Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conflicting intersexual mate choices maintain interspecific sexual interactions

  • Special Feature: Original Article
  • Reproductive Interference
  • Published:
Population Ecology

Abstract

Reproductive interference, interspecific sexual interactions that affect reproductive success, is found in various taxa and has been considered as a fundamental source of reproductive character displacement (RCD). Once RCD has occurred, persistent interspecific sexual interactions between species pairs are expected to diminish. However, reproductive interference has been reported from some species pairs that sympatrically coexist. Thus, the question arises, can reproductive interference persist even after RCD? We modeled the evolutionary dynamics of signal traits and mate recognition that determine whether interspecific sexual interactions occur. Our models incorporate male decision making based on the recognition of signal traits, whereas most previous models incorporate only female decision making in mate selection. Our models predict the following: (1) even when male decision making is incorporated, males remain promiscuous; (2) nevertheless, the frequency of interspecific mating is maintained at a low level after trait divergence; (3) the rarity of interspecific mating is due to strict female mate recognition and the consequent refusal of interspecific courtship by females; and (4) the frequency of interspecific mating becomes higher as the cost to females of refusing interspecific courtship increases. These predictions are consistent with empirical observations that males of some species engage in infrequent heterospecific mating. Thus, our models predict that reproductive interference can persist even after RCD occurred.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersson MB (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman AJ (1948) Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crudgington HS, Siva-Jothy MT (2000) Genital damage, kicking and early death. Nature 407:855–856

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • D’Amore A, Kirby E, Hemingway V (2009) Reproductive interference by an invasive species: an evolutionary trap? Herpetol Conserv Biol 4:325–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Dame EA, Petren K (2006) Behavioural mechanisms of invasion and displacement in Pacific island geckos (Hemidactylus). Anim Behav 71:1165–1173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dukas R (2004) Male fruit flies learn to avoid interspecific courtship. Behav Ecol 15:695–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavrilets S (2004) Fitness landscape and the origin of species. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC (1994) Reproductive character displacement of female mate choice in the grey treefrog, Hyla chrysoscelis. Anim Behav 47:959–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gröning J, Hochkirch A (2008) Reproductive interference between animal species. Q Rev Biol 83:257–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gröning J, Lücke N, Finger A, Hochkirch A (2007) Reproductive interference in two ground-hopper species: testing hypotheses of coexistence in the field. Oikos 116:1449–1460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hettyey A, Pearman PB (2003) Social environment and reproductive interference affect reproductive success in the frog Rana latastei. Behav Ecol 14:294–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochkirch A, Bücker A, Gröning J (2008) Reproductive interference between the common ground-hopper Tetrix undulata and the slender ground-hopper Tetrix subulata (Orthoptera, Tetrigidae). Bull Entomol Res 98:605–612

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Howard DJ (1999) Conspecific sperm and pollen precedence and speciation. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:109–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick M, Servedio MR (1999) The reinforcement of mating preference on an island. Genetics 151:865–884

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kishi S, Nishida T, Tsubaki Y (2009) Reproductive interference determines persistence and exclusion in species interactions. J Anim Ecol 78:1043–1049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Konuma J, Chiba S (2007) Ecological character displacement caused by reproductive interference. J Theor Biol 247:354–364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kraak SB, Bakker TC (1998) Mutual mate choice in sticklebacks: attractive males choose big females, which lay big eggs. Anim Behav 56:859–866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuno E (1992) Competitive exclusion through reproductive interference. Res Popul Ecol 34:275–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyogoku D (2015) Reproductive interference: ecological and evolutionary consequences of interspecific promiscuity. Popul Ecol doi:10.1007/s10144-015-0486-1

  • Lande R (1976) Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution. Evolution 30:314–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liou LW, Price TD (1994) Speciation by reinforcement of premating isolation. Evolution 48:1451–1459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu SS, De Barro PJ, Xu J, Luan JB, Zang LS, Ruan YM, Wan FH (2007) Asymmetric mating interactions drive widespread invasion and displacement in a whitefly. Science 318:1769–1772

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Magnhagen C (1991) Predation risk as a cost of reproduction. Trends Ecol Evol 6:183–186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall JL, Arnold ML, Howard DJ (2002) Reinforcement: the road not taken. Trends Ecol Evol 17:558–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLain DK, Pratt AE (1999) The cost of sexual coercion and heterospecific sexual harassment on the fecundity of a host-specific, seed-eating insect (Neacoryphus bicrucis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:164–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPeek MA, Gavrilets S (2006) The evolution of female mating preferences: differentiation from species with promiscuous males can promote speciation. Evolution 60:1967–1980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Noriyuki S, Osawa N, Nishida T (2012) Asymmetric reproductive interference between specialist and generalist predatory ladybirds. J Anim Ecol 81:1077–1085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Okamoto KW, Grether GF (2013) The evolution of species recognition in competitive and mating contexts: the relative efficacy of alternative mechanisms of character displacement. Ecol Lett 16:670–678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfennig KS, Pfennig DW (2009) Character displacement: ecological and reproductive responses to a common evolutionary problem. Q Rev Biol 84:253–276

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro JMC, Spielman A (1986) The Satyr effect: a model predicting parapatry and species extinction. Am Nat 128:513–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Servedio MR, Kirkpatrick M (1997) The effects of gene flow on reinforcement. Evolution 51:1764–1772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon BC (1993) Sexually transmitted disease in birds: occurrence and evolutionary significance. Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci 339:491–497

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shuker DM, Currie N, Hoole T, Burdfield-Steel ER (2015) The extent and costs of reproductive interference among four species of true bug. Popul Ecol. doi:10.1007/s10144-014-0470-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Smadja C, Ganem G (2005) Asymmetrical reproductive character displacement in the house mouse. J Evol Biol 18:1485–1493

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Takakura KI, Fujii S (2015) Island biogeography as a test of reproductive interference. Popul Ecol doi:10.1007/s10144-015-0489-y

  • Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and descent of man, 1871–1971. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, pp 136–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Waage JK (1979) Reproductive character displacement in Calopteryx (Odonata: Calopterygidae). Evolution 33:104–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang P, Crowder DW, Liu SS (2012) Roles of mating behavioural interactions and life history traits in the competition between alien and indigenous whiteflies. Bull Entomol Res 102:395–405

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman M, Koepfer HR (1977) Character displacement for sexual isolation between Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonensis. Evolution 31:812–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson PJ, Stallmann RR, Arnqvist G (1998) Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Am Nat 151:46–58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whalen MD (1978) Reproductive character displacement and floral diversity in Solanum section Androceras. Syst Bot 3:77–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are deeply grateful to Daisuke Kyogoku for his valuable comments to our manuscript. This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B, No. 19770023) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Koh-Ichi Takakura

    Present address: School of Environmental Sciences, The University of Shiga Prefecture, 2500 Hassaka-cho, Hikone, 522-0057, Japan

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Osaka City Institute of Public Health and Environmental Science, 8-34 Tojo-cho, Tennoji-Ku, Osaka, 543-0026, Japan

    Koh-Ichi Takakura

  2. Department of Ecosystem Studies, The University of Shiga Prefecture, Hikone, Shiga, 522-8533, Japan

    Takayoshi Nishida

  3. Faculty of Sociology, St. Andrew’s University, Manabino, Izumi, 594-1198, Japan

    Keisuke Iwao

Authors
  1. Koh-Ichi Takakura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Takayoshi Nishida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Keisuke Iwao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koh-Ichi Takakura.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Takakura, KI., Nishida, T. & Iwao, K. Conflicting intersexual mate choices maintain interspecific sexual interactions. Popul Ecol 57, 261–271 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-015-0492-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-015-0492-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation