Reproductive interference in laboratory experiments of interspecific competition

Kishi, Shigeki

doi:10.1007/s10144-014-0455-0

Cited by 37 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 136 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Behavioral Interference In Competition Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent review of competition experiments on bean beetles (Callosobruchus), flour beetles (Tribolium), and fruit flies (Drosophila) concluded that outcomes originally attributed to resource competition were likely caused by a combination of resource competition and reproductive interference [41]. In fact, in Drosophila and Callosobruchus, asymmetries in reproductive interference evidently outweighed asymmetries in resource competition [41].…”

Section: Behavioral Interference In Competition Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, in Drosophila and Callosobruchus, asymmetries in reproductive interference evidently outweighed asymmetries in resource competition [41]. In general, the presence of frequency dependence and priority effects in competition experiments implicates behavioral interference, because such effects are not expected under exploitative resource competition alone [20,22,41].Species Range Limits, Invasions, and Replacements Aggressive interactions between species are usually asymmetric [42] and this can have a major role in determining species range limits [7,[43][44][45][46]. On the mountains of Costa Rica and Panama, the singing mouse Scotinomys teguina is abruptly replaced by the larger Scotinomys xerampelinus above a certain elevation (Figure 2 [18]).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Behavioral Interference In Competition Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Behavioral Interference In Competition Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

show abstract

“…In interspecific competition between two bean beetle species, Callosobruchus chinensis and C. maculatus, critical competitive behaviours affecting competition dynamics are identified as resource competition (RC) and reproductive interference (RI) (Bellows and Hassell 1984, Ishii and Shimada 2008, Kishi et al 2009, Kishi 2015 Fig. 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying critical interactions in complex competition dynamics between bean beetles

Kawatsu

Kishi

2017

Oikos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identifying behavioural basis of competitive relationship is essential to understand outcome of interspecific competition. However, it remains difficult to investigate demographic effect of competitive behaviour, because various kinds of behaviours may co-occur in the competition and make the dynamics far complicated in nonlinear ways. We report that the behavioural basis of interspecific interaction can be identified, by focusing on the timescale difference from the occurrence of each behaviour to the appearance of its demographic effect. Between two bean beetles, Callosobruchus chinensis and C. maculatus, major interspecific interactions are resource competition (RC) at the larval stage and reproductive interference (RI) at the adult stage. RC has longer time lag than RI, because effect of RC appears in the adult number of the next generation through larval competition while effect of RI appears instantaneously in the adult number through early death of females. If we detect two effects with different time lags from the competition dynamics, an effect with intergenerational time lag and with no time lag would be considered as RC and RI, respectively. We applied empirical dynamic modelling approach, which is a nonlinear time series analysis for detecting causal interactions and the strength, to two published datasets of experimental competition between those beetles. Results showed the significant causality from the winner species to the loser one in both experiments, but the causality time lag differed between experiments: the causality had no time lag in the C. chinensis-win data, while intergenerational time lag in C. maculatus-win data. Furthermore, detection of the causality with intergenerational time lag from C. maculatus to C. chinensis in both experiments suggests interplay of constant RC and variable RI which can reverse the outcome. This study is the first successful case study that links behavioural-level interactions to demographic-level effects in interspecific competition.

show abstract

“…However, the same invasive species appears to be replacing the native UK crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes) via competitive exclusion for refugia (Dunn et al 2009). Perhaps unsurprisingly therefore, we may well need to understand the mating biology of the particular species involved, plus other aspects of niche partitioning and resource competition, before we will be able to draw general conclusions about the occurrence and evolutionary and ecological consequences of RI (see also Kishi 2014). While the finding that L. equestris females experienced RI with S. pandurus males but not O. fasciatus males seems to support the hypothesis that RI is more likely between closely related species (the exact phylogeny of the Lygaeidae remains unclear, however S. pandurus was originally classified as part of the genus Lygaeus and is therefore likely to be more closely related to L. equestris than O. fasciatus), there could be many other factors contributing to this pattern and further investigation is needed before any conclusions can be drawn.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The extent and costs of reproductive interference among four species of true bug

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reproductive interference arises when individuals of one species engage in reproductive activities with individuals of another, leading to fitness costs in one or both species. Reproductive interference (RI) therefore has two components. First, there must be mis-directed mating interactions. Second, there must be costs associated with these mis-directed interactions. Here we consider RI between four species of true bug in the family Lygaeidae, focusing in particular on the fitness consequences to Lygaeus equestris. The species we consider vary in their relationships with each other, including species in the same or different genus, and with or without natural overlap in their geographic ranges. First we show that inter-specific mating interactions, although not a certain outcome, are common enough to perhaps influence mating behaviour in these species (arising in up to 10 % of inter-specific pairings). Second, we show that reproductive interference can seriously reduce female fitness in L. equestris. Importantly, different species impose different costs of RI on L. equestris, with interactions with male Spilostethus pandurus inflicting fitness costs of similar magnitude to the costs of mating with con-specifics. On the other hand, mating interactions with male Oncopeltus fasciatus appear to have no effect on female fitness. In a follow-up experiment, when we allowed competition amongst just females of S. pandurus and L. equestris, the fitness of the latter was not reduced, arguing more strongly for the role of reproductive interference. However, in our final experiments under mass mating conditions with extended ecological interactions (including scope for competition for resources and cannibalism), the costs of RI were less apparent. Our data therefore suggest that the costs of RI will be contextspecific and may act in concert with, or be swamped by, other ecological effects. We suggest that comparative studies of this sort that both mimic naturally occurring reproductive interference events, and also artificially generate new ones, will be necessary if we are to better understand the ecological and evolutionary significance of reproductive interference.

show abstract

Reproductive interference in laboratory experiments of interspecific competition

Cited by 37 publications

References 136 publications

Causes and Consequences of Behavioral Interference between Species

Causes and Consequences of Behavioral Interference between Species

Identifying critical interactions in complex competition dynamics between bean beetles

The extent and costs of reproductive interference among four species of true bug

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About