Limits...
Diversification under sexual selection: the relative roles of mate preference strength and the degree of divergence in mate preferences.

Rodríguez RL, Boughman JW, Gray DA, Hebets EA, Höbel G, Symes LB - Ecol. Lett. (2013)

Bottom Line: To ask how this disparity in focus may affect the conclusions of evolutionary research, we relate the amount of diversification in mating displays to quantitative descriptions of the strength and the amount of divergence in mate preferences across a diverse set of case studies of mate choice.We find that display diversification is better explained by preference divergence rather than preference strength; the effect of the latter is more subtle, and is best revealed as an interaction with the former.Adopting this view will enhance tests of the relative role of natural and sexual selection in processes such as speciation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA. rafa@uwm.edu

Show MeSH
Heuristic model for the relationship between the amount of divergence in the display trait values favoured by mate preferences (labelled Δp, depicted on the x-axis), the strength of the mate preferences (depicted on the y-axis) and the resulting divergence in mating displays (labelled Δt, indicated with brackets by each panel). We show this for two sister species, indicated as the two data points in each panel. The amount of preference divergence dictates how much display divergence can occur: more divergent preferences (greater Δp) result in more divergent displays (greater Δt). Preference strength, by contrast, determines the rate of evolution (faster with stronger preferences) and the closeness of the display–preference match (closer with strong preferences). In each panel, the dotted line indicates a perfect 1 : 1 match between displays and preferences. Bottom: an ancestral and two derived preference functions, one for each sister species.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3757319&req=5

fig01: Heuristic model for the relationship between the amount of divergence in the display trait values favoured by mate preferences (labelled Δp, depicted on the x-axis), the strength of the mate preferences (depicted on the y-axis) and the resulting divergence in mating displays (labelled Δt, indicated with brackets by each panel). We show this for two sister species, indicated as the two data points in each panel. The amount of preference divergence dictates how much display divergence can occur: more divergent preferences (greater Δp) result in more divergent displays (greater Δt). Preference strength, by contrast, determines the rate of evolution (faster with stronger preferences) and the closeness of the display–preference match (closer with strong preferences). In each panel, the dotted line indicates a perfect 1 : 1 match between displays and preferences. Bottom: an ancestral and two derived preference functions, one for each sister species.

Mentions: The above work has given us a good understanding of the features that enable sexual selection to generate rapid divergence and extravagance beyond naturally selected optima. A problem arises, however, when researchers take strength and rapid evolution as the key features that should characterise the action of sexual selection. This is because the key to testing hypotheses about the action of selection is to relate descriptors of selection regimes to observed patterns of divergence or diversification. In such tests, focusing on the strength of selection can be misleading because the effects of selection on diversification can only be detected in relation to the amount of divergence in the phenotypes that are favoured by selection (i.e. in fitness peaks). Consider the following heuristic model of the process of diversification of mating displays under sexual selection by mate choice (Fig. 1): Assuming sufficient genetic variation, diversification in mating displays will depend on two variables. First, the strength of selection (e.g. the strength of mate preferences) will determine how closely and how quickly display trait values come to match the fitness peaks defined by mate preferences: The display–preference match will be closer with strong preferences (Rodríguez et al. 2006), which are more likely to outweigh competing sources of selection such as naturally selected costs; also, the ‘equilibrium’ display–preference match may be attained more quickly with stronger preferences. Second, the amount of divergence in the display trait values that are favoured by mate preferences will determine the magnitude of the diversification that occurs in display phenotypes. The consequence is that, over evolutionary time, even weak selection can generate considerable diversification if there is a large amount of divergence in mate preferences; by contrast, stronger selection can more rapidly result in a closer display–preference match but can only account for as much divergence as exists among mate preferences (Fig. 1). The key to diversification, then, is the divergent nature of selection, rather than its strength per se.


Diversification under sexual selection: the relative roles of mate preference strength and the degree of divergence in mate preferences.

Rodríguez RL, Boughman JW, Gray DA, Hebets EA, Höbel G, Symes LB - Ecol. Lett. (2013)

Heuristic model for the relationship between the amount of divergence in the display trait values favoured by mate preferences (labelled Δp, depicted on the x-axis), the strength of the mate preferences (depicted on the y-axis) and the resulting divergence in mating displays (labelled Δt, indicated with brackets by each panel). We show this for two sister species, indicated as the two data points in each panel. The amount of preference divergence dictates how much display divergence can occur: more divergent preferences (greater Δp) result in more divergent displays (greater Δt). Preference strength, by contrast, determines the rate of evolution (faster with stronger preferences) and the closeness of the display–preference match (closer with strong preferences). In each panel, the dotted line indicates a perfect 1 : 1 match between displays and preferences. Bottom: an ancestral and two derived preference functions, one for each sister species.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3757319&req=5

fig01: Heuristic model for the relationship between the amount of divergence in the display trait values favoured by mate preferences (labelled Δp, depicted on the x-axis), the strength of the mate preferences (depicted on the y-axis) and the resulting divergence in mating displays (labelled Δt, indicated with brackets by each panel). We show this for two sister species, indicated as the two data points in each panel. The amount of preference divergence dictates how much display divergence can occur: more divergent preferences (greater Δp) result in more divergent displays (greater Δt). Preference strength, by contrast, determines the rate of evolution (faster with stronger preferences) and the closeness of the display–preference match (closer with strong preferences). In each panel, the dotted line indicates a perfect 1 : 1 match between displays and preferences. Bottom: an ancestral and two derived preference functions, one for each sister species.
Mentions: The above work has given us a good understanding of the features that enable sexual selection to generate rapid divergence and extravagance beyond naturally selected optima. A problem arises, however, when researchers take strength and rapid evolution as the key features that should characterise the action of sexual selection. This is because the key to testing hypotheses about the action of selection is to relate descriptors of selection regimes to observed patterns of divergence or diversification. In such tests, focusing on the strength of selection can be misleading because the effects of selection on diversification can only be detected in relation to the amount of divergence in the phenotypes that are favoured by selection (i.e. in fitness peaks). Consider the following heuristic model of the process of diversification of mating displays under sexual selection by mate choice (Fig. 1): Assuming sufficient genetic variation, diversification in mating displays will depend on two variables. First, the strength of selection (e.g. the strength of mate preferences) will determine how closely and how quickly display trait values come to match the fitness peaks defined by mate preferences: The display–preference match will be closer with strong preferences (Rodríguez et al. 2006), which are more likely to outweigh competing sources of selection such as naturally selected costs; also, the ‘equilibrium’ display–preference match may be attained more quickly with stronger preferences. Second, the amount of divergence in the display trait values that are favoured by mate preferences will determine the magnitude of the diversification that occurs in display phenotypes. The consequence is that, over evolutionary time, even weak selection can generate considerable diversification if there is a large amount of divergence in mate preferences; by contrast, stronger selection can more rapidly result in a closer display–preference match but can only account for as much divergence as exists among mate preferences (Fig. 1). The key to diversification, then, is the divergent nature of selection, rather than its strength per se.

Bottom Line: To ask how this disparity in focus may affect the conclusions of evolutionary research, we relate the amount of diversification in mating displays to quantitative descriptions of the strength and the amount of divergence in mate preferences across a diverse set of case studies of mate choice.We find that display diversification is better explained by preference divergence rather than preference strength; the effect of the latter is more subtle, and is best revealed as an interaction with the former.Adopting this view will enhance tests of the relative role of natural and sexual selection in processes such as speciation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA. rafa@uwm.edu

Show MeSH