A growing number of empirical studies have quantified the degree to which evolution is geometrically parallel by estimating and interpreting pairwise angles between multiple replicate lineages’ evolutionary change vectors in multivariate trait space. Similar comparisons, of distance in trait space, are used to assess the degree of convergence. These approaches amount to element‐by‐element interpretation of distance matrices, typically testing for differences among replicate evolutionary vectors, compared to a null hypothesis of perfect parallelism. We suggest a complimentary set of approaches, co‐opted from evolutionary quantitative genetics, involving eigen analysis and comparison of among‐lineage covariance matrices. Such approaches allow one to identify multiple major axes of evolutionary change (e.g., alternative adaptive solutions), and also allow for the definition of biologically tenable null hypotheses, such as drift, against which empirical patterns can be tested. Reanalysis of a dataset of multivariate evolution across a replicated lake/stream gradient in threespine stickleback reveals that most of the variation in the direction of evolutionary change can be captured in just a few dimensions, indicating a greater extent of parallelism than previously appreciated. We suggest that applying such multivariate approaches may often be necessary to fully understand the extent and form of parallel and convergent evolution.
Theory suggests that the evolution of sexual dimorphism in ecologically relevant traits can evolve purely through competition between the sexes for a shared resource. Although more parsimonious hypotheses exist for the evolution of ecological sexual dimorphisms, there are some underappreciated reasons to expect that competition may often play some role in the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Here, we build on past work to outline a set of sufficient criteria to demonstrate a role for resource competition in the evolution of sexual dimorphism, the most critical of which is that resource competition can be directly linked to sexual divergence along the axis of ecologically relevant dimorphism. We then compare the geometry of fitness surfaces across experimental manipulations of density and sex ratio in a semiaquatic salamander (Notophthalmus viridescens). We find consistent disruptive selection on multivariate sexual dimorphism in feeding morphology, which increases in strength with density. Fitness and the strength of divergent selection are negative-frequency dependent in the manner expected under competition-driven divergence between the sexes. Our results constitute direct evidence of resource competition as a driver of sexually antagonist selection and consequently the evolution of sexual dimorphism, providing an illustration of how cause and effect can be separated in studies of sexual divergence in morphology and ecology. We suggest that resource competition may often contribute to sexual divergence jointly with other sources of sex-biased selection, especially when ecological opportunity is sex specific.
Sex differences in selection are ubiquitous in sexually reproducing organisms. When the genetic basis of traits is shared between the sexes, such sexually antagonistic selection (SAS) creates a potential constraint on adaptive evolution. Theory and laboratory experiments suggest that environmental variation and the degree of local adaptation may all affect the frequency and intensity of SAS. Here, we capitalize on a large database of over 700 spatially or temporally replicated estimates of sex-specific phenotypic selection from wild populations, combined with data on microclimates and geographical range information. We performed a meta-analysis to test three predictions from SAS theory, that selection becomes more concordant between males and females: (1) in more stressful environments, (2) in more variable environments and (3) closer to the edge of the species' range. We find partial empirical support for all three predictions. Within-study analyses indicate SAS decreases in extreme environments, as indicated by a relationship with maximum temperature, minimum precipitation and evaporative potential (PET). Across studies, we found that the average level of SAS at high latitudes was lower, where environmental conditions are typically less stable. Finally, we found evidence for reduced SAS in populations that are far from the centre of their geographical range. However, and notably, we also found some evidence of reduced average strength of selection in these populations, which is in contrast to predictions from classical theoretical models on range limit evolution. Our results suggest that environmental lability and species range position predictably influence sex-specific selection and sexual antagonism in the wild.This article is part of the theme issue 'Linking local adaptation with the evolution of sex differences'.
Comparisons of the strength and form of phenotypic selection among groups provide a powerful approach for testing adaptive hypotheses. A central and largely unaddressed issue is how fitness and phenotypes are standardized in such studies; standardization across or within groups can qualitatively change conclusions whenever mean fitness differs between groups. We briefly reviewed recent relevant literature, and found that selection studies vary widely in their scale of standardization, but few investigators motivated their rationale for chosen standardization approaches. Here, we propose that the scale at which fitness should be relativized should reflect whether selection is likely to be hard or soft; that is, the scale at which populations (or hypothetical populations in the case of a contrived experiment) are regulated. We argue that many comparative studies of selection are implicitly or explicitly focused on soft selection (i.e., frequency and density-dependent selection). In such studies, relative fitness should preferably be calculated using within-group means, although this approach is taken only occasionally. Related difficulties arise for the standardization of phenotypes. The appropriate scale at which standardization should take place depends on whether groups are considered to be fixed or random. We emphasize that the scale of standardization is a critical decision in empirical studies of selection that should always warrant explicit justification.
Sex differences in selection arise for at least two possible reasons: (1) differences originating from anisogamy—the Darwin‐Bateman paradigm—and (2) competition‐driven ecological character displacement (ECD), agnostic of anisogamy. Despite mounting evidence of ECD and increasing focus on the ecological causes and consequences of sexual dimorphism, progress in understanding the evolution of ecological sex differences has likely been hindered because ecological dimorphisms are not exclusive to ECD. I argue that embracing nonexclusivity of causal models of sexual dimorphism itself may provide insight into evolution of sex differences. This integrated view of the evolution of sexual dimorphism leads to four predictions for how sex‐specific selection and phenotypic divergence between the sexes change over the course of the evolution of sexual dimorphism. First, dimorphism resulting directly from anisogamy likely precedes evolution of ecological dimorphism driven by ECD. Second, ecological sexual dimorphism driven by ECD may (initially) evolve in directions in trait space favored by other sources of sex‐specific selection. Third, we may expect correlated evolution of ecological dimorphism and other forms of sexual dimorphism. Finally, ecological optima may be sex specific even when competition plays a role in reaching them. Rather than simply a less‐parsimonious alternative explanation for ecological sex differences, ECD should be seen as one likely contributor to sex‐specific selection that could act at predictable times during the evolution of ecological sexual dimorphisms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.