Population Ecology

, Volume 55, Issue 1, pp 35–42 | Cite as

Mechanical reproductive isolation via divergent genital morphology between Carabus insulicola and C. esakii with implications in species coexistence

  • Kôhei Kubota
  • Kôji Miyazaki
  • Shiho Ebihara
  • Yasuoki Takami
Original article

Abstract

The mechanical isolation hypothesis predicts that physical incompatibility between divergent reproductive morphologies hinders hybridization between populations. However, evidence for this hypothesis remains scarce. We examined this hypothesis using two parapatric carabid beetles, Carabus insulicola and C. esakii, which are of the subgenus Ohomopterus and exhibit a species-specific genital lock-and-key system. Our interspecific crossing experiment revealed that incompatibility of genital morphologies served as a strong postmating-prezygotic isolation barrier. This isolation was asymmetric: a decrease in female fitness was more costly in the cross with greater genitalic incompatibility between a C.esakii female and a C. insulicola male. These two species share a limited sympatric area, but the mechanism responsible for their coexistence is unclear given no evidence of premating isolation via male mate choice. A comparison of the present results with those of previous studies that quantified reproductive isolation between Ohomopterus species suggest that strong mechanical isolation via genitalic incompatibility plays a major role in species isolation, but that it may be less important in species coexistence.

Keywords

Carabidae Genitalia Ground beetle Hybrid zone Lock-and-key Speciation 

References

  1. Brown WL Jr, Wilson EO (1956) Character displacement. Syst Zool 5:49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Butlin RK (1989) Reinforcement of premating isolation. In: Otte D, Endler JA (eds) Speciation and its consequences. Sinaure Associates, Sunderland, pp 158–179Google Scholar
  3. Coyne JA, Orr HA (1989) Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution 43:362–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coyne JA, Orr HA (1998) The evolutionary genetics of speciation. Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci 353:287–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sinaure Associates Inc, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  6. Eberhard WG (1985) Sexual selection and animal genitalia. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Gröning J, Hochkirch A (2008) Reproductive interference between animal species. Q Rev Biol 83:257–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Howard DJ (1993) Reinforcement: origin, dynamics, and fate of an evolutionary hypothesis. In: Harrison RG (ed) Hybrid zones and the evolutionary process. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 46–69Google Scholar
  9. Ishikawa R (1987) On the function of copulatory organs of Ohomopterus (Coleoptera, Carabidae, genus Carabus). Kontyû 55:202–206Google Scholar
  10. Ishikawa R (1991) The evolution of Carabus: divergence and isolating mechanisms. Yasaka-shobo, Tokyo (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  11. Ishikawa R, Ujiie M (2000) A revision of Carabus (Ohomopterus) insulicola Chaudoir, 1869 (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in Honshu, Japan. Jpn J Syst Entomol 6:253–297Google Scholar
  12. Konuma J, Chiba S (2007) Ecological character displacement caused by reproductive interference. J Theor Biol 247:354–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kubota K (1988) Natural hybridization between Carabus (Ohomopterus) maiyasanus and C. (O.) iwawakianus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Kontyû 56:233–240Google Scholar
  14. Kubota K, Sota T (1998) Hybridization and speciation in the carabid beetles of the subgenus Ohomopterus (Coleoptera, Carabidae, genus Carabus). Res Popul Ecol 40:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuno E (1992) Competitive exclusion through reproductive interference. Res Popul Ecol 34:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mikkola K (2008) The lock-and-key mechanisms of the internal genitalia of the Noctuidae (Lepidoptera): how are they selected for? Eur J Entomol 105:13–25Google Scholar
  17. Nagata N, Kubota K, Yahiro K, Sota T (2007) Mechanical barriers to introgressive hybridization revealed by mitochondrial introgression patterns in Ohomopterus ground beetle assemblages. Mol Ecol 16:4822–4836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Okuzaki Y, Takami Y, Sota T (2010) Resource partitioning or reproductive isolation: the ecological role of body size differences among closely related species in sympatry. J Anim Ecol 79:383–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Panhuis TM, Butlin R, Zuk M, Tregenza T (2001) Sexual selection and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 16:364–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Porter AH, Shapiro AM (1990) Lock-and-key hypothesis: lack of mechanical isolation in a butterfly (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) hybrid zone. Ann Entomol Soc Am 83:107–114Google Scholar
  21. Ramsey J, Bradshaw HD Jr, Schemske DW (2003) Components of reproductive isolation between the monkeyflowers Mimulus lewisii and M. cardinalis (Phrymaceae). Evolution 57:1520–1534PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Reitz SR, Trumble JT (2002) Competitive displacement among insects and arachnids. Annu Rev Entomol 47:435–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ribeiro JMC, Spielman A (1986) The satyr effect: a model predicting parapatry and species extinction. Am Nat 128:513–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ritchie MG (2007) Sexual selection and speciation. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:79–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. SAS Institute Inc (2009) JMP version 8. SAS Institute Inc, CaryGoogle Scholar
  26. Servedio MR, Noor MAF (2003) The role of reinforcement in speciation: theory and data. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:339–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shapiro AM, Porter AH (1989) The lock-and-key hypothesis: evolutionary and biosystematic interpretation of insect genitalia. Annu Rev Entomol 34:231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sota T (2002) Radiation and reticulation: extensive introgressive hybridization in the carabid beetles Ohomopterus inferred from mitochondrial gene genealogy. Popul Ecol 44:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sota T, Kubota K (1998) Genital lock-and-key as a selective agent against hybridization. Evolution 52:1507–1513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sota T, Nagata N (2008) Diversification in a fluctuating island setting: rapid radiation of Ohomopterus ground beetles in the Japanese Islands. Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci 363:3377–3390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sota T, Tanabe T (2010) Multiple speciation events in an arthropod with divergent evolution in sexual morphology. Proc R Soc B 277:689–696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sota T, Kusumoto F, Kubota K (2000a) Consequences of hybridization between Ohomopterus insulicola and O. arrowianus (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in a segmented river basin: parallel formation of hybrid swarms. Biol J Linnean Soc 71:297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sota T, Takami Y, Kubota K, Ujiie M, Ishikawa R (2000b) Interspecific body size differentiation in species assemblages of the carabid subgenus Ohomopterus in Japan. Popul Ecol 42:279–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sota T, Ishikawa R, Ujiie M, Kusumoto F, Vogler AP (2001) Extensive trans-species mitochondrial polymorphisms in the carabid beetles Carabus subgenus Ohomopterus caused by repeated introgressive hybridization. Mol Ecol 10:2833–2847PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Takami Y (2002) Mating behavior, insemination and sperm transfer in the ground beetle Carabus insulicola. Zool Sci 19:1067–1073PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Takami Y, Suzuki H (2005) Morphological, genetic and behavioural analyses of a hybrid zone between the ground beetles Carabus lewisianus and C. albrechti (Coleoptera, Carabidae): asymmetrical introgression caused by movement of the zone? Biol J Linnean Soc 86:79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Takami Y, Nagata N, Sasabe M, Sota T (2007) Asymmetry in reproductive isolation and its effect on directional mitochondrial introgression in the parapatric ground beetles Carabus yamato and C. albrechti. Popul Ecol 49:337–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tanabe T, Sota T (2008) Complex copulatory behavior and the proximate effect of genital and body size differences on mechanical reproductive isolation in the millipede genus Parafontaria. Am Nat 171:692–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ujiie M, Kubota K, Sota T, Ishikawa R (2005) Parallel formation of hybrid swarms of ground beetles in the genus Carabus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in adjacent river basins. Entomol Sci 8:429–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ujiie M, Ishikawa R, Kubota K (2010) Geographical variation of Carabus (Ohomopterus) esakii Csiki, 1927 (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in Japan. Biogeography 12:53–64Google Scholar
  41. Usami T, Yokoyama J, Kubota K, Kawata M (2006) Genital lock-and-key system and premating isolation by mate preference in carabid beetles (Carabus subgenus Ohomopterus). Biol J Linnean Soc 87:145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yoshimura J, Clark CW (1994) Population dynamics of sexual and resource competition. Theor Popul Biol 45:121–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kôhei Kubota
    • 1
  • Kôji Miyazaki
    • 1
  • Shiho Ebihara
    • 1
  • Yasuoki Takami
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory of Forest Zoology, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life SciencesThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Human Development and EnvironmentKobe UniversityKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations