Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
speciation_and_plasticity [2013/02/14 10:39] – [Literature Review] mkopp | speciation_and_plasticity [2019/03/21 09:21] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
===== Background and general question ===== | ===== Background and general question ===== | ||
- | * Speciation is a key topic in evolutionary biology (e.g. Coyne and Orr), and one in which mathematical modeling has for a long time played | + | * Speciation |
- | * Traditionally, | + | * The reason is that speciation |
- | * Another | + | * Here, we propose to develop mathematical models that will shed light on a topic of much recent |
- | * Plasticity | + | * A **species** is most commonly defined as a group inter-fertile individuals that cannot reproduce with members of other species (Mayr 1942). Thus, understanding speciation requires understanding the evolution of reproductive isolation. |
- | * Recently, plasticity has been advertised by some as a centerpiece of an " | + | * According to the traditional view, speciation almost always requires a geographic barrier separating the range of an ancestral species (allopatric speciation). Two independently evolving subpopulations will then diverge between the nascent species (allopatric speciation) and become more and more incompatible, |
- | * General thrust: Plasticity | + | * However, there is mounting evidence for the opposing view that speciation is also without a strict geographic barrier (parapatric or sympatric speciation). Such " |
- | * Wrt speciation, plasticity is thought to facilitate phenotypic/ | + | |
+ | * **Phenotypic plasticity** | ||
+ | * Recently, plasticity has been advertised by some as a centerpiece of an " | ||
+ | * The main argument is that plasticity | ||
+ | * In the context | ||
* However, many proposed scenarios rely on verbal models, and many details remain unclear. This is particularly true for scenarios involving plasticity in an ecological adaptation trait (but see Thibert-Plante and Hendry 2011). | * However, many proposed scenarios rely on verbal models, and many details remain unclear. This is particularly true for scenarios involving plasticity in an ecological adaptation trait (but see Thibert-Plante and Hendry 2011). | ||
* Open questions include: | * Open questions include: | ||
Line 15: | Line 19: | ||
* Under what conditions does plasticity facilitate or impede the evolution of reproductive isolation in the presence of gene flow? | * Under what conditions does plasticity facilitate or impede the evolution of reproductive isolation in the presence of gene flow? | ||
* If plastic traits themselves contribute to RI, what are the interactions between the evolution of environmentally and genetically induced reproductive barriers (see Fitzpatrick 2012)? | * If plastic traits themselves contribute to RI, what are the interactions between the evolution of environmentally and genetically induced reproductive barriers (see Fitzpatrick 2012)? | ||
- | |||
===== Outline of project ===== | ===== Outline of project ===== | ||
Line 39: | Line 42: | ||
==== Secondary-contact scenario ==== | ==== Secondary-contact scenario ==== | ||
- | * | + | * First scenario: Divergence phase (step 2) happens in allopatry |
- | === Step 1: Genetic versus plastic divergence === | + | * That is, plasticity evolves (or is already present), then two subpopulations continue to evolve in constant habitats, which should lead to a loss of plasticity and accumulation of genetic differences. Then, secondary contact is established, |
+ | * Verbal models predict evolution of assortative mating and maintenance of genetic differentiation. | ||
+ | * An alternative outcome might be a loss of genetic differentiation and a return to plasticity. | ||
+ | * We study this scenario under various assumptions: | ||
+ | * Model of plasticity: | ||
+ | * Continuous reaction norm | ||
+ | * Threshold trait | ||
+ | * Developmental network | ||
+ | * Mechanism of assortative mating: | ||
+ | * Magic-trait, | ||
+ | * Female preference for magic trait (2-allele) | ||
+ | * Female preference for independent signal trait? | ||
+ | * Spatial structure: complete sympatry or limited gene-flow after secondary contact | ||
+ | * Key questions include: | ||
+ | * What will happen to plasticity after secondary contact? | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Divergence with gene-flow ==== | ||
+ | * Here, we will study speciation without an allopatric phase | ||
+ | * Nevertheless, | ||
+ | * ... and expression of plasticity may itself lead to a reduction in gene flow (plastic magic trait) | ||
+ | * Previous models: Gavrilets and Vose 2007, Thibert-Plante and Hendry 2011 | ||
+ | * We will follow these approaches by analyzing a model with the following ingredients: | ||
+ | * Two habitat types, connected by migration | ||
+ | * Plastic and genetic adaptation possible | ||
+ | * Ecological trait may influence mate choice | ||
+ | * Female preference and/or choosiness may evolve | ||
+ | * In contrast to Thibert-Plante and Hendry (2009), we will focus on scenarios that allow for the evolution of assortative mating | ||
+ | * Key questions: | ||
+ | * Interaction between plastic and genetic barriers to gene-flow | ||
+ | * Interaction between evolution of assortative mating and evolution of plasticity (e.g., AM might increase reliability of genetic cues, sensu Leimar et al. 2006) | ||
+ | * Methods: Population-genetics modeling, coupled with adaptive dynamics; stochastic individual-based simulations | ||
+ | === Old version: Genetic versus plastic divergence === | ||
* The DPHS proposes that genetic divergence is preceded by the evolution of a purely plastic polyphenism. | * The DPHS proposes that genetic divergence is preceded by the evolution of a purely plastic polyphenism. | ||
* This has a simple explanation if plasticity is the ancestral state of a lineage encountering a variable environment, | * This has a simple explanation if plasticity is the ancestral state of a lineage encountering a variable environment, | ||
Line 50: | Line 84: | ||
* Are the results compatible with the predictions by Leimar et al. (2006)? | * Are the results compatible with the predictions by Leimar et al. (2006)? | ||
- | === Step 2: Ecological plasticity and the evolution of reproductive isolation === | + | === Old version: Ecological plasticity and the evolution of reproductive isolation === |
* The DPHS assumes plasticity in an ecological trait (an character conferring ecological adaptation). Our aim will be to study how such plasticity influences the evolution of prezygotic reproductive isolation. | * The DPHS assumes plasticity in an ecological trait (an character conferring ecological adaptation). Our aim will be to study how such plasticity influences the evolution of prezygotic reproductive isolation. | ||
* To our knowledge, the only model on this subject is by Thibert-Plante and Hendry (2009). These authors assume ... Importantly, | * To our knowledge, the only model on this subject is by Thibert-Plante and Hendry (2009). These authors assume ... Importantly, |