Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 55–70 | Cite as

Tests of reproductive isolation among species in the Fundulus notatus (Cyprinodontiformes: Fundulidae) species complex

  • Patrick A. Vigueira
  • Jacob F. Schaefer
  • David D. Duvernell
  • Brian R. Kreiser
Original Paper

Abstract

We assessed prezygotic (probability of spawning) and postzygotic (hatching success) reproductive isolation among the three ecologically and morphologically similar species in the Fundulus notatus species complex. We employed a multi-generation breeding experiment to test the hypotheses that karyotypic differences, body size differences, or geographic isolation among populations will increase pre or postzygotic reproductive barriers. Overall, prezygotic barriers were strong and postzygotic barriers weak in crosses of non-hybrid heterospecifics (F1 hybrid crosses) while prezygotic barriers were weaker and postzygotic barriers stronger in crosses involving hybrid individuals (F2 hybrid crosses and backcrosses). Prezygotic barriers among the two smaller species (Fundulus notatus and F. euryzonus) broke down rapidly; first generation hybrids spawned (F2 hybrid crosses and backcrosses) as frequently as parental forms in intraspecific crosses. There was no increase in postzygotic barriers among species with cytogenetic differences. There were increased prezygotic, but not postzygotic, barriers among geographically isolated populations of one species. While pure males and females were just as likely to spawn with hybrids, some types of hybrid females suffered from increased sterility, but not inviability, over hybrid males. Female sterility was only seen in hybrids with a Fundulus euryzonus parent, while other female hybrids produced viable eggs.

Keywords

Hybridization Reproductive isolation Prezygotic barrier Postzygotic barrier Fundulidae 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Southern Mississippi for supporting this work. We also thank P. Mickle, J. Spaeth, K. Persons, P. Brunkow, B. Zuber and T. Darden for help with field collections and animal care.

References

  1. Alexandrino J, Baird SJ, Lawson L, Macey JR, Moritz C, Wake DB (2005) Strong selection against hybrids at a hybrid zone in the Ensatina ring species complex and its evolutionary implications. Evolution 59(6):1334–1347PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernardi G, Powers DA (1995) Phylogenetic relationships among nine species from the genus Fundulus (Cyprinodontiformes, Fundulidae) inferred from sequences of the Cytochrome b gene. Copeia 1995:469–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Black A, Howell WM (1978) A distinctive chromosomal race of the cypinodontid fish, Fundulus notatus, from the upper Tombigbee River system of Alabama and Mississippi. Copeia 1978:280–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchard TA (1996) Oviarian cycles and microhabitat use in two species of topminnow, Fundulus olivaceus and F. euryzonus, from the southern United States. Env Biol Fish 47:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolnick DI, Near TJ, Wainwright PC (2006) Body size divergence promotes post-zygotic reproductive isolation in centrarchids. Evol Ecol Res 8:903–913Google Scholar
  6. Braasch ME, Smith PW (1965) Relationships of the topminnows Fundulus notatus and Fundulus olivaceus in the upper Mississippi River valley. Copeia 1965:46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bronson CL, Grubb TC Jr, Braun MJ (2003) A test of the endogenous and exogenous selection hypotheses for the maintenance of a narrow avian hybrid zone. Evolution 57(3):630–637PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen TR (1971) A comparative chromosome study of twenty killifish species of the genus Fundulus (Teleostei: Cyprinodontidae). Chromosoma 32:436–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coyne JA, Orr HA (1998) The evolutionary genetics of speciation. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 353(1366):287–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coyne JA, Simeonidis S, Rooney P (1998) Relative paucity of genes causing inviability in hybrids between Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. Genetics 150:1091–1103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cuca GC (1976) A comparative study of chromosomal and protein variation in two hybridizing fish species Fundulus olivaceus and Fundulus notatus. Thesis, Southern Illinois University EdwardsvilleGoogle Scholar
  12. Duvernell DD, Schaefer JF, Hancks DC, Fonoti JA, Ravanelli AM (2007) Hybridization and reproductive isolation among syntopic populations of the topminnows Fundulus notatus and F. olivaceus. J Evol Biol 20:152–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ebeling AB, Chen TR (1970) Heterogametry in teleostean fishes. Trans Am Fish Soc 99:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gavrilets S, Arnqvist G, Friberg U (2001) The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:531–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gregersen F, Haugen TO, Larsen ØN (2006) Egg size differentiation among sympatric demes of brown trout: possible effects of density-dependent interactions among fry. Ecol Fw Fish 15(3):237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howard DJ, Preszler RW, Williams J, Finchel S, Boecklen WJ (1997) How discrete are Oak Species? Insights from a hybrid zone between Quercus grisea and Quercus gambeli. Evolution 51(3):747–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howell WM, Black A (1981) Karyotypes in populations of the cyprinodontid fishes of the Fundulus notatus Species complex: a geographic analysis. Bull Al Mus Nat Hist 6:19–30Google Scholar
  18. Hurt CR, Farzin M, Hedrick PW (2005) Premating, not postmating, barriers drive genetic dynamics in experimental hybrid populations of the endangered Sonoran topminnow. Genetics 171:655–662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jiggins CD, Mallet J (2000) Bimodal hybrid zones and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 15(6):250–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jiggins CD, McMillan WO, King P, Mallet J (1997) The maintenance of species across a Heliconius hybrid zone. Heredity 79:495–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kornfield I (1981) Distribution of constitutive heterochromatin and the evolution of sex chromosomes in Fundulus. Copeia 1981:916–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee DS, Gilbert CR, Hocutt CH, Jenkins RE, McAllister DE, Stauffer JR (1980) Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina Biological Survey, Raleigh, NCGoogle Scholar
  23. Markow TA, Ricker JP (1991) Developmental stability in hybrids between the sibling species pair, Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans. Genetica 84:115–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McKinnon JS, Mori S, Blackman BK, David L, Kingsley DM, Jamieson L, Chou J, Schluter D (2004) Evidence for ecology’s role in speciation. Nature 429:294–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mendelson TC (2003) Sexual isolation evolves faster than hybrid inviability in a diverse and sexually dimorphic genus of fish (Percidae: Etheostoma). Evolution 57(2):317–327PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Milne RI, Terzioglu S, Abbott RJ (2003) A hybrid zone dominated by fertile F1s: maintenance of species barriers in Rhododendron. Mol Ecol 12(10):2719–2729PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morgan-Richards M, Wallis GP (2003) A comparison of five hybrid zones of the weta Hemideina thoracica (Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae): degree of cytogenetic differentiation fails to predict zone width. Evolution 57(4):849–861PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Morin RP, Able KW (1983) Patterns of geographic variation in the egg morphology of the Fundulid fish, Fundulus heteroclitus. Copeia 1983:726–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Orr HA (1997) Haldane’s rule. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 28:195–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ross ST (2001) Inland fishes of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi, JacksonGoogle Scholar
  31. Rubidge EM, Taylor EB (2004) Hybrid zone structure and the potential role of selection in hybridizing populations of native westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) and introduced rainbow trout (O. mykiss). Mol Ecol 13(12):3735–3749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schluter D (2001) Ecology and the origin of species. Trends Ecol Evol 16(7):372–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Setzer PY (1970) An analysis of a natural hybrid swarm by means of chromosome morphology. Trans Am Fish Soc 99(1):139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomerson JE (1966) A comparative biosystematic study of Fundulus notatus and Fundulus olivaceus (Pices: Cyprinodontidae). Tulane Stud Zool 13:29–47Google Scholar
  35. Thomerson JE (1967) Hybrids between the cyprinodontid fishes, Fundulus notatus and Fundulus olivaceus in Southern Illinois. Trans IL State Acad Sci 60:375–379Google Scholar
  36. Thomerson JE, Woolridge DP (1970) Food habits of allotopic and syntopic populations of the topminnows Fundulus olivaceus and Fundulus notatus. Am Mid Nat 84(2):573–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Uwadiegwu KE, Haas R, Turner BJ (1985) A multiple sex chromosome system in the annual killifish, Nothobranchius guentheri. Copeia 1985:503–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Uyeno T, Miller RR, Fitzsimons JM (1983) Karyology of the cyprinodontoid fishes of the Mexican family Goodeidae. Copeia 1983:497–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Via S (2001) Sympatric speciation in animals: the ugly duckling grows up. Trends Ecol Evol 16(7):381–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wiley EO (1986) A study of the evolutionary relationships of Fundulus topminnows (Teleostei: Fundulidae). Am Zool 26:121–130Google Scholar
  41. Wong BM, Jennings MD (2003) Costs influence male mate choice in a freshwater fish. Proc R Soc Lond B 27:S36–S38CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick A. Vigueira
    • 3
  • Jacob F. Schaefer
    • 1
  • David D. Duvernell
    • 2
  • Brian R. Kreiser
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Southern MississippiHattiesburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologySouthern Illinois UniversityEdwardsvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesClemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations