Reproductive interference

Burdfield‐Steel, Emily; Shuker, David M.

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.063

Cited by 87 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonetheless, species recognition systems are Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00265-016-2124-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. often incomplete, leading to the occurrence of interspecific copulations between individuals from closely related species (Burdfield-Steel and Shuker 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incomplete species recognition entails few costs in spider mites, despite first-male precedence

Clemente

Rodrigues

Ponce

et al. 2016

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The consequences of heterospecific matings may hinge on interspecies interactions, but also on characteristics of the intraspecies mating system, namely sperm precedence. Indeed, first-male precedence may entail costs of heterospecific matings that are usually overlooked in other systems, such as fertilization of oocytes that become unavailable to subsequent conspecific males or a decrease in female receptivity. Here, we used a system composed of two co-occurring haplodiploid spider-mite species with first-male precedence, Tetranychus urticae and Tetranychus evansi, to investigate (a) the potential costs of heterospecific matings and (b) whether mites avoid heterospecific mates. We found that heterospecific matings did not result in fertilized offspring (i.e. females). Moreover, fecundity (i.e. male offspring) of heterospecifically mated females did not differ from that of virgins, indicating that oocyte viability was not affected by heterospecific males. Furthermore, heterospecific matings did not trigger behavioural changes that typically derive from conspecific matings, namely reduced female receptivity for subsequent matings. In avoidance tests, we found that T. evansi females and T. urticae males mated as often with conspecifics as with heterospecifics, whereas T. evansi males and T. urticae females mated assortatively more often. Also, latency to copulation in virgin and mated females did not differ between conspecific and heterospecific matings, but matings between T. urticae individuals lasted longer than heterospecific matings. Therefore, heterospecific matings result in few costs despite first-male precedence and, concomitantly, species discrimination is low. Still, this study highlights the need to account for intraspecific mating systems in tests of the reproductive consequences of mating with heterospecifics. Significance statementIn species where the first male fertilizes all the offspring (firstmale precedence), mating with individuals from other species often yields few benefits and entails potential costs in terms of future mating events. Yet, several species exhibit incomplete recognition of conspecifics. We here show that this is the case among two spider-mite species that co-occur under natural conditions. However, we also demonstrate that the cost of mating with the 'wrong' species is low, even though they exhibit first-male precedence.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incomplete species recognition entails few costs in spider mites, despite first-male precedence

Clemente

Rodrigues

Ponce

et al. 2016

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If so, why is it so common? [4,6,38]. Traditional RCD theory focuses on the costs of interspecific mating for females, but divergence in male traits and female mate recognition does not automatically reduce the rate at which males attempt to mate with heterospecific females.…”

Section: Convergent Character Displacement and Competitive Mimicrymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aggressive and sexual interactions between species are surprisingly common and share many parallels in their causes and ecological and evolutionary effects [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Both types of behavioral interference (Box 1) have been hypothesized to: (i) arise as a byproduct of intraspecific interactions (Box 2); (ii) cause local extinction as well as temporal and spatial habitat partitioning; (iii) prevent species from coexisting that otherwise would be expected to coexist; (iv) enable coexistence between species that otherwise would not be expected to coexist; (v) promote or prevent species range shifts and the spread of invasive species; (vi) cause sympatric species to diverge or converge through character displacement processes; (vii) cause populations within a species to diverge from each other due to character displacement in areas of sympatry; and (viii) contribute to reproductive isolation and speciation ( Figure 1).…”

Section: Interspecific Aggression and Reproductive Interferencementioning

confidence: 99%

Causes and Consequences of Behavioral Interference between Species

Grether

Peiman

Tobias

et al. 2017

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

140

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral interference between species, such as territorial aggression, courtship, and mating, is widespread in animals. While aggressive and reproductive forms of interspecific interference have generally been studied separately, their many parallels and connections warrant a unified conceptual approach. Substantial evidence exists that aggressive and reproductive interference have pervasive effects on species coexistence, range limits, and evolutionary processes, including divergent and convergent forms of character displacement. Alien species invasions and climate change-induced range shifts result in novel interspecific interactions, heightening the importance of predicting the consequences of species interactions, and behavioral interference is a fundamental but neglected part of the equation. Here, we outline priorities for further theoretical and empirical research on the ecological and evolutionary consequences of behavioral interference. Interspecific Aggression and Reproductive InterferenceFew subjects in animal behavior have attracted more attention than aggression and sex, yet research tends to stop at species boundaries even when the behaviors themselves do not. Aggressive and sexual interactions between species are surprisingly common and share many parallels in their causes and ecological and evolutionary effects [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Both types of behavioral interference (Box 1) have been hypothesized to: (i) arise as a byproduct of intraspecific interactions (Box 2); (ii) cause local extinction as well as temporal and spatial habitat partitioning; (iii) prevent species from coexisting that otherwise would be expected to coexist; (iv) enable coexistence between species that otherwise would not be expected to coexist; (v) promote or prevent species range shifts and the spread of invasive species; (vi) cause sympatric species to diverge or converge through character displacement processes; (vii) cause populations within a species to diverge from each other due to character displacement in areas of sympatry; and (viii) contribute to reproductive isolation and speciation ( Figure 1).Despite their connections, aggressive interference and reproductive interference (see Glossary) have largely been studied by different researchers in relation to different theoretical frameworks [2,4,7] and in different study systems [3], even though many closely related species interfere with each other in both ways (see Table S1 in [8]). We do not believe that these two categories of interspecific interactions should be synonymized, because this would obscure important differences between them. Instead, we propose that their similarities and interrelationships merit a common conceptual framework, which we introduce here ( Figure 1). TrendsAggressive and reproductive forms of behavioral interference between species are widespread in animals and share many parallels in their underlying causes and their ecological and evolutionary effects.Behavioral interference can determine whether species coexist and, thus, affects speci...

show abstract

“…For example, persistent courtship by invasive Trinidadian guppies toward native Mexican goodeid fish may be contributing to the decline of native fish (Valero, Macias Garcia, & Magurran, 2008). Because biological invasions abruptly introduce and eventually increase the abundance of foreign species into local native communities, they provide potential natural laboratories for studying effects of reproductive interference (Remnant et al., 2014), but few studies have explored this possibility directly, and the broader ecological and evolutionary effects of reproductive interference remain poorly understood (Burdfield‐Steel & Shuker, 2011). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproductive interference by male Drosophila subobscura on female D. persimilis: A laboratory experiment

Manzano‐Winkler

Hish

Aarons

et al. 2017

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While females often reject courtship attempts by heterospecific males, reproductive interference by harassment from such males can nonetheless occur, potentially reducing female fitness. Such effects may be profound following a range expansion, when males from a new species may suddenly encounter (and perhaps even become abundant relative to) females of related native species. Drosophila subobscura recently invaded North America and may impact native species through reproductive interference and other processes. We test for the potential for reproductive interference by D. subobscura males on D. persimilis females in the laboratory. D. subobscura males aggressively copulated with D. persimilis females, including many females that exhibit rejection behaviors. Despite females attempting to dismount the males, the heterospecific copulations are on average longer than conspecific copulations, and females exhibit some reluctance to remate with conspecific males following this harassment. Females confined with both conspecific and heterospecific males produce fewer adult progeny than those with either conspecific males only or with conspecific males and distantly related D. simulans males that do not engage in female harassment. Overall, our results illustrate how reproductive interference by an invasive species can have negative effects on resident natural populations.

show abstract

Reproductive interference

Cited by 87 publications

References 8 publications

Incomplete species recognition entails few costs in spider mites, despite first-male precedence

Incomplete species recognition entails few costs in spider mites, despite first-male precedence

Causes and Consequences of Behavioral Interference between Species

Reproductive interference by male Drosophila subobscura on female D. persimilis: A laboratory experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About