How sensory drive can promote speciation

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 17, Issue 12, 2002, Pages 571-577

  Boughman, Janette Wenrick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION; MATE CHOICE; REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION; SIGNALING; SPECIATION (BIOLOGY);

ANIMALIA;

EID: 0036888859     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02595-8     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. Panhuis T.M., et al. Sexual selection and speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:2001;364-371.
2. Turelli M., et al. Theory and speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:2001;330-343.
3. Fisher R.A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. 1930;Clarendon Press.
4. Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 78:1981;3721-3725.
5. Lande R. Rapid origin of sexual isolation and character divergence in a cline. Evolution. 36:1982;213-223.
6. West-Eberhard M.J. Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q. Rev. Biol. 58:1983;155-183.
7. Endler J.A. Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. Am. Nat. 139:1992;125-153.
8. Endler J.A. Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 340:1993;215-225.
9. Mayr E. Systematics and the Origin of Species. 1942;Columbia University Press.
10. Muller H.J. Isolating mechanisms, evolution, and temperature. Biol. Symp. 6:1942;71-125.
11. Dobzhansky T. Genetics and the Origin of Species. 1951;Columbia University Press.
12. Schluter D. The Ecology of Adaptive Radiation. 2000;Oxford University Press.
13. Andersson M. Sexual Selection. 1994;Princeton University Press.
14. Bradbury J.W., Vehrencamp S.L. Principles of Animal Communication. 1998;Sinauer.
15. Morton E.S. Ecological sources of selection on avian sounds. Am. Nat. 109:1975;17-34.
16. Arak A., Eiriksson T. Choice of singing sites by male bushcrickets (Tettigonia viridissima) in relation to signal propagation. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 30:1992;365-372.
17. Rodd F.H., et al. A possible non-sexual origin of a mate preference: are male guppies mimicking fruit? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 269:2002;475-482.
18. McFarland W.N., Munz F.W. Part III: the evolution of photopic visual pigments in fishes. Vis. Res. 12:1975;1071-1080.
19. Levine J.S., MacNichol E.F. Jr. Visual pigments in teleost fishes: effects of habitat, microhabitat, and behavior on visual system evolution. Sens. Process. 3:1979;95-131.
20. Endler J.A. Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to guppies and their predators under different visual conditions. Vis. Res. 31:1991;587-608.
21. Ryan M.J. Neuroanatomy influences speciation rate among anurans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 83:1986;1379-1382.
22. Dawkins M.S., Guilford T. Sensory bias and the adaptiveness of female choice. Am. Nat. 148:1996;937-942.
23. Long K.D., Houde A.E. Orange spots as a visual cue for female mate choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Ethology. 82:1989;316-324.
24. Ryan, M.J. and Wilczynski, W. (1991) Evolution of intraspecific variation in the advertisement call of a cricket frog (Acris crepitans, Hylidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 44
25. Schluter D., Price T.D. Honesty, perception, and population divergence in sexually selected traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 253:1993;117-122.
26. Marchetti K. Dark habitats and bright birds illustrate the role of the environment in species divergence. Nature. 362:1993;149-152.
27. Lythgoe J.N., et al. The ecology of the visual pigments of snappers (Lutjanidae) on the Great Barrier Reef. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 174:1994;461-467.
28. Endler J.A. Natural and sexual selection on color patterns in poeciliid fishes. Environ. Biol. Fishes. 9:1983;173-190.
29. Wilczynski W., et al. Call patterns and basilar papilla tuning in cricket frogs. I. Differences among populations and between sexes. Brain Behav. Evol. 39:1992;229-237.
30. Ryan M.J., et al. The role of environmental selection in intraspecific divergence of mate recognition signals in the cricket frog, Acris crepitans. Evolution. 44:1990;1869-1872.
31. Lima S.L., Dill L.M. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 68:1990;619-640.
32. Magnhagen C. Predation risk as a cost of reproduction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 6:1991;183-185.
33. van Staaden M.J., Romer H. Sexual signalling in bladder grasshoppers: tactical design for maximizing calling range. J. Exp. Biol. 200:1997;2597-2608.
34. Wilczynski W., et al. Acoustic, auditory, and morphological divergence in three species of neotropical frog. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 172:1993;425-438.
35. Funk D.J. Isolating a role for natural selection in speciation: host adaptation and sexual isolation in Neochlamisus bebbianae leaf beetles. Evolution. 52:1998;1744-1759.
36. Rundle H.D., et al. Natural selection and parallel speciation in sympatric sticklebacks. Science. 287:2000;306-308.
37. Gray D.A., Cade W.H. Sexual selection and speciation in field crickets. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97:2000;14449-14454.
38. Uy J.A.C., Borgia G. Sexual selection drives rapid divergence in bowerbird display traits. Evolution. 54:2000;273-278.
39. Boughman J.W. Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks. Nature. 411:2001;944-948.
40. Grafen A. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144:1990;517-546.
41. van Doorn G.S., et al. Sympatric speciation and extinction driven by environment dependent sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 265:1998;1915-1919.
42. Phelps S.M., Ryan M.J. History influences signal recognition: neural network models of tungara frogs. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 267:2000;1633-1639.
43. Ryan M.J., Wilczynski W. Coevolution of sender and receiver: effect on local mate preference in cricket frogs. Science. 240:1988;1786-1788.
44. Losos J.B. An experimental demonstration of the species-recognition role of Anolis dewlap color. Copeia. 4:1985;905-910.
45. Fleishman L.J., et al. The visual ecology of Puerto Rican anoline lizards: habitat light and spectral sensitivity. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 181:1997;446-460.
46. Fleishman L.J., et al. Comparative study of temporal response properties of the visual system of three species of anoline lizards. Copeia. 2:1995;422-431.
47. Persons M.H., et al. Sensory response patterns and the evolution of visual signal design in anoline lizards. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 184:1999;585-607.
48. Leal M., Fleishman L.J. Evidence for habitat partitioning based on adaptation to environmental light in a pair of sympatric lizard species. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 269:2002;351-359.
49. van der Meer H.J., Bowmaker J.K. Interspecific variation of photoreceptors in four co-existing haplochromine cichlid fishes. Brain Behav. Evol. 45:1995;232-240.
50. Smit S.A., Anker G.Ch. Photopic sensitivity to red and blue light related to retinal differences in two zooplanktivorous haplochromine species (Teleostei, Cichlidae). Neth. J. Zool. 47:1997;9-20.
51. Seehausen O., van Alphen J.J.M. The effect of male coloration on female mate choice in closely related Lake Victoria cichlids (Haplochromis nyererei) complex. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 42:1998;1-8.
52. Vane-Wright R.I., Boppre M. Visual and chemical signalling in butterflies: functional and phylogenetic perspectives. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 340:1993;197-205.
53. Toolson E.C., Kuper-Simbron R. Laboratory evolution of epicuticular hydrocarbon composition and cuticular permeability in Drosophila pseudoobscura: effects on sexual dimorphism and thermal acclimation ability. Evolution. 43:1989;468-473.
54. Markow T.A., Toolson E.C. Temperature effects on epicuticular hydrocarbons and sexual isolation in Drosophila mojavensis. Barker J.S.F., et al. Ecological and Evolutionary Genetics of Drosophila. 1990;315-331 Plenum Press.
55. Markow T.A. Sexual isolation among populations of Drosophila mojavensis. Evolution. 455:1991;1525-1529.
56. Stennet M.D., Etges W.J. Premating isolation is determined by larval rearing substrates in cactophilic Drosophila mojavensis. III. Epicuticular hydrocarbon variation is determined by use of different host plants in Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae. J. Chem. Ecol. 23:1997;2803-2824.
57. Etges W.J., Ahrens M.A. Premating isolation is determined by larval rearing substrates in cactophilic Drosophila mojavensis. V. Deep geographic variation in epicuticular hydrocarbons among isolated populations. Am. Nat. 158:2001;585-598.
58. McClintock W.J., Uetz G.W. Female choice and pre-existing bias: visual cues during courtship in two Schizocosa wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Anim. Behav. 52:1996;167-181.
59. Scheffer S.J., et al. Sexual selection, male morphology, and the efficacy of courtship signalling in two wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 38:1996;17-23.
60. Hebets E.A., Uetz G.W. Female responses to isolated signals from multimodal male courtship displays in the wolf spider genus Schizocosa (Araneae: Lycosidae). Anim. Behav. 57:1999;865-872.