Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

The ecological cost of sex

Nature volume 404, pages 281–285 (2000)Cite this article

An Erratum to this article was published on 18 May 2000

Abstract

Why sex prevails in nature remains one of the great puzzles of evolution1,2. Sexual reproduction has an immediate cost relative to asexual reproduction, as males only express their contribution to population growth through females. With no males to sustain, an asexual mutant can double its relative representation in the population in successive generations. This is the widely accepted ‘twofold cost of males’1,2,3. Many studies4,5,6,7 have attempted to explain how sex can recoup this cost from fitness benefits associated with the recombination of parental genotypes, but these require complex biological environments that cycle over evolutionary timescales. In contrast, we have considered the ecological dynamics that govern asexual invasion. Here we show the existence of a threshold growth rate for the sexual population, above which the invasion is halted by intraspecific competition. The asexual population then exerts a weaker inhibitory effect on the carrying capacity of the sexual population than on its own carrying capacity. The stable outcome of this is coexistence on a depleted resource base. Under these ecological circumstances, longer-term benefits of sex may eventually drive out the asexual competitor.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Conceptual scheme for exploitation by a predator 1 (red vertical stripe) and a predator 2 (blue horizontal stripe) of a renewing stock of limiting prey (grey filled dots).
Figure 2: Population dynamics of exploitation competition.
Figure 3: Influence of the growth capacity of sexual predator 1 ( R0 = r1/d 1) on the equilibrium ratio of sexuals of asexuals.
Figure 4: Influence of competition coefficients α12 and α 21 on equilibrium densities of sexual and asexual populations.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Williams, G. C. Sex and Evolution (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ridley, M. Evolution 2nd edn (Blackwell Science, Oxford, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Maynard Smith, J. The Evolution of Sex (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kondrashov, A. S. Classification of hypotheses on the advantage of amphimixis. J. Hered. 84, 372–387 ( 1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Judson, O. P. & Normark, B. B. Ancient asexual scandals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 41–46 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hurst, L. D. & Peck, J. R. Recent advances in understanding of the evolution and maintenance of sex. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 46–52 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hamilton, W. D., Axelrod, R. & Tanese, R. Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 87, 3566– 3573 (1990).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Volterra, V. in Animal Ecology (ed. Chapman, R. N.) 409–448 (McGraw Hill, New York, 1931).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lotka, A. J. The growth of mixed populations: two species competing for a common food supply. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 22, 461– 469 (1932).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Begon, M., Harper, J. L. & Townsend, C. R. Ecology 3rd edn (Blackwell Science, Oxford, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Vrijenhoek, R. C. Factors affecting clonal diversity and coexistence. Am. Zool. 19, 787–797 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bell, G. The Masterpiece of Nature (Croom Helm, London, 1982 ).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Browne, R. A. & Hoopes, C. W. Genotype diversity and selection in asexual brine shrimp (Artemia). Evolution 44, 1035–1051 (1990).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bolger, D. T. & Case, T. J. Divergent ecology of sympatric clones of the asexual gecko, Lepidodactylus lugubris. Oecologia 100, 397–405 ( 1994).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Semlitsch, R. D., Hotz, H. & Guex, G. D. Competition among tadpoles of coexisting hemiclones of hybridogenetic Rana esculenta: support for the frozen niche variation model. Evolution 51, 1249– 1261 (1997).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Weeks, A. R. & Hoffmann, A. A. Intense selection of mite clones in a heterogeneous environment. Evolution 52, 1325–1333 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jokela, J., Lively, C. M., Fox, J. A. & Dybdahl, M. F. Flat reaction norms and “frozen” phenotypic variation in clonal snails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum). Evolution 51, 1120–1129 (1997).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Vjijenhoek, R. C. & Pfeiler, E. Differential survival of sexual and asexual Poeciliopsis during environmental stress. Evolution 51, 1593–1600 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Case, T. J. Patterns of coexistence in sexual and asexual species of Cnemidophorus lizards. Oecologia 83, 220– 227 (1990).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Doebeli, M. An explicit genetic model for ecological character displacement. Ecology 77, 510–520 ( 1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Skelton, P. (ed.) Evolution: a Biological and Palaeontological Approach (Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, UK, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bulmer, M. Theoretical Evolutionary Ecology (Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Futuyma, D. J. Evolutionary Biology 3rd edn (Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Maynard Smith, J. Evolutionary Genetics 2nd edn (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Stearns, S. C. & Hoekstra, R. F. Evolution: an Introduction (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Case, T. J. & Taper, M. L. On the coexistence and coevolution of asexual and sexual competitors. Evolution 40, 366–387 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Levins, R. in Lectures on Mathematics in the Life Sciences, vol. 2 (ed. Gerstenhaber, M.) 75–107 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Connolly, S. R. & Roughgarden, J. Theory of marine communities: competition, predation, and recruitment-dependent interaction strength. Ecol. Monogr. 69, 277– 296 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lively, C. M. Host-parasite coevolution and sex. BioScience 46, 107–114 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank G. F. Turner, S. J. Hawkins and C. P. Please for clarifications of key issues. This work was supported by a Natural Environment Research Council grant to C.P.D., and by an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council studentship to G.E.P.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Biodiversity and Ecology School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Bassett Crescent East, Southampton, SO16 7PX, UK

    C. Patrick Doncaster & Graeme E. Pound

  2. Department of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

    Graeme E. Pound & Simon J. Cox

Authors
  1. C. Patrick Doncaster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Graeme E. Pound
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simon J. Cox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Patrick Doncaster.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Doncaster, C., Pound, G. & Cox, S. The ecological cost of sex. Nature 404, 281–285 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/35005078

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35005078

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing