Literature DB >> 24821767

The counterintuitive role of sexual selection in species maintenance and speciation.

Maria R Servedio1, Reinhard Bürger2.   

Abstract

The pronounced and elaborate displays that often differ between closely related animal species have led to the common assumption that sexual selection is important in speciation, especially in geographically separated populations. We use population genetic models to examine the ability of Fisherian sexual selection to contribute to lasting species differentiation by isolating its effect after the onset of gene flow between allopatric populations. We show that when sexually selected traits are under ecologically divergent selection, the situation most favorable to speciation, mating preferences tend to introgress faster than trait alleles, causing sexual selection to counter the effects of local adaptation. As a consequence, the net amount of trait divergence often drops with stronger Fisherian sexual selection. Furthermore, alleles for progressively weaker preferences spread in this context until sexual selection is removed. The effects of pure Fisherian sexual selection on species maintenance are thus much more inhibitory than previously assumed.

Keywords:  mate choice; mathematical model; premating isolation; search costs; secondary contact

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24821767      PMCID: PMC4050566          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1316484111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  27 in total

Review 1.  General models of multilocus evolution.

Authors:  Mark Kirkpatrick; Toby Johnson; Nick Barton
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Sexual selection can constrain sympatric speciation.

Authors:  Mark Kirkpatrick; Scott L Nuismer
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-04-07       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  The Lande-Kirkpatrick mechanism is the null model of evolution by intersexual selection: implications for meaning, honesty, and design in intersexual signals.

Authors:  Richard O Prum
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.694

4.  Limits to the evolution of assortative mating by female choice under restricted gene flow.

Authors:  Maria R Servedio
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Natural and sexual selection on many loci.

Authors:  N H Barton; M Turelli
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  Competitive speciation and costs of choosiness.

Authors:  M Kopp; J Hermisson
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2008-05-30       Impact factor: 2.411

Review 7.  Ecology, sexual selection and speciation.

Authors:  Martine E Maan; Ole Seehausen
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2011-03-06       Impact factor: 9.492

Review 8.  Magic traits in speciation: 'magic' but not rare?

Authors:  Maria R Servedio; G Sander Van Doorn; Michael Kopp; Alicia M Frame; Patrik Nosil
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2011-05-17       Impact factor: 17.712

9.  The costs of choice in sexual selection.

Authors:  A Pomiankowski
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  1987-09-21       Impact factor: 2.691

10.  Can reinforcement complete speciation?

Authors:  Claudia Bank; Joachim Hermisson; Mark Kirkpatrick
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2011-08-28       Impact factor: 4.171

View more
  36 in total

Review 1.  Choosiness, a neglected aspect of preference functions: a review of methods, challenges and statistical approaches.

Authors:  Klaus Reinhold; Holger Schielzeth
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 1.836

2.  Grey zones of sexual selection: why is finding a modern definition so hard?

Authors:  Suzanne H Alonzo; Maria R Servedio
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-08-21       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  The Genomic Architecture of a Rapid Island Radiation: Recombination Rate Variation, Chromosome Structure, and Genome Assembly of the Hawaiian Cricket Laupala.

Authors:  Thomas Blankers; Kevin P Oh; Aureliano Bombarely; Kerry L Shaw
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Assortative mating can impede or facilitate fixation of underdominant alleles.

Authors:  Mitchell G Newberry; David M McCandlish; Joshua B Plotkin
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 1.570

5.  A stochastic model for speciation by mating preferences.

Authors:  Camille Coron; Manon Costa; Hélène Leman; Charline Smadi
Journal:  J Math Biol       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 2.259

6.  How the manakin got its crown: A novel trait that is unlikely to cause speciation.

Authors:  Gil G Rosenthal; Molly Schumer; Peter Andolfatto
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Reply to Rosenthal et al.: Both premating and postmating isolation likely contributed to manakin hybrid speciation.

Authors:  Alfredo O Barrera-Guzmán; Alexandre Aleixo; Matthew D Shawkey; Jason T Weir
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Sexual selection predicts species richness across the animal kingdom.

Authors:  Tim Janicke; Michael G Ritchie; Edward H Morrow; Lucas Marie-Orleach
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Conspecific sperm precedence is reinforced, but postcopulatory sexual selection weakened, in sympatric populations of Drosophila.

Authors:  Dean M Castillo; Leonie C Moyle
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-03-27       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Assortative mating enhances postzygotic barriers to gene flow via ancestry bundling.

Authors:  Pavitra Muralidhar; Graham Coop; Carl Veller
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 12.779

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.