Author
Listed:
- Felipe Dargent
- Lisa Chen
- Gregor F Fussmann
- Cameron K Ghalambor
- Andrew P Hendry
Abstract
Progress toward local adaptation is expected to be enhanced when divergent selection is multidimensional, because many simultaneous sources of selection can increase the total strength of selection and enhance the number of independent traits under selection. Yet, whether local adaptation ensues from multidimensional selection also depends on its potential to cause the build-up of reproductive barriers such as sexual signals and preference for these signals. We used replicate experimental introductions of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) in nature to test whether an abrupt and dramatic shift in multiple important ecological dimensions (at a minimum: parasitism, predation, and diet/resources) promoted the contemporary evolution of assortative mating. After 8–12 postintroduction guppy generations in the wild, we bred descendants of each population in a common-garden laboratory environment for 2 generations, after which we recorded the preferences of females from each population for males from all populations. We found contemporary evolution of male traits (size, body condition, color) that should influence mate choice, but no evidence for the occurrence of positive assortative preferences. That is, females in a given evolving population did not prefer males from that population over males from other populations. Instead, females tended to prefer novel males (i.e., disassortative mating), which likely acts as a mechanism preventing the evolution of reproductive isolation. Preferences for novelty may explain why many cases of local adaptation do not lead to the evolution of reproductive barriers and ecological speciation.
Suggested Citation
Felipe Dargent & Lisa Chen & Gregor F Fussmann & Cameron K Ghalambor & Andrew P Hendry, 2019.
"Female preference for novel males constrains the contemporary evolution of assortative mating in guppies,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(3), pages 646-657.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:30:y:2019:i:3:p:646-657.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:30:y:2019:i:3:p:646-657.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.