How to go extinct by mating too much: Population consequences of male mate choice and efficiency in a sexual-asexual species complex

Oikos

Volumn 118, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 513-520

  Heubel, Katja U ^a   Rankin, Daniel J ^a,b   Kokko, Hanna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COEXISTENCE; CYPRINID; GROWTH RATE; LOCAL EXTINCTION; MALE BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; METAPOPULATION; POPULATION DYNAMICS; RELATIVE ABUNDANCE; REPRODUCTIVE COST; REPRODUCTIVE POTENTIAL; SEXUAL REPRODUCTION; SPECIES COMPLEX; SPERM COMPETITION;

CYPRINODONTIFORMES; POECILIA FORMOSA;

EID: 63849175478     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2008.17024.x     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Agrawal, A. F. 2006. Evolution of sex: why do organisms shuffle their genotypes? Curr. Biol. 16 : R696 R704.
2. Aspbury, A. S. Gabor, C. R. 2004. Discriminating males alter sperm production between species Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101 : 15970 15973.
3. Avise, J. C. et al. 1991. Poecilia mexicana is the recent female parent of the unisexual fish Poecilia formosa Evolution 45 : 1530 1533.
4. Ball, M. A. Parker, G. A. 2007. Sperm competition games: the risk model can generate higher sperm allocation to virgin females J. Evol. Biol. 20 : 767 779.
5. Balsano, J. S. et al. 1981. Reduction of competition between bisexual and unisexual females of Poecilia in northeastern Mexico Environ. Biol. Fish. 6 : 39 48.
6. Balsano, J. S. et al. 1985. Reproductive behavior and the maintenance of all-female Poecilia Environ. Biol. Fish. 12 : 251 263.
7. Bauer, S. et al. 2005. Sexual harassment in heterogeneous landscapes can mediate population regulation in a grasshopper Behav. Ecol. 16 : 239 246.
8. Bellows, T. S. 1981. The descriptive properties of some models for density dependence J. Anim. Ecol. 50 : 139 156.
9. Beukeboom, L. W. Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1998. Evolutionary genetics and ecology of sperm-dependent parthenogenesis J. Evol. Biol. 11 : 755 782.
10. Birkhead, T. R. Møller, A. P. Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press 1998 Biol. Rev. 76 : 305 339.
11. Bonsall, M. B. et al. 2002. Metapopulation structures affect persistence of predator-prey interactions J. Anim. Ecol. 71 : 1075 1084.
12. Britton, N. F. Mogie, M. 2001. Poor male function favours the coexistence of sexual and asexual relatives Ecol. Lett. 4 : 116 121.
13. Byrne, P. G. Rice, W. R. 2006. Evidence for adaptive male mate choice in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 273 : 917 922.
14. Clanton, W. 1934. An unusual situation in the salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum Occas. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. 290 : 1 14.
15. Crow, J. F. Kimura, M. 1965. Evolution in sexual and asexual populations Am. Nat. 99 : 439 450.
16. Dagg, J. L. 2006. Could sex be maintained through harmful males? Oikos 112 : 232 235.
17. Darnell, R. M. Abramoff, P. 1968. Distribution of the gynogenetic fish, Poecilia formosa, with remarks on the evolution of the species Copeia 1968 : 354 361.
18. Dewsbury, D. A. 1982. Ejaculate cost and male choice Am. Nat. 119 : 601 610.
19. Ellner, S. P. et al. 2001. Habitat structure and population persistence in an experimental community Nature 412 : 538 543.
20. Foster, K. R. et al. 2007. What can microbial genetics teach sociobiology? Trends Genet. 23 : 74 80.
21. Fricke, C. Arnqvist, G. 2007. Rapid adaptation to a novel host in a seed beetle (Callosobruchus maculatus): the role of sexual selection Evolution 61 : 440 454.
22. Gabor, C. R. Ryan, M. J. 2001. Geographical variation in reproductive character displacement in mate choice by male sailfin mollies Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268 : 1063 1070.
23. Ginzburg, L. et al. 1982. Quasiextinction probabilities as a measure of impact on population growth Risk Anal. 2 : 171 181.
24. Gumm, J. M. Gabor, C. R. 2005. Asexuals looking for sex: conflict between species and mate-quality recognition in sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna) Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 58 : 558 565.
25. Hassell, M. P. et al. 1976. Patterns of dynamical behaviour in single-species populations J. Anim. Ecol. 45 : 471 486.
26. Heubel, K. U. 2004. Population ecology and sexual preferences in the mating complex of the unisexual Amazon molly Poecilia formosa PhD thesis. - Univ. Hamburg .
27. Heubel, K. U. Plath, M. 2008. Influence of male harassment and female competition on female feeding behaviour in a sexual–asexual mating complex of mollies (Poecilia mexicana, P. formosa) Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62 : 1689 1699.
28. Heubel, K. U. Schlupp, I. 2008. Seasonal plasticity in male mating preferences in sailfin mollies Behav. Ecol. 19 : 1080 1086.
29. Heubel, K. U. et al. 2008. Geographic variation in female mate-copying in the species complex of a unisexual fish, Poecilia formosa Behaviour 145 : 1041 1064.
30. Hochkirch, A. et al. 2007. Sympatry with the devil: reproductive interference could hamper species coexistence J. Anim. Ecol. 76 : 633 642.
31. Holyoak, M. Lawler, S. P. 1996. Persistence of an extinction-prone predator-prey interaction through metapopulation dynamics Ecology 77 : 1867 1879.
32. Hubbs, C. 1964. Interactions between bisexual fish species and its gynogenetic sexual parasite Bull. Texas Mem. Mus. 8 : 1 72.
33. Hubbs, C. L. Hubbs, L. C. 1932. Apparent parthenogenesis in nature in a form of fish of hybrid origin Science 76 : 628 630.
34. Johnstone, R. A. et al. 1996. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness Evolution 50 : 1382 1391.
35. Kawecki, T. J. 1988. Unisexual/bisexual breeding complexes in Poeciliidae: why do males copulate with unisexual females? Evolution 42 : 1018 1023.
36. Kiester, A. R. et al. 1981. Population dynamics of species with gynogenetic sibling species Theor. Popul. Biol. 19 : 358 369.
37. Kirkendall, L. R. 1990. Sperm is a limiting resource in the pseudogamous bark beetle Ips acuminatus (Scolytidae) Oikos 57 : 80 87.
38. Kokko, H. Monaghan, P. 2001. Predicting the direction of sexual selection Ecol. Lett. 4 : 159 165.
39. Kokko, H. Johnstone, R. A. 2002. Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 357 : 319 330.
40. Kokko, H. Brooks, R. 2003. Sexy to die for? Sexual selection and the risk of extinction Ann. Zool. Fenn. 40 : 207 219.
41. Kokko, H. et al. 2008. How populations persist when asexuality requires sex: the spatial dynamics of coping with sperm parasites Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 275 : 817 825.
42. Kondrashov, A. S. 1988. Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction Nature 336 : 435 440.
43. Lawler, S. P. et al. 1999. Effects of introduced mosquitofish and bullfrogs on the threatened California red-legged frog Conserv. Biol. 13 : 613 622.
44. Le Galliard, J.-F. et al. 2005. Sex ratio bias, male aggression, and population collapse in lizards Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102 : 18231 18236.
45. Lima, N. R. W. et al. 1996. Evolution of sexual mimicry in sperm-dependent all-female forms of Poeciliopsis (Pisces: Poeciliidae) J. Evol. Biol. 9 : 185 203.
46. Lynch, M. Gabriel, W. 1990. Mutation load and the survival of small populations Evolution 44 : 1725 1737.
47. Maynard Smith, J. 1978. The evolution of sex. Cambridge Univ. Press.
48. Monaco, P. J. et al. 1981. Sperm availability in naturally occurring bisexual-unisexual breeding complexes involving Poecilia mexicana and the gynogenetic teleost, Poecilia formosa Environ. Biol. Fish. 6 : 159 166.
49. Moore, W. S. McKay, F. E. 1971. Coexistence in unisexual-bisexual breeding complexes of Poeciliopsis (Pisces: Poeciliidae) Ecology 52 : 791 799.
50. Morrow, E. H. Pitcher, T. E. 2003. Sexual selection and the risk of extinction in birds Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270 : 1793 1799.
51. Morrow, E. H. Fricke, C. 2004. Sexual selection and the risk of extinction in mammals Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271 : 2395 2401.
52. Muller, H. J. 1964. The relation of recombination to mutational advance Mut. Res. 1 : 2 9.
53. Mysterud, A. et al. 2002. The role of males in the dynamics of ungulate populations J. Anim. Ecol. 71 : 907 915.
54. Neiman, M. 2004. Physiological dependence on copulation in parthenogenetic females can reduce the cost of sex Anim. Behav. 67 : 811 822.
55. Pilastro, A. Bisazza, A. 1999. Insemination efficiency of two alternative male mating tactics in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata) Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266 : 1887 1891.
56. Plath, M. et al. 2008. Male fish deceive competitors about mating preferences Curr. Biol. 18 : 1138 1141.
57. Pound, N. Gage, M. J. G. 2004. Prudent sperm allocation in Norway rats, Rattus norvegicus: a mammalian model of adaptive ejaculate adjustment Anim. Behav. 68 : 819 823.
58. Preston, B. T. et al. 2003. Soay rams target reproductive activity towards promiscuous females' optimal insemination period Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270 : 2073 2078.
59. Rankin, D. J. 2008. Can punishment maintain sex? Oikos 117 : 173 176.
60. Rankin, D. J. Kokko, H. 2007. Do males matter? The role of males in population dynamics Oikos 116 : 335 348.
61. Rankin, D. J. Arnqvist, G. 2008. Sexual dimorphism is associated with population fitness in the seed beetle Callosobruchus maculatus Evolution. 62 : 622 630.
62. Rankin, D. J. et al. 2007. The tragedy of the commons in evolutionary biology Trends Ecol. Evol. 22 : 643 651.
63. Reinhold, K. et al. 2002. Cryptic male choice: sperm allocation strategies when female quality varies J. Evol. Biol. 15 : 201 209.
64. Riesch, R. et al. 2008. Female sperm-limitation in natural populations of a sexual/asexual mating-complex (Poecilia latipinna, P. formosa) Biol. Lett. 4 : 266 269.
65. Ryan, M. J. et al. 1996. Male mate preferences in a gynogenetic species complex of Amazon mollies Anim. Behav. 52 : 1225 1236.
66. Schartl, M. et al. 1995. Evolutionary origin of a parthenoform, the Amazon molly Poecilia formosa, on the basis of a molecular genealogy Evolution 49 : 827 835.
67. Schley, D. et al. 2004. Population models of sperm-dependent parthenogenesis J. Theor. Biol. 229 : 559 572.
68. Schlupp, I. 2005. The evolutionary ecology of gynogenesis Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36 : 399 417.
69. Schlupp, I. Ryan, M. J. 1997. Male sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna) copy the mate choice of other males Behav. Ecol. 8 : 104 107.
70. Schlupp, I. Plath, M. 2005. Male mate choice and sperm allocation in a sexual/asexual mating complex of Poecilia (Poeciliidae, Teleostei) Biol. Lett. 1 : 169 171.
71. Schlupp, I. et al. 1991. Male mate choice in mixed bisexual/unisexual breeding complexes of Poecilia (Teleostei: Poeciliidae) Ethology 88 : 215 222.
72. Schlupp, I. et al. 1994. Benefit to male sailfin mollies of mating with heterospecific females Science 263 : 373 374.
73. Schlupp, I. et al. 2002. Biogeography of the Amazon molly, Poecilia formosa J. Biogeogr. 29 : 1 6.
74. Schmeller, D. S. et al. 2005. Male adaptive stupidity: male mating pattern in hybridogenetic frogs Evol. Ecol. Res. 7 : 1039 1050.
75. Servedio, M. R. Lande, R. 2006. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice Evolution 60 : 674 685.
76. Stenseth, N. C. Kirkendall, L. R. 1985. On the evolution of pseudogamy Evolution 39 : 294 307.
77. Thomas, M. L. Simmons, L. W. 2007. Male crickets adjust the viability of their sperm in response to female mating status Am. Nat. 170 : 190 195.
78. Wagner, A. 2006. Periodic extinctions of transposable elements in bacterial lineages: evidence from intragenomic variation in multiple genomes Mol. Biol. Evol. 23 : 723 733.
79. Wedell, N. et al. 2002. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females Trends Ecol. Evol. 17 : 313 320.
80. Williams, C.G. 1966. Adaptation and natural selection: a critique of some current thought. Princeton Univ. Press.
81. Williams, G. C. 1975. Sex and evolution. Princeton Univ. Press.
82. Worman, C. O. Kimbrell, T. 2008. Getting to the hart of the matter: did antlers truly cause the extinction of the Irish elk? Oikos 117 : 1397 1405.