Evidence for speciation by reinforcement

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Part of a series on
Evolutionary biology
Darwin's finches by John Gould
Processes and outcomes
Natural history
History of evolutionary theory
Fields and applications
Social implications
Reinforcement assists speciation by selecting against hybrids.

Reinforcement is a process within speciation where natural selection increases the reproductive isolation between two populations of species by reducing the production of hybrids.[1][2] Evidence for speciation by reinforcement has been gathered since the 1990s, and along with data from comparative studies and laboratory experiments, has overcome many of the objections to the theory.[3]: 354 [4][5] Differences in behavior or biology that inhibit formation of hybrid zygotes are termed prezygotic isolation. Reinforcement can be shown to be occurring (or to have occurred in the past) by measuring the strength of prezygotic isolation in a sympatric population in comparison to an allopatric population of the same species.[3]: 357  Comparative studies of this allow for determining large-scale patterns in nature across various taxa.[3]: 362  Mating patterns in hybrid zones can also be used to detect reinforcement.[6] Reproductive character displacement is seen as a result of reinforcement,[7] so many of the cases in nature express this pattern in sympatry. Reinforcement's prevalence is unknown,[4] but the patterns of reproductive character displacement are found across numerous taxa (vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, and fungi), and is considered to be a common occurrence in nature.[6] Studies of reinforcement in nature often prove difficult, as alternative explanations for the detected patterns can be asserted.[3]: 358  Nevertheless, empirical evidence exists for reinforcement occurring across various taxa[7] and its role in precipitating speciation is conclusive.[8]

Evidence from nature

Amphibians

The southern brown tree frog, Litoria ewingi

The two frog species

Litoria ewingi and L. verreauxii live in southern Australia with their two ranges overlapping. The species have very similar calls in allopatry, but express clinal variation in sympatry, with notable distinctness in calls that generate female preference discrimination.[8] The zone of overlap sometimes forms hybrids and is thought to originate by secondary contact of once fully allopatric populations.[8]

Allopatric populations of

H. gratiosa, with greater female preference for conspecific males in areas of sympatry.[10]

Three species of

L. blairi) are temporally isolated in that their breeding seasons are spaced out in areas where they live in sympatry, but not where they live in allopatry.[11] Selection against interspecific mating due to low hybrid fitness and low hybrid fertility has reinforced the observed character displacement of breeding times.[11]

The rainforests of northeast Queensland, Australia were separated into north and south

Litoria genimaculata into secondary contact. The species contact zones exhibit, "strong postzygotic selection against hybrids" and enhanced isolation from differences in mating call.[13]

An alternative to detecting reproductive character displacement in populations that overlap in sympatry is measuring rates of hybridization in contact zones.

S. bombifrons have hybridized with decreasing frequency over a 27-year period (about 13 generations).[15]

Birds

The small ground finch, one of Darwin's finches of the Galápagos

The Ficedula flycatchers exhibit a pattern that suggests premating isolation is being reinforced by sexual selection.

Ficedula albicollis) has brown females and only black-and-white males. The two species exist in separate populations that overlap in a zone of sympatry.[16] In the range of overlap, only brown males of F. hypoleuca exist and are thought to have evolved the brown plumage to prevent hybridization,[17] though there is also evidence indicating that such character displacement is explained by heterospecific competition for territory rather than reinforcement.[18] Mating choice tests of the species find that females of both species choose conspecific males in sympatry, but heterospecific males in allopatry[16] (see conspecific song preference). The patterns could suggest mimicry, driven by interspecific competition;[3]: 361  however, song divergence has been detected that shows a similar pattern to the mating preferences.[19]

G. difficilis males on the Galápagos Islands show a noted preference for conspecific females where they meet in sympatry, but not in allopatry.[20] Other birds such as the dark and light subspecies of the western grebe show enhanced prezygotic isolation.[21] It has been argued that reinforcement is extremely common in birds and has been documented in a wide range of bird species.[22]

Crustaceans

Reproductive character displacement in body size was detected in sympatric populations of

O. sanbornii.[23]

Echinoderms

An example of gametic isolation involves the allopatric sea urchins (Arbacia) have minimal bindin differences (bindin is a protein involved in the process of sea urchin fertilization, used for species-specific recognition of the egg by the sperm) and have insufficient barriers to fertilization.[3]: 243  Comparison with the sympatric species Echinometra and Strongylocentrotus of the Indo-Pacific finds that they have significant differences in bindin proteins for fertilization and marked fertilization barriers.[24]

Echinometra viridis, one of several species in the genus that produce fertile hybrids.

Laboratory matings of closely related sea urchin species Echinometra oblonga and E. sp. C (the species is unnamed, dubbed C) produce fertile and viable hybrids, but are unable to fertilize eggs of the parent species due to divergence of the alleles that code for bindin proteins: an example of post-zygotic isolation.[3]: 343–344  Populations in sympatry manifest this difference in bindin protein versus those in allopatry.[3]: 343–344  Selection actively acts against the formation of hybrids in both nature (as no documented cases of hybrids have been found) and in the laboratory.[25] Here, the evolution of female egg receptors is thought to pressure bindin evolution in a selective runaway process.[25] This example of reproductive character displacement is highly suggestive of being the result of—and has been cited as strong evidence for—reinforcement.[25][3]: 343–344 

Fish

In British Columbia,

E. spectabile.[27]

Fungi

A strong case of reinforcement occurring in fungi comes from studies of Neurospora.[28] In crosses between different species in the genera, sympatric pairs show low reproductive success, significantly lower than allopatric pairs.[28] This pattern is observed across small and large geographic scales, with distance correlating with reproductive success.[28] Further evidence of reinforcement in the species was the low fitness detected in the hybrids create from crosses, and that no hybrids have been found in nature, despite close proximity.[28]

Insects

Ethological isolation has been observed between some mosquito species in the Southeast Asian Aedes albopictus group, suggesting—from laboratory experiments of mating trials—that selection against hybrids is occurring, in the presence of reproductive character displacement.[29]

Female mate discrimination is increased with intermediate migration rates between allopatric populations of Timema cristinae (genus Timema) compared to high rates of migration (where gene flow impedes selection) or low rates (where selection is not strong enough).[30][31]

Distribution of the periodical cicadas in the U.S. The yellow area corresponds to the sympatric overlap of Magicicada neotredecim (blue) with Magicicada tredecim (red)

Where the ranges of the

last glacial advance in North America.[32]

The song differences of Laupala crickets on the Hawaiian Islands appear to exhibit patterns consistent with character displacement in sympatric populations.[33] A similar pattern exists with Allonemobius fasciatus and A. socius, species of ground crickets in eastern North America.[34]

Males in sympatric populations of the damselflies

Calopteryx maculata and C. aequabilis are able to discriminate between females of different species better than those in allopatric populations; with females of C. aequabilis in sympatric populations exhibiting lighter wing colors compared to allopatric females—an illustration of reproductive character displacement.[35][36]

Fifteen species of sympatrically distributed

Phylogenetic patterns indicate the differences arose in allopatry and were reinforced when the distributions came into secondary contact.[38]

Drosophila

Drosophila fruit fly

flies cuticle.[44] Reinforcement appears to be driving their speciation in nature, supported by simulated experimental laboratory populations.[45][46]

Mammals

The deer mice

P. gossypinus exhibit reproductive character displacement in mating preferences, with heterospecific matings taking place between the species.[47]

Molluscs

Some gastropod shells, like those of Partula can coil in sinistral and dextral directions such as these, Neptunea angulata (left) and N. despecta (right) shells.

Partula suturalis is polymorphic for shell chirality in that it has two forms: sinistral (left-handed) and dextral (right-handed) shells, unlike other monomorphic species on the island of Mo'orea which have only one form (with the exception of P. otaheitana).[48] This polymorphic trait has a direct effect on mate choice and mating behavior; as shown in laboratory mating tests that opposite-coil pairs mate much less often.[48] In areas where P. suturalis lives sympatrically with other sinistral and dextral Partula species, the opposite P. suturalis morph is typically present.[9] Butlin succinctly describes one example of this unique pattern:

P. suturalis is sympatric with the dextral P. aurantia and sinistral P. olympia, whose ranges abut but do not overlap; P. suturalis is sinestral in the range of P. aurantia and dextral in the range of P. olympia and does not normally hybridize with either species. However, where their ranges meet there is a sharp transition in the coil of P. suturalis and in this transition zone it hybridizes with both P. aurantia and P. olympia.[9]

The reversal in chirality to sinistrality must have evolved as an isolating mechanism,[49] with patterns of reproductive character displacement suggesting speciation by reinforcement.[48]

L. ovata in the Swiss lake Seealpsee; with mating signal acting as the sympatrically displaced trait.[52]

The

Mytilus galloprovincialis and M. trossulus and has likely occurred within the last 200 years due to human-mediated distribution by ships.[3]
: 343 

Plants

Plants are thought to provide suitable conditions for reinforcement to occur.[5] This is due to a number of factors such as the unpredictability of pollination, pollen vectors, hybridization, hybrid zones, among others.[5] The study of plants experiencing speciation by reinforcement has largely been overlooked by researchers;[3]: 364  however, there is evidence of its occurrence in them.[54]

In the Texas wildflower

derived color in the sympatric population is being driven by strong selection.[56] Similarly, in P. pilosa and P. glaberrima, character displacement of petal color has been driven by selection, aided by pollen discrimination.[57] Displacement in flower size has also been observed in the nightshade species Solanum grayi and S. lymholtzianum in sympatry as well as S. rostratum and S. citrullifolium.[58]

Green southern population foliage of Pinus muricata
Blue northern population

The

stomata, and alloenzyme differences; flowering time; and needle color: blue foliage in the northern population and green foliage in the southern populations in California.[59] A small region exists where the species meet in a cline—sustained by selection due to a flowering time divergence, thought to represent reinforcement taking place.[9]

Similar patterns of both character displacement in sympatric populations of species have been documented in:[9][3]: 361 

Comparative studies

Prezygotic isolation in allopatric (red) and sympatric (blue) species pairs of Drosophila. Gradients indicate the predictions of reinforcement for allopatric and sympatric populations.[67]

Assortive mating is expected to increase among sympatric populations experiencing reinforcement.[8] This fact allows for the direct comparison of the strength of prezygotic isolation in sympatry and allopatry between different experiments and studies.[3]: 362  Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr surveyed 171 species pairs, collecting data on their geographic mode, genetic distance, and strength of both prezygotic and post-zygotic isolation; finding that prezygotic isolation was significantly stronger in sympatric pairs, correlating with the ages of the species.[3]: 362  Additionally, the strength of post-zygotic isolation was not different between sympatric and allopatric pairs.[8]

This finding lends support the predictions of speciation by reinforcement and correlates well with another later study by Daniel J. Howard.[3]: 363  In his study, 48 studies with observed reproductive character displacement (including plants, insects, crustaceans, molluscs, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) were analyzed.[6] The cases met several criteria such as the trait in question serving as a reproductive barrier and if there existed clear patterns of sympatry versus allopatry.[6] Out of the 48 candidates, 69 percent (33 cases) found enhanced isolation in sympatry, suggesting that the pattern predicted by reinforcement is common in nature.[6] In addition to Howard's comparative study, he guarded against the potential for positive-result publication bias by surveying 37 studies of hybrid zones. A prediction of reinforcement is that assortive mating should be common in hybrid zones; a prediction that was confirmed in 19 of the 37 cases.[6]

A survey of the rates of speciation in fish and their associated hybrid zones found similar patterns in sympatry, supporting the occurrence of reinforcement.[68] One study in the plants Glycine and Silene; however, did not find enhanced isolation.[69]

Laboratory experiments

See also: Laboratory experiments of speciation

Laboratory studies that explicitly test for reinforcement are limited.[3]: 357  In general, two types of experiments have been conducted: using artificial selection to mimic natural selection that eliminates the hybrids (often called "destroy-the-hybrids"), and using disruptive selection to select for a trait (regardless of its function in sexual reproduction).[3]: 355–357  Many experiments using the destroy-the-hybrids technique are generally cited as supportive of reinforcement; however, some researchers such as Coyne and Orr and William R. Rice and Ellen E. Hostert contend that they do not truly model reinforcement, as gene flow is completely restricted between two populations.[70][3]: 356  The table below summarizes some of the laboratory experiments that are often cited as testing reinforcement in some form.

Table of laboratory studies of reinforcement[70][3]: 354–357 
Species Experimental design Result Year
D. paulistorum Destroyed hybrids Pre-zygotic isolation 1976[71]
D.pseudoobscura &

D. persimilis

Destroyed hybrids Pre-zygotic isolation; reproductive character displacement 1950[72]
D. melanogaster Destroyed hybrids Pre-zygotic isolation; reproductive character displacement 1974[73]
D. melanogaster Destroyed hybrids Pre-zygotic isolation; reproductive character displacement 1956[74]
D. melanogaster Destroyed hybrids No pre-zygotic isolation detected 1970[75]
D. melanogaster Destroyed hybrids Pre-zygotic isolation 1953[76]
D. melanogaster Destroyed hybrids Pre-zygotic isolation 1974[77]
D. melanogaster Allopatric populations in secondary contact N/A 1982[78]
D. melanogaster N/A 1991[79]
D. melanogaster No pre-zygotic isolation detected 1966[80][81]
D. melanogaster Allowed gene flow between populations No pre-zygotic isolation detected 1969[82]
D. melanogaster N/A No pre-zygotic isolation detected 1984[83]
D. melanogaster Destroyed some hybrids No pre-zygotic isolation detected 1983[84]
D. melanogaster Disruptive selection Pre-zygotic isolation; assortive mating; all later replications of the experiment failed 1962[85]
D. melanogaster N/A N/A 1997[86]
D. melanogaster Destroyed hybrids Pre-zygotic isolation 1971[87]
D. melanogaster Destroyed hybrids Pre-zygotic isolation 1973[88]
D. melanogaster Destroyed hybrids Pre-zygotic isolation 1979[89]
Zea mays
 		Destroyed hybrids Pre-zygotic isolation; reproductive character displacement 1969[90]

References

  1. ISBN 9783527600908{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  2. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02636-8{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  3. ^
    ISBN 978-0-87893-091-3
  4. ^
    doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132412
  5. ^
    S2CID 4598270{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  6. ^ a b c d e f Daniel J. Howard (1993). Reinforcement: origin, dynamics and fate of an evolutionary hypothesis. In: Harrison, R. G. (eds) Hybrid Zones and the Evolutionary Process, Oxford University Press, pp. 46–69.
  7. ^
    PMID 10620021
  8. ^
    ISBN 978-0470016176. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help
    )
  9. ^
    PMID 21227808
  10. S2CID 198155155
  11. ^
    JSTOR 1444220
  12. S2CID 84601584{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  13. S2CID 4417281{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  14. S2CID 39042605
  15. S2CID 198152266
  16. ^
    S2CID 4363912{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  17. ^ R. V. Alatalo, L. Gustafsson, and A. Lundberg (1982), "Hybridization and breeding success of collared and pied flycatchers on the island of Gotland", Auk, 99: 285–291{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. S2CID 13238049
    .
  19. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.1986.tb02672.x
  20. S2CID 53178974
  21. ^ J. T. Ratti (1979). Reproductive Separation and Isolating Mechanisms between Sympatric Dark- and Light- Phase Western Grebes. American Ornithological Society, 93(3), 573–586.
  22. PMID 25149257
  23. ^ Mark J. Butler IV (1988), "Evaluation of Possible Reproductively Mediated Character Displacement in the Crayfishes, Orconectes rusticus and O. sanbornii", Ohio Journal of Science, 88 (3): 87–91
  24. PMID 9491615{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  25. ^
    S2CID 198154301
  26. S2CID 40648544
  27. JSTOR 1439836
  28. ^
    S2CID 198153854{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  29. S2CID 26849954
  30. PMID 14561304{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  31. S2CID 10808041{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  32. ^
    S2CID 24760583{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  33. ISBN 0-87893-657-2
  34. S2CID 46400422
  35. doi:10.1093/sysbio/24.1.24
  36. S2CID 43039210
  37. S2CID 24389006
  38. S2CID 4431492{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  39. PMID 16765478
  40. JSTOR 2406243
  41. S2CID 36693544
  42. S2CID 4252448
  43. S2CID 44985193
  44. PMID 11039933{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  45. S2CID 333466
  46. PMID 20455922
  47. S2CID 84959325
  48. ^
    doi:10.1038/hdy.1982.80
  49. S2CID 85343279
  50. ISBN 9780393937930
  51. S2CID 13428948{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  52. ^ Esther B. Wullschleger, Jürgen Wiehn, and Jukka Jokela (2002), "Reproductive character displacement between the closely related freshwater snails Lymnaea peregra and L. ovata", Evolutionary Ecology Research, 4: 247–257{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  53. PMID 7700151{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  54. PMID 23495388
  55. ^
    S2CID 205223257
  56. PMID 25155503{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  57. S2CID 13457880
  58. JSTOR 2418533
  59. S2CID 34080334
  60. ^
    doi:10.1038/hdy.1968.29
  61. S2CID 84918503
  62. JSTOR 1936993
  63. S2CID 198158311
  64. S2CID 205781802
  65. PMID 26078854
  66. S2CID 46852358
  67. S2CID 40390753
  68. ^ A. R. McCune and N. R. Lovejoy. (1998). The relative rate of sympatric and allopatric speciation in fishes. In D. J. Howard and S. H. Berlocher (eds) Endless Forms: Species and Speciation, Oxford University Press, pp. 172–185.
  69. S2CID 198156807{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  70. ^
    S2CID 42100751
  71. PMID 28563045{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )
  72. JSTOR 2405390
  73. S2CID 35867118
  74. S2CID 87729275
  75. doi:10.1266/jjg.45.193
  76. ^ Wallace B (1953). "Genetic divergence of isolated populations of Drosophila melanogaster". International Congress of Genetics, Proceedings. 9: 761–764.
  77. PMID 4217303
  78. PMID 6802898
  79. ^ Lee Ehrman, Marney A. White, and B. Wallace. 1991. A long-term study involving Drosophila melanogaster and toxic media. Pp. 175-209 in M. K. Hecht, B. Wallace, and R. J. Maclntyre, eds. Evolutionary biology, vol. 25. Plenum Press, New York.
  80. PMID 5922518
  81. PMID 5922517
  82. PMID 17248452
  83. S2CID 19161954
  84. S2CID 7947934
  85. S2CID 5156234
  86. S2CID 21054233
  87. S2CID 85401244
  88. S2CID 83780632
  89. S2CID 85237458
  90. S2CID 38650254
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evidence_for_speciation_by_reinforcement&oldid=1208862635"