Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 88, Issue 2, pp 201–206

Equal fecundity in asexual and sexual mollies (Poecilia)

  • Ingo Schlupp
  • Angelika Taebel-Hellwig
  • Michael Tobler
Article

Abstract

The evolution and maintenance of sexual reproduction is still one of the major unresolved problems in evolutionary biology. Sexual reproduction is fraught with a number of costs as compared to asexual reproduction. For example, sexuals have to produce males, which–given a 1:1 sex ratio—results in a two-fold advantage for asexuals that do not produce males. Consequently, asexuals will outperform and replace sexuals over time assuming everything else is equal. Nonetheless, a few cases of closely related asexuals and sexuals have been documented to coexist stably in natural systems. We investigated the presence of a two-fold cost in a unique system of three closely related fish species: the asexual Amazon Molly (Poecilia formosa), and two sexual species, Sailfin Molly (P. latipinna) and Atlantic Molly (P. mexicana). Amazon Molly reproduce gynogenetically (by sperm dependent parthenogenesis) and always coexist with one of the sexual species, which serves as sperm donor. In the laboratory, we compared reproductive output between P. formosa and P. mexicana as well as P. formosa and P. latipinna. We found no differences in the fecundity in either comparison of a sexual and the asexual species. Under the assumption of a 1:1 sex ratio, the asexual Amazon Molly should consequently have a full two-fold advantage and be able to outcompete sexuals over time. Hence, the coexistence of the species pairs in nature presents a paradox still to be solved.

Keywords

Poeciliid Asexual Recombination Fecundity 

References

  1. Avise JC, Trexler J, Travis J, Nelson WS (1991) Poecilia mexicana is the recent female parent of the unisexual fish Poecilia formosa. Evolution 45(6):1530–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balsano JS, Randle EJ, Rasch EM, Monaco PJ (1985) Reproductive behavior and the maintenance of all-female Poecilia. Environ Biol Fish 12:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell G (1982) The masterpiece of nature: the evolution and genetics of sexuality. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  4. Congdon JD, Vitt LJ, Hadley NF (1978) Parental investment: comparative reproductive energetics in bisexual and unisexual lizards genus Cnemidophorus. Am Nat 112:509–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Constanz GD (1989) Reproductive biology of poeciliid fishes. In: Ecology and Evolution of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae). 277–298Google Scholar
  6. Costa G C, Schlupp I (in press) Biogeography of the Amazon molly: ecological niche and range limits of an asexual hybrid species. Global Ecology and BiogeographyGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawson KJ (1995) The advantage of asexual reproduction: when is it two-fold. J theor Biol 176:341–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doncaster CP, Pound GE, Cox SJ (2000) The ecological cost of sex. Nature. 404(6775). March 16, 2000. 281–285Google Scholar
  9. Hubbs C, Dries LA, Lozano Vilano MdL (2002) Geographic variation in interbrood interval in Poecilia. [Celebratory book in honour of Dr. Salvador Contreras Balderas].|Libro jubilar en honor al Dr. Salvador Contreras Balderas.: 35–41Google Scholar
  10. Hubbs C, Schlupp I (2008) Juvenile survival in a unisexual/sexual complex of mollies. Environ Biol Fish 83:327–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hubbs CL, Hubbs LC (1932) Apparent parthenogenesis in nature in a form of fish of hybrid origin. Science 76:628–630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Jokela J, Lively CM, Dybdahl MF, Fox JA (1997) Evidence for a cost of sex in the freshwater snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum. Ecology 78:452–460Google Scholar
  13. Kearney M, Shine R (2005) Lower fecundity in parthenogenetic geckos than sexual relatives in the Australian arid zone. J Evol Biol 18:609–618CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Keightley PD, Otto SP (2006) Interference among deleterious mutations favours sex and recombination in finite populations. Nature 443:89–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lamb RY, Willey RB (1979) Are parthenogenetic and related bisexual insects equal in fertility? Evolution 33:774–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lampert KP, Lamatsch DK, Epplen JT, Schartl M (2005) Evidence for a monophyletic origin of triploid clones of the Amazon molly, Poecilia formosa. Evolution 59:881–889PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lively CM, Lloyd DG (1990) The cost of biparental sex under individual selection. Am Nat 135:489–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maynard Smith J (1971) The origin and maintenance of sex. In: Williams GC (ed) Group Selection. Aldine Atherton, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. Maynard Smith J (1978) The evolution of sex. Cambridge University Press. 222 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Pound GE, Doncaster CP, Cox SJ (2002) A Lotka-Volterra model of coexistence between a sexual population and multiple asexual clones. J Theor Biol 217:535–545CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Roff DA (2002) Life history evolution. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  22. Roze D, Barton NH (2006) The Hill-Robertson effect and the evolution of recombination. Genetics 173:1793–1811CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Schartl M, Nanda I, Schlupp I, Wilde B, Epplen JT, Schmid M, Parzefall J (1995a) Incorporation of subgenomic amounts of DNA as compensation for mutational load in a gynogenetic fish. Nature 373:68–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schartl M, Wilde B, Schlupp I, Parzefall J (1995b) Evolutionary origin of a parthenoform, the Amazon molly Poecilia formosa, on the basis of a molecular genealogy. Evolution 49:827–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schley D, Doncaster CP, Sluckin T (2004) Population models of sperm-dependent parthenogenesis. J Theor Biol 229:559–572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Schlupp I (2005) The evolutionary ecology of gynogenesis. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 36:399–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schlupp I (2009) Behavior of fishes in the sexual/unisexual mating system of the Amazon Molly (Poecilia formosa). Adv Study Behav 39(39):153–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schlupp I, Nanda I, Döbler M, Lamatsch DK, Epplen JT, Parzefall J, Schmid M, Schartl M (1998) Dispensable and indispensable genes in an ameiotic fish, the Amazon molly Poecilia formosa. Cytogenet Cell Genet 80:193–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Schlupp I, Parzefall J, Schartl M (2002) Biogeography of the Amazon molly, Poecilia formosa. J Biogeogr 29:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Snelson FFJ, Wetherington JD (1980) Sex ratio in the Sailfin Molly, Poecilia latipinna. Evolution 34(2):308–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. pp 249Google Scholar
  32. Tobler M, Schlupp I (2010) Differential susceptibility to food stress in neonates of sexual and asexual mollies (Poecilia, Poeciliidae). Evol Ecol 24:39--47Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. West SA, Lively CM, Read AF (1999) A pluralist approach to sex and recombination. J Evol Biol 12:1003–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Williams GC (1975) Sex and evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingo Schlupp
    • 1
    • 3
  • Angelika Taebel-Hellwig
    • 1
  • Michael Tobler
    • 2
  1. 1.Universität Hamburg, Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches MuseumHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Departments of Biology and Wildlife and Fisheries SciencesTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationTXUSA
  3. 3.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations