Interspecific territoriality occurs when individuals of different species fight over space, and may arise spontaneously when populations of closely related territorial species first come into contact. But defence of space is costly, and unless the benefits of excluding heterospecifics exceed the costs, natural selection should favour divergence in competitor recognition until the species no longer interact aggressively. Ordinarily males of different species do not compete for mates, but when males cannot distinguish females of sympatric species, females may effectively become a shared resource. We model how reproductive interference caused by undiscriminating males can prevent interspecific divergence, or even cause convergence, in traits used to recognize competitors. We then test the model in a genus of visually orienting insects and show that, as predicted by the model, differences between species pairs in the level of reproductive interference, which is causally related to species differences in female coloration, are strongly predictive of the current level of interspecific aggression. Interspecific reproductive interference is very common and we discuss how it may account for the persistence of interspecific aggression in many taxonomic groups.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,282,099
of 32,718,554 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#2,726
of 12,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,411
of 299,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#58
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,718,554 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 42.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 184 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
