Coevolution of male and female mate choice can destabilize reproductive isolation

Aubier, Thomas G.; Kokko, Hanna; Joron, Mathieu

doi:10.1101/246355

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 73 publications

(86 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This prediction is based on asymmetrically lower population size of the invading species, as well as on the influence of species relative frequency on heterospecific mate choice (Rohde et al, 2015). Typically, females are choosier than males and reject mating with heterospecific males that may attempt to copulate (Aubier et al, 2019; Kozak et al, 2009). However, if the heterospecific males are predominant and the density of conspecific males is very low, occasional heterospecific maitings can occur, resulting in introgression.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genomic introgression from a distant congener in the Levant fritillary butterfly, Melitaea acentria

Pazhenkova

Lukhtanov

2021

Molecular Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introgressive hybridization is more common in nature than previously thought, and its role and creative power in evolution is hotly discussed but not completely understood. Introgression occurs more frequently in sympatry between recently diverged taxa, or when the speciation process has not yet been completed. However, there are relatively few documented cases of hybridization that erodes reproductive barriers between distantly related species. Here, we use whole genome and mitochondrial data to examine how introgression from a distant congener affects pattern of genetic differentiation in the Levant fritillary butterfly Melitaea acentria. We show that this local taxon has evolved as a peripatric geographic isolate of the widespread Melitaea persea, and that there has been significant unidirectional gene flow from the sympatric, nonclosely related Melitaea didyma to M. acentria. We found direct evidence of ongoing sporadic hybridization between M. didyma and M. acentria, which are separated by at least 5 million years of independent evolution. Elevated differentiation and lower level of introgression on the sex Z chromosome compared to autosomes suggest that the Z chromosome has accumulated loci acting as intrinsic postzygotic barriers. Our results show that introgression from M. didyma has been an additional source of nucleotide diversity in the M. acentria population, providing material for drift and selection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genomic introgression from a distant congener in the Levant fritillary butterfly, Melitaea acentria

Pazhenkova

Lukhtanov

2021

Molecular Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, here we only consider a single choosy sex. However, when both sexes are choosy (Servedio and Lande, 2006), the positive selection on the evolution of mate preference in one sex may be relaxed when strong mate preferences are fixed in the other sex (Aubier et al, 2019). Drift then leads to periodic cycles where male and female alternatively become the most choosy sex (Aubier et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When do opposites attract? A model uncovering the evolution of disassortative mating

Maisonneuve

Beneteau

Joron

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manuscript elements: Figure 1, figure 2, figure 3, table 1, online appendices A and B (including figure B1 and figure B2). Figure 1, figure 2, figure 3, figure B1 and figure B2 1 are to print in color. AbstractDisassortative mating is a rare form of mate preference that promotes the persistence 2 of polymorphism. While the evolution of assortative mating, and its consequences on trait variation and speciation have been extensively studied, the conditions enabling the 4 evolution of disassortative mating are still poorly understood. Mate preferences reduce the number of available partners, a cost that can be compensated by a greater fitness of 6 offspring. Heterozygote advantage should therefore promote the evolution of disassortative mating, which maximizes the number of heterozygous offspring. From the analysis 8 of a two-locus diploid model, with one locus controlling the mating cue under natural selection and the other locus coding for the level of disassortative preference, we show 10 that heterozygote advantage and negative frequency dependent selection acting at the cue locus promote the fixation of disassortative preferences. Interestingly, we show that 12 disassortative mating generates a negative frequency-dependent sexual selection, which in turn disadvantages heterozygotes at the cue locus, limiting the evolution of disassor-14 tative preferences. This negative feedback loop could explain why this behavior is rare in natural populations. Yet, the conditions enabling the evolution of disassortative mating 16 in our model match the selection regimes acting on traits subject to disassortative mating behavior in the wild. 18 3 34 (2006)). Moreover the mechanisms underlying mate choice may require specialized morphological, physiological and cognitive changes (see Rosenthal (2017) for a review), that 36 may induce specific metabolic costs. For example, in the self-incompatibility system in the genus Brassica, mate choice involves a specialized receptor-ligang association His-38 cock and McInnis (2003), so that the evolution of self-incompatibility is associated with metabolic costs induced by the production of the specific proteins. Mate choice can also 40 increase the investment in mate searching, because an individual needs to sample several 4 mates to find a suitable one. This increased sampling effort can be costly in time Kruijt 42

show abstract

“…We assume that there is no direct selection on choosiness, that is it does not affect the vital rates, but that choosiness evolves through sexual selection on the mating traits. Theory shows that indirect selection on choosiness occurs in a wide range of scenarios (Aubier et al., 2019; Cotto & Servedio, 2017; Kirkpatrick, 1982; Lande, 1981; Rowell & Servedio, 2009). We therefore expect the evolutionary mechanisms that we highlight to be relevant in many more complicated biological situations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of age‐specific choosiness when mating

Cotto

Day

2021

J of Evolutionary Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mate choice is a crucial element of many processes in evolutionary biology. Empirical research has shown that mating preference and choosiness often change with age. Understanding the evolutionary causes of patterns of age‐specific choosiness is challenging because different mechanisms can give rise to the same pattern. Instead of focusing on the optimal age‐specific choosiness strategy given fitness trade‐offs, we approach this question from a more general standpoint and ask how the strength of selection on choosiness changes with the age at which it is expressed. We show that the strength of selection on a modifier of choosiness at a given age depends on the relative contribution of this age class to the pool of offspring but does not depend directly on the strength of selection on fitness components at the age affected by the modifier. We illustrate our results by contrasting two life histories from the literature. We further show how mutation–selection balance at the choosiness locus can shape age‐specific choosiness. Our results provide new insights for understanding the evolution of choosiness throughout life, with implications for understanding the evolution of mate choice and reproductive isolation.

show abstract

Coevolution of male and female mate choice can destabilize reproductive isolation

Cited by 4 publications

References 73 publications

Genomic introgression from a distant congener in the Levant fritillary butterfly, Melitaea acentria

Genomic introgression from a distant congener in the Levant fritillary butterfly, Melitaea acentria

When do opposites attract? A model uncovering the evolution of disassortative mating

The evolution of age‐specific choosiness when mating

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About