Skip to main content
Log in

Maintenance of two genetic entities by habitat selection

  • Published:
Evolutionary Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

In the laboratory, the two species of copepodsLepeophtheirus thompsoni andLepeophtheirus europaensis, ectoparasites of flatfishes, can meet and mate on at least one host species. In the wild however, these two species are found isolated on their sympatric hosts. Habitat selection theoretically represents a powerful enough mechanism to explain the maintenance of genetic heterogeneity in the wide sense. In this paper, the host colonization process is studied for both parasite species. It is shown that each parasite can develop and reach adult age on each host species. However,L. thompsoni is highly selective; it almost totally refuses to colonize hosts other than its natural one.Lepeophtheirus europaensis, on the contrary, readily infests turbot and brill in single-host experiments, but strongly prefers the brill when it has a choice. It appears that these two genetic entities are sympatrically maintained due to strong habitat selection. Such a pattern could theoretically only occur in a soft-selection context (density dependence). This point is discussed with respect to the different patterns in host use found in the geographical distribution of these parasites.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Boxshall, G.A. (1974) Infections with parasitic copepods in North Sea marine fishes.J. Mar. Biol. Ass. UK 54, 355–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Meeûs, T., Renaud, F. and Gabrion, C. (1990) A model for studying isolation mechanisms in parasite populations: the genusLepeophtheirus (Copepoda, Caligidae).J. Exp. Zool. 254, 207–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Meeûs, T., Michalakis, Y., Renaud, F. and Olivieri I. (1993) Polymorphism in heterogeneous environments, evolution of habitat selection and sympatric speciation. Soft and hard selection models.Evol. Ecol. 7, 175–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, E.R. (1955) Maintenance of genetic heterogeneity.Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. Sci. 20, 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, R.W. (1975) Settlement of planktonic larvae: a theory of habitat selection in varying environments.Am. Nat. 109, 113–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma, D.J. and Moreno, G. (1988) The evolution of ecological specialisation.Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19, 207–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Dorado, A. (1986) The effect of niche preference on polymorphism protection in a heterogeneous environment.Evolution 40, 936–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedrick, P.W. (1990) Genotypic habitat selection: a new model and its application.Heredity 65, 145–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johannessen, A. (1978) Early stages ofLepeophtheirus salmonis (Copepoda, Caligidae).Sarsia 63, 169–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J.S. and Probert, R.F. (1980) Habitat selection maintains a deleterious allele in a heterogeneous environment.Nature 287, 632–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabata, Z. (1972) Developmental stages ofCaligus clemensi (Copepoda; Caligidae).J. Fish Res. Bd Canada 29, 1571–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levene, H. (1953) Genetic equilibrium when more than one ecological niche is available.Am. Nat. 87, 331–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, A.G. (1963) Life history of the caligid copepodLepeophtheirus dissimulatus Wilson, 1905 (Crustacea, Caligoida).Pacific Sci. 17, 195–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. (1962) Disruptive selection, polymorphism and sympatric speciation.Nature 195, 60–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. (1966) Sympatric speciation.Am. Nat. 100, 637–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. and Hoekstra, R.F. (1980) Polymorphism in a varied environment: how robust are the models?Genet. Res. Camb. 35, 45–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, J.R. (1934)A Systematic Monograph of flatfishes (Heterosomata) Vol. 1:Psettodidae, Bothidae, Pleuronectidae. British Museum (ed.), London, UK.

  • Quignard, J.P. (1972). La Méditerranée, creuset ichthyologique.Bull. Zool. 45, 23–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rausher, M.D. (1984) The evolution of habitat preference in subdivided populations.Evolution 38, 596–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, W.R. (1987) Speciation via habitat specialisation: the evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character.Evol. Ecol. 1, 301–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, W.R. (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests.Evolution 43, 223–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, M.L. (1991) Habitat selection and population interactions: the search for mechanisms.Am. Nat. 137, S5-S28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherrer, B. (1984)Biostatistique. Gaêtan Morin. Chicoutimi, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J. (1981)Biometry. Freeman and Co, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeddam, J.L., Berrebi, P., Renaud, F., Raibaut, A. and Gabrion, C. (1988) Characterisation of two species ofLepeophtheirus (Copepoda, Caligidae) from flatfishes. Description ofLepeophtheirus europaensis sp. Nov.Parasitology 96, 129–44.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

de Meeûs, T., Hochberg, M.E. & Renaud, F. Maintenance of two genetic entities by habitat selection. Evol Ecol 9, 131–138 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01237752

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01237752

Keywords

Navigation