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:

Sexual selection enables long-term coexistence despite ecological equivalence

Nature volume 484, pages 506–509 (2012)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Empirical data indicate that sexual preferences are critical for maintaining species boundaries1,2,3,4, yet theoretical work has suggested that, on their own, they can have only a minimal role in maintaining biodiversity5,6,7,8,9. This is because long-term coexistence within overlapping ranges is thought to be unlikely in the absence of ecological differentiation9. Here we challenge this widely held view by generalizing a standard model of sexual selection to include two ubiquitous features of populations with sexual selection: spatial variation in local carrying capacity, and mate-search costs in females. We show that, when these two features are combined, sexual preferences can single-handedly maintain coexistence, even when spatial variation in local carrying capacity is so slight that it might go unnoticed empirically. This theoretical study demonstrates that sexual selection alone can promote the long-term coexistence of ecologically equivalent species with overlapping ranges, and it thus provides a novel explanation for the maintenance of species diversity.

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: Sexual selection enables long-term coexistence of ecologically equivalent species.
Figure 2: Loss and maintenance of coexistence.
Figure 3: Conditions for long-term coexistence.
Figure 4: Mosaic sympatry.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Eberhard, W. G. Sexual Selection and Animal Genitalia (Harvard Univ. Press, 1985)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Seehausen, O. & van Alphen, J. J. M. Can sympatric speciation by disruptive sexual selection explain rapid evolution of cichlid diversity in Lake Victoria? Ecol. Lett. 2, 262–271 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gray, D. A. & Cade, W. H. Sexual selection and speciation in field crickets. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 14449–14454 (2000)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilson, A. B., Noack-Kunnmann, K. & Meyer, A. Incipient speciation in sympatric Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid fishes: sexual selection versus ecological diversification. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267, 2133–2141 (2000)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Turner, G. F. & Burrows, M. T. A model of sympatric speciation by sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 260, 287–292 (1995)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Panhuis, T. M., Butlin, R., Zuk, M. & Tregenza, T. Sexual selection and speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 364–371 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. van Doorn, G. S., Dieckmann, U. & Weissing, F. J. Sympatric speciation by sexual selection: a critical reevaluation. Am. Nat. 163, 709–725 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Johansson, J. & Ripa, J. Will sympatric speciation fail due to stochastic competitive exclusion? Am. Nat. 168, 572–578 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Weissing, F. J., Edelaar, P. & van Doorn, G. S. Adaptive speciation theory: a conceptual review. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 461–480 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schluter, D. The Ecology of Adaptive Radiation (Oxford Univ. Press, 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fisher, R. A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Clarendon Press, 1930)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Lande, R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 78, 3721–3725 (1981)

    Article  MathSciNet  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lande, R. Rapid origin of sexual isolation and character divergence in a cline. Evolution 36, 213–223 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kirkpatrick, M. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36, 1–12 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Seger, J. Unifying genetic models for the evolution of female choice. Evolution 39, 1185–1193 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Payne, R. J. H. & Krakauer, D. C. Sexual selection, space, and speciation. Evolution 51, 1–9 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mallet, J. Hybridization, ecological races and the nature of species: empirical evidence for the ease of speciation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363, 2971–2986 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mallet, J., Meyer, A., Nosil, P. & Feder, J. L. Space, sympatry and speciation. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 2332–2341 (2009)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Barton, N. H. & Hewitt, G. M. Analysis of hybrid zones. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16, 113–148 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Barton, N. H. & Hewitt, G. M. Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones. Nature 341, 497–503 (1989)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dieckmann, U. in Adaptive Speciation (eds Dieckmann, U., Metz, J. A. J., Doebeli, M. & Tautz, D. ) 306–307 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Seehausen, O., van Alphen, J. J. M. & Witte, F. Cichlid fish diversity threatened by eutrophication that curbs sexual selection. Science 277, 1808–1811 (1997)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hollocher, H., Ting, C., Pollack, F. & Wu, C. Incipient speciation by sexual isolation in Drosophila melanogaster: variation in mating preference and correlation between sexes. Evolution 51, 1175–1181 (1997)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Feulner, P. G. D., Kirschbaum, F. & Tiedemann, R. Adaptive radiation in the Congo River: an ecological speciation scenario for African weakly electric fish (Teleostei; Mormyridae; Campylomormyrus). J. Physiol. (Paris) 102, 340–346 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ryan, M. J. & Wilczynski, W. Coevolution of sender and receiver: effect on local mate preference in cricket frogs. Science 240, 1786–1788 (1988)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tregenza, T., Pritchard, V. L. & Butlin, R. K. The origins of premating reproductive isolation: testing hypotheses in the grasshopper Chorthippus parallelus . Evolution 54, 1687–1698 (2000)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. S. Brown, R. G. FitzJohn, D. E. Irwin, J. Ohlberger, J. L. Payne, A. Pomiankowski and G. S. van Doorn for discussions. Funding was provided by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada) grant to L.K.M. (CGS-D) and S.P.O. (Discovery Grant). L.K.M. received additional support from the European Science Foundation Research Networking Programme ‘Frontiers of Speciation Research’. R.M. and U.D. gratefully acknowledge support by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF). U.D. received additional financial support from the European Commission, the European Science Foundation, the Austrian Science Fund and the Austrian Ministry of Science and Research.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Leithen K. M’Gonigle

    Present address: Present address: Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, 130 Mulford Hall, Berkeley, California 94720, USA.,

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, 6270 University Boulevard, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z4,

    Leithen K. M’Gonigle & Sarah P. Otto

  2. Evolution and Ecology Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria ,

    Rupert Mazzucco & Ulf Dieckmann

Authors
  1. Leithen K. M’Gonigle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rupert Mazzucco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah P. Otto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ulf Dieckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

U.D. and L.K.M. conceived this project. L.K.M., R.M., S.P.O. and U.D. discussed and designed the model. L.K.M. implemented the model with input from R.M., analysed the results together with R.M., S.P.O. and U.D. and prepared the manuscript. L.K.M., R.M., S.P.O. and U.D. jointly edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leithen K. M’Gonigle.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Program code is available at http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/prog/coexist.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Text and Data, Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Figures 1-9 and additional references. (PDF 550 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

M’Gonigle, L., Mazzucco, R., Otto, S. et al. Sexual selection enables long-term coexistence despite ecological equivalence. Nature 484, 506–509 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10971

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10971

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