| Literature DB >> 24069369 |
Agata Plesnar-Bielak1, Anna M Skrzynecka, Zofia M Prokop, Michał Kolasa, Maciej Działo, Jacek Radwan.
Abstract
Sexual conflict leading to sexual antagonistic coevolution has been hypothesized to drive reproductive isolation in allopatric populations and hence lead to speciation. However, the generality of this speciation mechanism is under debate. We used experimental evolution in the bulb mite Rhizoglyphusrobini to investigate whether sexual conflict promotes reproductive isolation measured comprehensively to include all possible pre- and post-zygotic mechanisms. We established replicate populations in which we either enforced monogamy, and hence removed sexual conflict by making male and female evolutionary interests congruent, or allowed promiscuity. After 35 and 45 generations of experimental evolution, we found no evidence of reproductive isolation between the populations in any of the mating systems. Our results indicate that sexual conflict does not necessarily drive fast reproductive isolation and it may not be a ubiquitous mechanism leading to speciation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24069369 PMCID: PMC3777893 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074971
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Schematic representation of the design of Assay I.
Schematic representation of the design of Assay I and the way of calculating pre-zygotic isolation mechanisms under male competition index on the example of a female’s line 1. Procedures are described in the text.
Figure 2Schematic representation of the design of Assay II.
Schematic representation of the design of Assay II and the way of calculating mate choice and post-zygotic reproductive isolation on the example of a male’s line 1. Procedures are described in the text.
Figure 3Pre-zygotic isolation indexes measured under male competition for monogamous and promiscuous mating system.
Pre-zygotic isolation indices measured under male competition for monogamous and promiscuous mating system calculated from the mean indices for female lines. Indices values lower than 0.5 indicate that a male from the same line as a female fertilizes on average more eggs than a rival from different line. Bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 4Mate choice and post-zygotic isolation indexes for monogamous and promiscuous mating system.
Mean mate choice and post-zygotic isolation indices for monogamous and promiscuous mating system calculated from the mean indices for male lines. Indices values lower than 0.5 indicate that a female from the same line as a male produces on average more offspring than a female from a different line. Bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.
Experimental evolution studies testing the hypothesis that sexual conflict drives reproductive isolation in allopatry.
| Reference | Species | Gs. | Treatments [ | Variables measured | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Martin & Hosken 2003 |
| 35 | 1. monogamy (20 pairs per line) 2. low density promiscuity (25 ♀ + 25 ♂ per line) 3. high density promiscuity (250 ♀ + 250 ♂ per line) | 1. Proportion of pairs mating 2. Proportion of ♀ showing no reluctance to mate; both variables measured for sympatric[ | Treatments: both proportions much lower for allopatric than for sympatric crosses. Monogamy: no differences between allopatric and sympatric crosses. |
| Wigby & Chapman 2006 |
| 41 | 1. ♀ biased sex ratio (75 ♀ + 25 ♂ per line) 2. Equal sex ratio (50 ♀ + 50 ♂ per line) 3. ♂-biased sex ratio (25 ♀ + 75 ♂ per line) | Proportion of pairs mating; measured for sympatric and allopatric crosses. | No significant differences between allopatric and sympatric crosses in any of the treatments. |
| Bacigalupe et al. 2007 |
| 50 | 1. monogamy (80 pairs per line) 2. polygamy (40 × (1 ♀ + 3 ♂) per line) 3. elevated polygamy (40 × (1 ♀ + 6 ♂) per line) | 1. Proportion of failed matings 2. Mating latency 3. Mating duration 4. F1 ♂ inviability 5. F1 ♂sterility; measured for sympatric and allopatric crosses. | No significant differences in proportion of failed matings between allopatric and sympatric crosses in any treatment. Shorter mating latency in allopatric than in sympatric crosses in elevated polygamy treatment[ |
| Michalczyk 2008 |
| 20 | 1. ♀ biased sex ratio (90 ♀ + 10 ♂ per line) 2. ♂-biased sex ratio (15 ♀ + 90 ♂ per line) | Offspring number; measured for sympatric and allopatric crosses. | No significant differences between allopatric and sympatric crosses in either treatment. |
| Gay et al. 2009 |
| 19 | 1. Small populations (50 individuals) 2. Large populations (500 individuals); all promiscuous but derived from lines maintained for 90 generations under monogamy | 1. Proportion of failed matings 2. Number of eggs 3. Number of eclosed offspring; measured for sympatric and allopatric crosses. | No significant differences in any trait between allopatric and sympatric crosses in either treatment. |
Gs. - number of generations of experimental evolution.
Treatments for each study are listed from mildest to strongest sexual conflict.
Sympatric crosses – between individuals from the same line. Allopatric crosses – between individuals from different lines within the same treatment.
Different direction opposite to what is predicted if sexual conflict drives reproductive isolation.