| Literature DB >> 27346066 |
Guillaume Lavanchy1, Marie Strehler2, Maria Noemi Llanos Roman3, Malie Lessard-Therrien4, Jean-Yves Humbert4, Zoé Dumas2, Kirsten Jalvingh2, Karim Ghali2, Amaranta Fontcuberta García-Cuenca2, Bart Zijlstra2, Raphaël Arlettaz4, Tanja Schwander2.
Abstract
Explaining the overwhelming success of sex among eukaryotes is difficult given the obvious costs of sex relative to asexuality. Different studies have shown that sex can provide benefits in spatially heterogeneous environments under specific conditions, but whether spatial heterogeneity commonly contributes to the maintenance of sex in natural populations remains unknown. We experimentally manipulated habitat heterogeneity for sexual and asexual thrips lineages in natural populations and under seminatural mesocosm conditions by varying the number of hostplants available to these herbivorous insects. Asexual lineages rapidly replaced the sexual ones, independently of the level of habitat heterogeneity in mesocosms. In natural populations, the success of sexual thrips decreased with increasing habitat heterogeneity, with sexual thrips apparently only persisting in certain types of hostplant communities. Our results illustrate how genetic diversity-based mechanisms can favor asexuality instead of sex when sexual lineages co-occur with genetically variable asexual lineages.Entities:
Keywords: Asexuality; Tangled Bank; Thysanoptera; evolution of sex; parthenogenesis
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27346066 PMCID: PMC5129508 DOI: 10.1111/evo.12990
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evolution ISSN: 0014-3820 Impact factor: 3.694
Figure 1Grassthrips females produce different numbers of offspring depending on the grass species they breed on, indicating that different grasses correspond to habitats of different quality. N = 24–66 females per thrips‐ and grass species; residual offspring numbers after accounting for variation among thrips species are presented.
Figure 2(A) Proportion of sexual A. elegans females and (B) proportion of A. rufus males in mesocosms across different generations; the dotted line in panel (B) indicates the proportion of males in laboratory populations of sexual A. rufus (i.e., the proportion of males corresponding to the fixation of sexual lineages). Generation 0 started with six asexual females and six mated sexual females in all mesocosms, n = 10 mesocosms per generation and mesocosm type. The proportions of males, respectively sexual and asexual lineages, were not determined for generations 8–10. Different colours in the homogeneous mesocosms indicate different grass species used in the homogeneous mesocosms (dark green: fescue, intermediate: wheat, light green: rye). Right axis: population size, as measured by the total number of Aptinothrips in the mesocosm. Error bars represent standard errors.
Figure 3Fitness (number of offspring produced in 24 days) of asexual A. rufus (A) and of sexual A. elegans females (B) prior to the experiment (Generation 0) and after approximately two and 12 (for A. rufus) generations of adaptation to the new conditions.
Figure 4(A) Habitat heterogeneity (measured as grass diversity indices) among plots in experimental hay meadows exposed to fertilization and irrigation treatments. Combined irrigating and fertilizing treatments (irrigated + fertilized) were applied at three different intensity levels (low, intermediate, and high). (B) Proportion of individuals from sexual Aptinothrips species with respect to plot treatment. (C) Correlation between grass diversity and the proportion of sexual thrips independently of plot treatments.
Figure 5(A) Similarities of grass communities in the experimental plots displayed as a dendrogram. (B) Principal component analysis of the grass communities in the experimental plots. Plot labels are shaded proportionally to the frequency of sexual Aptinothrips species.