Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 31–52 | Cite as

When is sympatric speciation truly adaptive? An analysis of the joint evolution of resource utilization and assortative mating

Original Paper

Abstract

The plausibility of sympatric speciation has long been debated among evolutionary ecologists. The process necessarily involves two key elements: the stable coexistence of at least two ecologically distinct types and the emergence of reproductive isolation. Recent theoretical studies within the theoretical framework of adaptive dynamics have shown how both these processes can be driven by natural selection. In the standard scenario, a population first evolves to an evolutionary branching point, next, disruptive selection promotes ecological diversification within the population, and, finally, the fitness disadvantage of intermediate types induces a selection pressure for assortative mating behaviour, which leads to reproductive isolation and full speciation. However, the full speciation process has been mostly studied through computer simulations and only analysed in part. Here I present a complete analysis of the whole speciation process by allowing for the simultaneous evolution of the branching ecological trait as well as a continuous trait controlling mating behaviour. I show how the joint evolution can be understood in terms of a gradient landscape, where the plausibility of different evolutionary paths can be evaluated graphically. I find sympatric speciation unlikely for scenarios with a continuous, unimodal, distribution of resources. Rather, ecological settings where the fitness inferiority of intermediate types is preserved during the ecological branching are more likely to provide opportunity for adaptive, sympatric speciation. Such scenarios include speciation due to predator avoidance or specialization on discrete resources.

Keywords

Sympatric speciation Assortative mating Adaptive dynamics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am in debt to an anonymous reviewer, whose comments helped to substantially improve an earlier version of this manuscript. I also thank J. S. Brown, G. S. van Doorn and U. Dieckmann for encouragement and enlightening discussions during the initial phase of this project, as well as M. Kopp, P. Pennings and J. Hermisson for helpful comments. Finally, I thank the Swedish Research Council for financial support.

Supplementary material

10682_2008_9267_MOESM1_ESM.doc (459 kb)
MOESM1(DOC 459 kb)

References

  1. Bolnick DI (2004) Waiting for sympatric speciation. Evolution 58:895–899PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown JS, Vincent TL (1992) Organization of predator-prey communities as an evolutionary game. Evolution 46:1269–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bürger R, Schneider K (2006) Intraspecific competitive divergence and convergence under assortative mating. Am Nat 167:190–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bürger R, Schneider K, Willensdorfer M (2006) The conditions for speciation through intraspecific competition. Evolution 60:2185–2206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Christiansen FB, Loeschke V (1980) Evolution and intraspecific exploitative competition 1 One locus theory for small additive gene effects. Theor Popul Biol 18:297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sinauer associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Dieckmann U, Doebeli M (1999) On the origin of species by sympatric speciation. Nature 400:354–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dieckmann U, Law R (1996) The dynamical theory of coevolution: a derivation from stochastic ecological processes. J Math Biol 34:579–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dieckmann U, Doebeli M, Metz JAJ, Tautz D (eds) (2004) Adaptive speciation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Doebeli M, Dieckmann U (2000) Evolutionary branching and sympatric speciation caused by different types of ecological interactions. Am Nat 156:S77–S101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doebeli M, Dieckmann U (2003) Speciation along environmental gradients. Nature 421:259–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doebeli M, Dieckmann U (2005) Adaptive dynamics as a mathematical tool for studying the ecology of speciation processes. J Evol Biol 18:1194–1200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Felsenstein J (1981) Skepticism towards Santa Rosalia, or why are there so few kinds of animals. Evolution 35:124–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fry JD (2003) Multilocus models of sympatric speciation: Bush versus Rice versus Felsenstein. Evolution 57:1735–1746PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gavrilets S (2004) Fitness landscapes and the origin of species. PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  17. Geritz SAH, Kisdi É (2000) Adaptive dynamics in diploid, sexual populations and the evolution of reproductive isolation. Proc R Soc Biol Sci B 267:1671–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geritz SAH, Kisdi É, Meszéna G et al (1998) Evolutionarily singular strategies and the adaptive growth and branching of the evolutionary tree. Evol Ecol 12:35–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gourbiere S (2004) How do natural and sexual selection contribute to sympatric speciation? J Evol Biol 17:1297–1309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gyllenberg M, Meszéna G (2005) On the impossibility of coexistence of infinitely many strategies. J Math Biol 50:133–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences II. The “handicap” principle. Evolution 45:1431–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kirkpatrick M, Nuismer SL (2004) Sexual selection can constrain sympatric speciation. Proc R Soc Biol Sci B 271:687–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirkpatrick M, Ravigné V (2002) Speciation by natural an sexual selection: models and experiments. Am Nat 159:S22–S35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kisdi É, Geritz SAH (1999) Adaptive dynamics in allele space: evolution of genetic polymorphism by small mutations in a heterogeneous environment. Evolution 53:993–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kondrashov AS, Kondrashov FA (1999) Interactions among quantitative traits in the course of sympatric speciation. Nature 400:351–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kondrashov AS, Shpak M (1998) On the origin of species by means of assortative mating. Proc R Soc Biol Sci B 265:2273–2278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lande R (1979) Quantitative genetic-analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain—body size allometry. Evolution 33:402–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maynard Smith J (1966) Sympatric speciation. Am Nat 100:637–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Matessi C, Gimelfarb A, Gavrilets S (2001) Long-term buildup of reproductive isolation promoted by disruptive selection: How far does it go? Selection 2:41–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Metz JAJ, Nisbet RM, Geritz SAH (1992) How should we define ‘fitness’ for general ecological scenarios? TREE 7:198–202Google Scholar
  31. Pennings PS, Kopp M, Meszéna G, Dieckmann U, Hermison J (2008) An analytically tractable model for competitive speciation. Am Nat 171:E44–E71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Polechová J, Barton NH (2005) Speciation through competition: a critical review. Evolution 59:1194–1210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenzweig ML (1978) Competitive speciation. Biol J Linn Soc 10:275–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roughgarden J (1972) The evolution of niche width. Am Nat 106:683–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rueffler C, Van Dooren TJM, Leimar O, Abrams PA (2006a) Disruptive selection and then what? TREE 21:238–245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rueffler C, Van Dooren TJM, Metz JAJ (2006b) The evolution of resource specialization through frequency-dependent and frequency-independent mechanisms. Am Nat 167:81–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schneider K (2005) Competitive divergence in non-random mating populations. Theor Popul Biol 68:105–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Takimoto G, Higashi M, Yamamura N (2000) A deterministic genetic model for sympatric speciation by sexual selection. Evolution 54:1870–1881PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Turelli M, Barton NH, Coyne JA (2001) Theory and speciation. TREE 16:330–343PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Doorn GS, Weissing FJ (2002) Ecological versus sexual selection models of sympatric speciation: a synthesis. Selection 2:17–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Via S (2001) Sympatric speciation in animals: the ugly duckling grows up. TREE 16:381–390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Waxman D, Gavrilets S (2005) 20 Questions on adaptive dynamics. J Evol Biol 18:1139–1154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Theoretical EcologyEcology Building, Lund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations