, Volume 143, Issue 4, pp 527–536

Outcomes of reciprocal invasions between genetically diverse and genetically uniform populations of Daphnia obtusa (Kurz)

Population Ecology


Ecological theory predicts that genetic variation produced by sexual reproduction results in niche diversification and provides a competitive advantage both to facilitate invasion into genetically uniform asexual populations and to withstand invasion by asexual competitors. We tested the hypothesis that a large group of diverse clones of Daphnia obtusa has greater competitive advantage when invading into genetically uniform populations of this species than a smaller group with inherently less genetic diversity. We compared competitive outcomes to those of genetically uniform groups of small and large size invading into genetically diverse populations. Genetically diverse invaders of initially large group size increased their representation by more than those of initially small size; in contrast, genetically uniform invaders of initially large group size diminished on average by more than those of initially small size. These results demonstrate an advantage to the genetic variation produced by sexual reproduction, both in invasion and resisting invasion, which we attribute to competitive release experienced by individuals in genetically diverse populations.


Cost of males Cost of sex Density dependence Niche breadth 


  1. Barata C, Hontoria F, Amat F, Browne R (1996) Competition between sexual and parthenogenetic Artemia: temperature and strain effects. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 196:313–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell G (1982) The masterpiece of nature. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell G (1990) The ecology and genetics of fitness in Chlamydomonas. II. The properties of mixtures of strains. Proc R Soc Lond B 240:323–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butlin RK, Schön I, Martens K (1999) Origin, age and diversity of clones. J Evol Biol 12:1020–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capaul M, Ebert D (2003) Parasite-mediated selection in experimental Daphnia magna populations. Evolution 57:249–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Case TJ (1990) Patterns of coexistence in sexual and asexual species of Cnemidophorus lizards. Oecologia 83:220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Case TJ, Taper ML (1986) On the coexistence and coevolution of asexual and sexual competitors. Evolution 40:366–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  9. Crease TJ, Stanton DJ, Hebert PDN (1989) Polyphyletic origins of asexuality in Daphnia pulex. II. Mitochondrial-DNA variation. Evolution 43:1016–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crease TJ, Lee S-K, Yu S-L, Spitze K, Lehmans N, Lynch M (1997) Allozyme and mtDNA variation in populations of the Daphnia pulex complex from both sides of the Rocky Mountains. Heredity 79:242–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doncaster CP, Pound GE, Cox SJ (2003) Dynamics of regional coexistence for more or less equal competitors. J Anim Ecol 72:116–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doncaster CP, Pound GE, Cox SJ (2000) The ecological cost of sex. Nature 404:281–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunbrack RL, Coffin C, Howe R (1995) The cost of males and the paradox of sex: an experimental investigation of the short-term competitive advantages of evolution in sexual populations. Proc R Soc Lond B 262:45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellstrand NC, Antonovics J (1985) Experimental studies of the evolutionary significance of sexual reproduction II. A test of the density-dependent selection hypothesis. Evolution 39:657–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox JA, Dybdahl MF, Jokela J, Lively CM (1996) Genetic structure of coexisting sexual and clonal subpopulations in a freshwater snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum). Evolution 50:1541–1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaggiotti OE (1994) An ecological model for the maintenance of sex and geographic parthenogenesis. J Theor Biol 167:201–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Getz WM (2001) Competition, extinction, and the sexuality of species. Ann Zool Fennici 38:315–330Google Scholar
  18. Gurney WSC, Nisbet RM (1998) Ecological dynamics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Haag CR, Ebert D (2004) Parasite-mediated selection in experimental metapopulations of Daphnia magna. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2149–2155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamilton WD, Axelrod R, Tanese R (1990) Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:3566–3573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hebert PDN, Beaton MJ (1989) Methodologies for allozyme analysis using cellulose acetate electrophoresis. Helena Laboratories, BeaumontGoogle Scholar
  22. Hebert PDN, Ward RD, Weider LJ (1988) Clonal-diversity patterns and breeding-system variation in Daphnia pulex, an asexual-sexual complex. Evolution 42:147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Honeycutt RL, Wilkinson P (1989) Electrophoretic variation in the parthenogenetic grasshopper Warramaba virgo and its sexual relatives. Evolution 43:1027–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Innes DJ, Hebert PDN (1988) The origin and genetic basis of obligate parthenogenesis in Daphnia pulex. Evolution 42:1024–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kelley SE (1989) Experimental studies of the evolutionary significance of sexual reproduction. V. A field test of the sib-competition lottery hypothesis. Evolution 43:1054–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kerszberg M (2000) The survival of slow reproducers. J Theor Biol 206:81–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kondrashov AS (1993) Classification of hypotheses on the advantage of amphimixis. J Hered 84:372–387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lynch M (1984a) The limits to life history evolution in Daphnia. Evolution 38:465–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lynch M (1984b) The spontaneous mutations for life-history characters in an obligate parthenogen. Evolution 39:804–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lynch M, Weider LJ, Lampert W (1986) Measurement of the carbon balance in Daphnia. Limnol Oceanogr 31:17–33Google Scholar
  31. Lynch M, Spitze K, Crease T (1989) The distribution of life-history variation in the Daphnia pulex complex. Evolution 43:1724–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maynard-Smith J (1978) The evolution of sex. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. McCauley E, Nisbet RM, Murdoch WW, de Roos AM, Gurney WSC (1999) Large-amplitude cycles of Daphnia and its algal prey in enriched environments. Nature 402:653–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murdoch WW, Nisbet RM, McCauley E, de Roos AM, Gurney WSC (1998) Plankton abundance and dynamics across nutrient levels: tests of hypotheses. Ecology 79:1339–1356Google Scholar
  35. Negovetic S, Anholt BR, Semlitsch RD, Reyer HU (2001) Specific responses of sexual and hybridogenetic European waterfrog tadpoles to temperature. Ecology 82:766–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pound GE, Doncaster CP, Cox SJ (2002) A Lotka-Volterra model of coexistence between a sexual population and multiple asexual clones. J Theor Biol 217:535–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pound GE, Cox SJ, Doncaster CP (2004) The accumulation of deleterious mutations within the frozen niche variation hypothesis. J Evol Biol 17:651–662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Radtkey RR, Donnellan SC, Fisher RN, Moritz C, Hanley KA, Case TJ (1995) When species collide—the origin and spread of an asexual species of gecko. Proc R Soc Lond B 259:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schley D, Doncaster CP, Sluckin T (2004) Population models of sperm-dependent parthenogenesis. J Theor Biol 229:559–572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmitt J, Ehrardt DW (1987) A test of the sib-competition hypothesis for outcrossing advantage in Impatiens capensis. Evolution 41:579–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Semlitsch RD, Hotz H, Guex GD (1997) Competition among tadpoles of coexisting hemiclones of hybridogenetic Rana esculenta: support for the frozen niche variation model. Evolution 51:1249–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stearns SC (1990) The evolutionary maintenance of sexual reproduction: the solutions proposed for a longstanding problem. J Genet 69:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tagg N, Doncaster CP, Innes DJ (2005) Resource competition between genetically varied and genetically uniform populations of Daphnia pulex (Leydig): does sexual reproduction confer a short-term ecological advantage? Biol J Linn Soc (in press)Google Scholar
  44. Vrijenhoek RC (1979) Factors affecting clonal diversity and coexistence. Amer Zool 19:787–797Google Scholar
  45. Vrijenhoek RC, Pfeiler E (1997) Differential survival of sexual and asexual Poeciliopsis during environmental stress. Evolution 51:1593–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weeks SC (1995) Comparisons of life-history traits between clonal and sexual fish (Poeciliopsis, Poeciliidae) raised in monoculture and mixed treatments. Evol Ecol 9:258–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weider LJ (1992) Disturbance, competition and the maintenance of clonal diversity in Daphnia pulex. J Evol Biol 5:505–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weider LJ, Beaton MJ, Hebert PDN (1987) Clonal diversity in high-Arctic populations of Daphnia pulex, a polyploid apomictic complex. Evolution 41:1335–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. West SA, Peters A (2000) Paying for sex is not easy. Nature 407:962PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. West SA, Lively CM, Read AF (1999) A pluralistic approach to sex and recombination. J Evol Biol 12:1003–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Williams GC (1975) Sex and evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  52. Young JPW (1979) Enzyme polymorphism and cyclic parthenogenesis in Daphnia magna II. Heterosis following sexual reproduction. Genetics 92:971–982PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.Department of BiologyMemorial University of NewfoundlandNewfoundlandCanada

Personalised recommendations