How to go extinct by mating too much: population consequences of male mate choice and efficiency in a sexual–asexual species complex

Selection acting on individuals is not predicted to maximize population persistence, yet examples that explicitly quantify conflicts between individual and population level benefits are scarce. One such conflict occurs over sexual reproduction because of the cost of sex: sexual populations that suffer the cost of producing males have only half the growth rate compared to asexuals. Male behaviour can additionally impact population dynamics in a variety of ways, and here we study an example where the impact is unusually clear: the riddle of persistence of sperm-dependent sexualasexual species complexes. Here, a sexually reproducing host species coexists with an ameiotically reproducing all-female sperm parasite. Sexualasexual coexistence should not be stable because the proportion of asexually reproducing females will rapidly increase and the relative abundance of the sexually reproducing host species will decline. A severe shortage of males will lead to sperm limitation for sexual and asexual females and the system collapses. Male mate choice could reduce the reproductive potential of the asexual species and thus potentially prevent the collapse. In the gynogenetic (spermdependent parthenogenetic) Amazon molly Poecilia formosa and its host (P. latipinna or P. mexicana), males discriminate against asexual females to some extent. Using a population-dynamical model, we examine the population dynamics of this species complex with varying strengths of male discrimination ability and efficiency with which they locate females and produce sperm. The sexual species would benefit from stronger discrimination, thus preventing being displaced by the asexual females. However, males would be required to evolve preferences that are probably too strong to be purely based upon selection acting on individuals. We conclude that male behaviour does not fully prevent but delays extinction, yet this is highly relevant because low local extinction rates strongly promote coexistence as a metapopulation.

[1]  M. Schartl,et al.  Male Mate Choice in Mixed Bisexual/Unisexual Breeding Complexes of Poecilia (Teleostei: Poeciliidae) , 2010 .

[2]  I. Schlupp,et al.  Seasonal plasticity in male mating preferences in sailfin mollies , 2008 .

[3]  Cedric O’Driscoll Worman,et al.  Getting to the hart of the matter: did antlers truly cause the extinction of the Irish elk? , 2008 .

[4]  I. Schlupp,et al.  Male Fish Deceive Competitors about Mating Preferences , 2008, Current Biology.

[5]  Michael J. Ryan,et al.  Geographic variation in female mate-copying in the species complex of a unisexual fish, Poecilia formosa , 2008 .

[6]  I. Schlupp,et al.  Female sperm limitation in natural populations of a sexual/asexual mating complex (Poecilia latipinna, Poecilia formosa) , 2008, Biology Letters.

[7]  M. Plath,et al.  Influence of male harassment and female competition on female feeding behaviour in a sexual–asexual mating complex of mollies (Poecilia mexicana, P. formosa) , 2008, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[8]  D. Rankin,et al.  How populations persist when asexuality requires sex: the spatial dynamics of coping with sperm parasites , 2008, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[9]  D. Rankin,et al.  SEXUAL DIMORPHISM IS ASSOCIATED WITH POPULATION FITNESS IN THE SEED BEETLE CALLOSOBRUCHUS MACULATUS , 2008, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[10]  D. Rankin.  Can punishment maintain sex , 2008 .

[11]  D. Rankin,et al.  The tragedy of the commons in evolutionary biology. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[12]  A. Hochkirch,et al.  Sympatry with the devil: reproductive interference could hamper species coexistence. , 2007, The Journal of animal ecology.

[13]  L. Simmons,et al.  Male Crickets Adjust the Viability of Their Sperm in Response to Female Mating Status , 2007, The American Naturalist.

[14]  M. A. Ball,et al.  Sperm competition games: the risk model can generate higher sperm allocation to virgin females , 2007, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[15]  K. Foster,et al.  What can microbial genetics teach sociobiology? , 2007, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[16]  D. Rankin,et al.  Do males matter? The role of males in population dynamics , 2007 .

[17]  C. Fricke,et al.  RAPID ADAPTATION TO A NOVEL HOST IN A SEED BEETLE (CALLOSOBRUCHUS MACULATUS): THE ROLE OF SEXUAL SELECTION , 2007, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[18]  A. Agrawal.  Evolution of Sex: Why Do Organisms Shuffle Their Genotypes? , 2006, Current Biology.

[19]  W. Rice,et al.  Evidence for adaptive male mate choice in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[20]  R. Lande,et al.  POPULATION GENETIC MODELS OF MALE AND MUTUAL MATE CHOICE , 2006, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[21]  Andreas Wagner,et al.  Periodic extinctions of transposable elements in bacterial lineages: evidence from intragenomic variation in multiple genomes. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[22]  J. Clobert,et al.  Sex ratio bias, male aggression, and population collapse in lizards. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  I. Schlupp.  THE EVOLUTIONARY ECOLOGY OF GYNOGENESIS , 2005 .

[24]  I. Schlupp,et al.  Male mate choice and sperm allocation in a sexual/asexual mating complex of Poecilia (Poeciliidae, Teleostei) , 2005, Biology Letters.

[25]  C. Gabor,et al.  Asexuals looking for sex: conflict between species and mate-quality recognition in sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna) , 2005, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[26]  C. Fricke,et al.  Sexual selection and the risk of extinction in mammals , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[27]  C. Gabor,et al.  Discriminating males alter sperm production between species. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  Katja U. Heubel.  Population ecology and sexual preferences in the mating complex of the unisexual Amazon molly Poecilia formosa (GIRARD, 1859) , 2004 .

[29]  M. Gage,et al.  Prudent sperm allocation in Norway rats, Rattus norvegicus: a mammalian model of adaptive ejaculate adjustment , 2004, Animal Behaviour.

[30]  C. Patrick Doncaster,et al.  Population models of sperm-dependent parthenogenesis. , 2004, Journal of theoretical biology.

[31]  M. Neiman.  Physiological dependence on copulation in parthenogenetic females can reduce the cost of sex , 2004, Animal Behaviour.

[32]  K. Wilson,et al.  Soay rams target reproductive activity towards promiscuous females’ optimal insemination period , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[33]  E. H. Morrow,et al.  Sexual selection and the risk of extinction in birds , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[34]  Atle Mysterud,et al.  The role of males in the dynamics of ungulate populations , 2002 .

[35]  M. Hassell,et al.  Metapopulation structures affect persistence of predator–prey interactions , 2002 .

[36]  G. Parker,et al.  Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females , 2002 .

[37]  H. Kokko,et al.  Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. , 2002, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[38]  Joachim Kurtz,et al.  Cryptic male choice: sperm allocation strategies when female quality varies , 2002 .

[39]  M. Schartl,et al.  Biogeography of the Amazon molly, Poecilia formosa , 2002 .

[40]  R M Nisbet,et al.  Habitat structure and population persistence in an experimental community , 2001, Nature.

[41]  R. Bonduriansky.  The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence , 2001, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[42]  C. Gabor,et al.  Geographical variation in reproductive character displacement in mate choice by male sailfin mollies , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[43]  Kokko,et al.  Predicting the direction of sexual selection , 2001 .

[44]  Britton,et al.  Poor male function favours the coexistence of sexual and asexual relatives , 2001 .

[45]  A. Pilastro,et al.  Insemination efficiency of two alternative male mating tactics in the guppy Poecilia reticulata , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[46]  M. Holyoak,et al.  Effects of Introduced Mosquitofish and Bullfrogs on the Threatened California Red‐Legged Frog , 1999 .

[47]  P. Stockley.  Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection , 1999, Heredity.

[48]  R. Vrijenhoek,et al.  Evolutionary genetics and ecology of sperm‐dependent parthenogenesis , 1998 .

[49]  M. Ryan,et al.  Male mate preferences in a gynogenetic species complex of Amazon mollies , 1996, Animal Behaviour.

[50]  M. Holyoak,et al.  Persistence of an Extinction-Prone Predator-Prey Interaction Through Metapopulation Dynamics , 1996 .

[51]  R. Johnstone,et al.  MUTUAL MATE CHOICE AND SEX DIFFERENCES IN CHOOSINESS , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[52]  R. Vrijenhoek,et al.  Evolution of sexual mimicry in sperm‐dependent all‐female forms of Poeciliopsis (Pisces: Poeciliidae) , 1996 .

[53]  M. Schartl,et al.  EVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN OF A PARTHENOFORM, THE AMAZON MOLLY POECILIA FORMOSA, ON THE BASIS OF A MOLECULAR GENEALOGY , 1995, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[54]  M. Ryan,et al.  Benefit to male sailfin mollies of mating with heterospecific females. , 1994, Science.

[55]  J. Travis,et al.  POECILIA MEXICANA IS THE RECENT FEMALE PARENT OF THE UNISEXUAL FISH P. FORMOSA , 1991, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[56]  M. Lynch,et al.  MUTATION LOAD AND THE SURVIVAL OF SMALL POPULATIONS , 1990, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[57]  L. Kirkendall.  Sperm is a limiting resource in the pseudogamous bark beetle Ips acuminatus (Scolytidae) , 1990 .

[58]  A. Kondrashov.  Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction , 1988, Nature.

[59]  T. Kawecki.  UNISEXUAL/BISEXUAL BREEDING COMPLEXES IN POECILIIDAE: WHY DO MALES COPULATE WITH UNISEXUAL FEMALES? , 1988, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[60]  J. S. Balsano,et al.  Reproductive behavior and the maintenance of all-female Poecilia , 1985, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

[61]  N. Stenseth,et al.  ON THE EVOLUTION OF PSEUDOGAMY , 1985, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[62]  Keith Johnson,et al.  Quasiextinction Probabilities as a Measure of Impact on Population Growth , 1982 .

[63]  D. Dewsbury,et al.  Ejaculate Cost and Male Choice , 1982, The American Naturalist.

[64]  T. Nagylaki,et al.  Population dynamics of species with gynogenetic sibling species , 1981 .

[65]  J. S. Balsano,et al.  Sperm availability in naturally occurring bisexual-unisexual breeding complexes involvingPoecilia mexicana and the gynogenetic teleost,Poecilia formosa , 1981, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

[66]  J. S. Balsano,et al.  Reduction of competition between bisexual and unisexual females ofPoecilia in northeastern Mexico , 1981, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

[67]  T. Bellows.  The Descriptive Properties of Some Models for Density Dependence , 1981 .

[68]  Robert M. May,et al.  Patterns of Dynamical Behaviour in Single-Species Populations , 1976 .

[69]  George C. Williams,et al.  Sex and evolution. , 1975, Monographs in population biology.

[70]  P. Feldman.  Evolution of sex , 1975, Nature.

[71]  W. Moore,et al.  Coexistence in unisexual-bisexual species complexes of Poeciliopsis (Pisces: Poeciliidae) , 1971 .

[72]  R. Darnell,et al.  Distribution of the Gynogenetic Fish, Poecilia formosa , with Remarks on the Evolution of the Species , 1968 .

[73]  M. Kimura,et al.  Evolution in Sexual and Asexual Populations , 1965, The American Naturalist.

[74]  C. Hubbs,et al.  APPARENT PARTHENOGENESIS IN NATURE, IN A FORM OF FISH OF HYBRID ORIGIN. , 1932, Science.

[75]  J. Dagg.  Could sex be maintained through harmful males , 2006 .

[76]  S. Bauer,et al.  Sexual harassment in heterogeneous landscapes can mediate population regulation in a grasshopper , 2005 .

[77]  H. Kokko,et al.  Male adaptive stupidity: male mating pattern in hybridogenetic frogs , 2005 .

[78]  H. Kokko,et al.  Sexy to die for? Sexual selection and the risk of extinction , 2003 .

[79]  R. H.J.MULLE.  THE RELATION OF RECOMBINATION TO MUTATIONAL ADVANCE , 2002 .

[80]  Michael J. Ryan,et al.  Male Sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna) copy the mate choice of other males , 1997 .

[81]  C. Hubbs.  Interactions between a bisexual fish species and its gynogenetic sexual parasite , 1964 .

[82]  W. Clanton.  An unusual situation in the salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum (Green) , 1934 .