Title |
Polygamy slows down population divergence in shorebirds
|
---|---|
Published in |
Evolution, April 2017
|
DOI | 10.1111/evo.13212 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Josephine D'Urban Jackson, Natalie dos Remedios, Kathryn H. Maher, Sama Zefania, Susan Haig, Sara Oyler‐McCance, Donald Blomqvist, Terry Burke, Michael W. Bruford, Tamás Székely, Clemens Küpper |
Abstract |
Sexual selection may act as a promotor of speciation since divergent mate choice and competition for mates can rapidly lead to reproductive isolation. Alternatively, sexual selection may also retard speciation since polygamous individuals can access additional mates by increased breeding dispersal. High breeding dispersal should hence increase gene flow and reduce diversification in polygamous species. Here we test how polygamy predicts diversification in shorebirds using genetic differentiation and subspecies richness as proxies for population divergence. Examining microsatellite data from 79 populations in ten plover species (Genus: Charadrius) we found that polygamous species display significantly less genetic structure and weaker isolation-by-distance effects than monogamous species. Consistent with this result, a comparative analysis including 136 shorebird species showed significantly fewer subspecies for polygamous than for monogamous species. By contrast, migratory behaviour neither predicted genetic differentiation nor subspecies richness. Taken together, our results suggest that dispersal associated with polygamy may facilitate gene flow and limit population divergence. Therefore, intense sexual selection, as occurs in polygamous species, may act as a brake rather than an engine of speciation in shorebirds. We discuss alternative explanations for these results and call for further studies to understand the relationships between sexual selection, dispersal and diversification. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 9 | 14% |
United States | 5 | 8% |
Germany | 3 | 5% |
Spain | 2 | 3% |
Colombia | 2 | 3% |
Canada | 2 | 3% |
Portugal | 1 | 2% |
Australia | 1 | 2% |
Morocco | 1 | 2% |
Other | 3 | 5% |
Unknown | 36 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 41 | 63% |
Scientists | 18 | 28% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 6 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Portugal | 2 | 2% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 118 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 18% |
Student > Master | 19 | 15% |
Researcher | 17 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 16 | 13% |
Other | 9 | 7% |
Other | 16 | 13% |
Unknown | 24 | 20% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 68 | 55% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 11% |
Environmental Science | 9 | 7% |
Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | <1% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 30 | 24% |