve either by means of a genetic mechanism or by means of learning. Employing an adaptive-dynamical analysis, we show that evolution proceeds either to a single population of specialists with a genetic preference for their optimal habitat, or to a population of generalists without a habitat preference. The generalist population subsequently experiences disruptive selection. Learning promotes speciation because it increases the intensity of disruptive selection. An individual-based version of the model shows that, when loci are completely unlinked and learning confers little cost, the presence of disruptive selection most probably leads to speciation via the simultaneous evolution of a learned habitat preference. For high costs of learning, speciation is most likely to occur via the evolution of a genetic habitat preference. However, the latter only happens when the effect of mutations is large, or when there is linkage between genes coding for the different traits.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16011920      PMCID: PMC1560178          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3104

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  23 in total

1.  Adaptive dynamics in diploid, sexual populations and the evolution of reproductive isolation.

Authors:  S A Geritz; E Kisdi
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2000-08-22       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Theory and speciation.

Authors:  M Turelli; N H. Barton; J A. Coyne
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2001-07-01       Impact factor: 17.712

3.  Dispersal, kin competition, and the ideal free distribution in a spatially heterogeneous population.

Authors:  Henri Leturque; François Rousset
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 1.570

4.  Multilocus models of sympatric speciation: Bush versus Rice versus Felsenstein.

Authors:  James D Fry
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 3.694

5.  Costs of memory: ideas and predictions.

Authors:  R Dukas
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  1999-03-07       Impact factor: 2.691

6.  The effect of natal experience on habitat preferences.

Authors:  Jeremy M Davis; Judy A Stamps
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 17.712

7.  Selection for migration modification.

Authors:  B J Balkau; M W Feldman
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1973-05       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Dispersal: risk spreading versus local adaptation.

Authors:  Eva Kisdi
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.926

9.  The role of migration in the genetic structure of populations in temporally and spatially varying environments. II. Island models.

Authors:  J H Gillespie
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  1976-10       Impact factor: 1.570

10.  Kin selection and strong evolutionary stability of mutual help.

Authors:  I Eshel; U Motro
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  1981-06       Impact factor: 1.570

View more
  14 in total

1.  Learning decreases heterospecific courtship and mating in fruit flies.

Authors:  Reuven Dukas
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2008-12-23       Impact factor: 3.703

2.  How mechanisms of habitat preference evolve and promote divergence with gene flow.

Authors:  D Berner; X Thibert-Plante
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 2.411

Review 3.  Effects of dispersal plasticity on population divergence and speciation.

Authors:  J D Arendt
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 3.821

Review 4.  Maladaptive learning and memory in hybrids as a reproductive isolating barrier.

Authors:  Amber M Rice; Michael A McQuillan
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Learning the ecological niche.

Authors:  Tore Slagsvold; Karen L Wiebe
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2007-01-07       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Experimental evidence for species-specific habitat preferences in two flycatcher species in their hybrid zone.

Authors:  Peter Adamík; Stanislav Bures
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2007-05-30

7.  Innate recognition of water bodies in echolocating bats.

Authors:  Stefan Greif; Björn M Siemers
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 14.919

8.  Does foraging behaviour affect female mate preferences and pair formation in captive zebra finches?

Authors:  Neeltje J Boogert; Cavina Bui; Krista Howarth; Luc-Alain Giraldeau; Louis Lefebvre
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Influence of learning on range expansion and adaptation to novel habitats.

Authors:  M Sutter; T J Kawecki
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2009-10-12       Impact factor: 2.411

Review 10.  DNA Dispose, but Subjects Decide. Learning and the Extended Synthesis.

Authors:  Markus Lindholm
Journal:  Biosemiotics       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 0.711

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.