Advertisement

Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 219–229 | Cite as

The impact of extra-pair mating behavior on hybridization and genetic introgression

  • Patricia J. Hartman
  • Daniel P. WetzelEmail author
  • Philip H. Crowley
  • David F. Westneat
Original paper

Abstract

Hybridization and genetic introgression can be associated with secondary contact between closely related species. Previous models have examined the ecological and demographic conditions leading to hybridization and introgression, but few have examined the role of behavior. Alternative mating behaviors are common throughout the animal kingdom but have rarely been recognized as a potential mechanism for hybridization. We developed an individual-based genetic model to examine the hypothesis that extra-pair copulations (EPCs) can lead to hybridization and genetic introgression even when assortative mating preferences are intact. Our model showed that female choice, whether pre- or post-copulation, reinforced species boundaries and that hybrids were relatively uncommon when no EPCs occurred. However, when EPCs were introduced into the model, the proportion of hybrids in the population depended on the strength of female mate or sperm choice, the strength of male pursuit of EPCs, and habitat-induced effects on the species composition of the neighborhood. As predicted, male pursuit of EPCs caused extensive introgression, but female preference for conspecific paternity reinforced species differences. Inclusion of mitochondrial markers of species identity revealed significant effects of interspecific and intersexual behavior during EPCs on the direction of introgression. These results suggest that an alternative mating tactic may have major effects on the level of genetic homogenization and can cause local extinction of a species.

Keywords

Alternative mating behaviors Extra-pair copulation Extra-pair paternity Hybridization Introgression 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank SK Diep, G García-Ramos, IRK Stewart, K Thompson, and other members of the UK evolutionary ecology group for helpful discussion throughout the development of this model. An early version of the model was initiated in a graduate course taught by PHC. PJH was funded by a research assistantship from Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. We appreciate comments provided by two anonymous reviewers that improved the manuscript.

Supplementary material

12080_2011_117_MOESM1_ESM.doc (32 kb)
ESM 1 DOC 32.0 kb
12080_2011_117_MOESM2_ESM.doc (40 kb)
Fig. S1 DOC 40.5 kb

References

  1. Alcock J (1979) The evolution of intraspecific diversity in male reproductive strategies in some bees and wasps. In: Blum MS, Blum NA (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic, New York, pp 381–402Google Scholar
  2. Avise JC, Jones AG, Walker D, DeWoody JA (2002) Genetic mating systems and reproductive natural histories of fishes: lessons for ecology and evolution. Annu Rev Genet 36:19–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker MC (1996) Female buntings from hybridizing populations prefer conspecific males. Wilson Bull 108:771–775Google Scholar
  4. Bennett PM, Owens IPF (2002) Evolutionary ecology of birds: life histories, mating systems and extinction. Oxford University Press, Oxford UKGoogle Scholar
  5. Birkhead TR, Brillard JP (2007) Reproductive isolation in birds: postcopulatory prezygotic barriers. Trends Ecol Evol 22:266–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brockmann HJ (1996) Satellite male groups in horseshoe crabs, Limulus polyphemus. Ethology 102:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brommer JE, Korsten P, Bouwman KM, Berg ML, Komdeur J (2007) Is extrapair mating random? On the probability distribution of extrapair young in avian broods. Behav Ecol 18:895–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bronson CL, Grubb TC, Sattler GD, Braun MJ (2003) Mate preference: a possible causal mechanism for a moving hybrid zone. Anim Behav 65:489–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Confer JL (1992) Golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera). In: Poole A, Stettenheim P, Gill FB (eds) The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc, Philadelphia, No 20Google Scholar
  10. Coyne JA, Orr HA (1989) Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution 43:362–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coyne JA, Orr HA (1997) “Patterns of speciation in Drosophila” revisited. Evolution 51:295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Dabrowski A, Fraser R, Confer JL, Lovette IJ (2005) Geographic variability in mitochondrial introgression among hybridizing populations of golden-winged (Vermivora chrysoptera) and blue-winged (V. pinus) warblers. Conserv Genet 6:843–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dobzhansky TH (1940) Speciation as a stage in evolutionary divergence. Am Nat 74:312–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dominey WJ (1984) Alternative mating tactics and evolutionarily stable strategies. Am Zool 24:385–396Google Scholar
  16. Durrett R, Buttel L, Harrison R (2000) Spatial models for hybrid zones. Heredity 84:9–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Epifanio J, Philipp D (2001) Simulating the extinction of parental lineages from introgressive hybridization: the effects of fitness, initial proportions of parental taxa, and mate choice. Rev Fish Biol Fish 10:339–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fredrickson RJ, Hedrick PW (2006) Dynamics of hybridization and introgression in red wolves and coyotes. Conserv Biol 20:1272–1283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gill FB (1997) Local cytonuclear extinction of the golden-winged warbler. Evolution 51:519–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gill FB (2004) Blue-winged warblers (Vermivora pinus) versus golden-winged warblers (V. chrysoptera). Auk 121:1014–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gill FB, Canterbury RA, Confer JL (2001) Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora pinus). In: Poole A, Gill FB (eds) The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc, Philadelphia, No 584Google Scholar
  22. Grant PR, Grant BR (1997) Genetics and the origin of bird species. Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:7768–7775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffith SC (2010) The role of multiple mating and extrapair paternity in creating and reinforcing species boundaries in birds. Emu 110:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman KA (2002) Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol Ecol 11:2195–2212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Halliday T, Tejedo M (1995) Intrasexual selection and alternative mating behaviour. In: Heatwole H, Sullivan BK (eds) Amphibian biology, Vol. II: Social behaviour. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, pp 419–468Google Scholar
  26. Howard DJ, Gregory PG, Chu J, Cain ML (1998) Conspecific sperm precedence is an effective barrier to hybridization between closely related species. Evolution 52:511–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hubbs CL (1955) Hybridization between fish species in nature. Syst Biol 4:1–20Google Scholar
  28. Koprowski JL (1993) Alternative reproductive tactics in male eastern gray squirrels: “making the best of a bad job”. Behav Ecol 4:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lamb T, Avise JC (1986) Directional introgression of mitochondrial DNA in a hybrid population of tree frogs: the influence of mating behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci 83:2526–2530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lank DB, Smith CM, Hanotte O, Burke T, Cooke F (1995) Genetic polymorphism for alternative mating behaviour in lekking male ruff Philomachus pugnax. Nature 378:59–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liou LW, Price TD (1994) Speciation by reinforcement of premating isolation. Evolution 48:1451–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mank JE, Carlson JE, Brittingham MC (2004) A century of hybridization: decreasing genetic distance between American black ducks and mallards. Conserv Genet 5:395–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mays HL, Ritchison G (2004) The effect of vegetation density on male mate guarding and extra-territorial forays in the yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens). Naturwissenschaften 91:195–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moller AP, Ninni P (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection: a meta-analysis of paternity studies of birds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:345–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Norris DR, Stutchbury BJM (2001) Extraterritorial movements of a forest songbird in a fragmented landscape. Conserv Biol 15:729–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ostberg CO, Slatton SL, Rodriguez RJ (2004) Spatial partitioning and asymmetric hybridization among sympatric coastal steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarki clarki) and interspecific hybrids. Mol Ecol 13:2773–2788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petrie M, Kempenaers B (1998) Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol Evol 13:52–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pfennig KS (1998) The evolution of mate choice and the potential for conflict between species and mate-quality recognition. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 265:1743–1748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Price TD (2008) Speciation in birds. Roberts and Co, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  40. Pizzari T, Birkhead TR (2000) Female feral fowl eject sperm of subdominant males. Nature 405:787–789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pizzari T, Løvlie H, Cornwallis CK (2004) Sex-specific, counteracting responses to inbreeding in a bird. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:2115–2121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pryke SR, Rollins LA, Griffith SC (2010) Females use multiple mating and genetically loaded sperm competition to target compatible genes. Science 329:964–967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Randler C (2002) Avian hybridization, mixed pairing and female choice. Anim Behav 63:103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Randler C (2006a) Behavioral and ecological correlates of natural hybridization in birds. Ibis 148:459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Randler C (2006b) Extra-pair paternity and hybridization in birds. J Avian Biol 37:1–5Google Scholar
  46. Reudink MW, Mech SG, Curry RL (2006) Extrapair paternity and mate choice in a chickadee hybrid zone. Behav Ecol 17:56–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rhymer JM (2006) Extinction by hybridization and introgression in anatine ducks. Acta Zool Sin 52:583–585Google Scholar
  48. Rhymer JM, Simberloff D (1996) Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:83–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ribeiro JMC, Spielman A (1986) The satyr effect: a model predicting parapatry and species extinction. Am Nat 128:513–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ryan MJ, Wagner WE (1987) Asymmetries in mating preference between species: female swordtails prefer heterospecific males. Science 236:595–597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993) Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47:647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Saetre GP, Král M, Bureš S (1997) Differential species recognition abilities of males and females in a flycatcher hybrid zone. J Avian Biol 28:259–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Seehausen O, van Alphen JJM, Witte F (1997) Cichlid fish diversity threatened by eutrophication that curbs sexual selection. Science 277:1808–1811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Servedio MR (2000) Reinforcement and the genetics of nonrandom mating. Evolution 54:21–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Servedio MR, Noor MAF (2003) The role of reinforcement in speciation: theory and data. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:339–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sinervo B, Lively CM (1996) The rock–paper–scissors game and the evolution of alternative male strategies. Nature 380:240–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Taborsky M (1994) Sneakers, satellites, and helpers: parasitic and cooperative behaviour in fish reproduction. Adv Study Behav 23:1–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Taylor EB, Boughman JW, Groenenboom M, Sniatynski M, Schluter D, Gow JL (2006) Speciation in reverse: morphological and genetic evidence of the collapse of a three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) species pair. Mol Ecol 15:343–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  60. Turelli M, Barton NH, Coyne JA (2001) Theory and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 16:330–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vallender R, Friesen VL, Robertson RJ (2007a) Paternity and performance of golden-winged warblers (Vermivora chrysoptera) and golden-winged X blue-winged warbler (V. pinus) hybrids at the leading edge of a hybrid zone. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1797–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vallender R, Robertson RJ, Friesen VL, Lovette IJ (2007b) Complex hybridization dynamics between golden-winged and blue-winged warblers (Vermivora chrysoptera and Vermivora pinus) revealed by AFLP, microsatellite, intron and mtDNA markers. Mol Ecol 16:2017–2029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Veen T, Borge T, Griffith SC, Saetre GP, Bures S, Gustafsson L, Sheldon BC (2001) Hybridization and adaptive mate choice in flycatchers. Nature 411:45–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waltz EC (1982) Alternative mating tactics and the law of diminishing returns: the satellite threshold model. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Westneat DF, Sherman PW (1997) Density and extra-pair fertilizations in birds: a comparative analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Westneat DF, Stewart IRK (2003) Extra-pair paternity in birds: causes, correlates, and conflict. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:365–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Westneat DF, Sherman PW, Morton ML (1990) The ecology and evolution of extra-pair copulations in birds. In: Power DM (ed) Current ornithology. Plenum, New York, pp 331–369Google Scholar
  68. Wirtz P (1999) Mother species–father species: unidirectional hybridization in animals with female choice. Anim Behav 58:1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Young AJ, Spong G, Clutton-Brock T (2007) Subordinate male meerkats prospect for extra-group paternity: alternative reproductive tactics in a cooperative mammal. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 274:1603–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia J. Hartman
    • 1
  • Daniel P. Wetzel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Philip H. Crowley
    • 1
  • David F. Westneat
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations