4.5 Article

Do sexually selected weapons drive diversification?

期刊

EVOLUTION
卷 75, 期 10, 页码 2411-2424

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/evo.14212

关键词

Diversification; female choice; insects; male‐ male competition; sexual selection; speciation; weapons

资金

  1. NSF [DBI-1907051]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have suggested that male-male competition may not have strong, general effects on speciation and diversification in insects.
Sexual selection is often thought to promote speciation. This expectation is largely driven by the fact that sexually selected traits can influence mating patterns and contribute to reproductive isolation. Indeed, some comparative studies have shown that clades with sexually selected traits have increased rates of speciation and diversification. However, these studies have almost exclusively focused on one mechanism of sexual selection: female choice. Another widespread mechanism is male-male competition. Few empirical studies (if any) have investigated the role of this alternative mechanism in driving diversification. Nevertheless, recent reviews have suggested that male-male competition can increase speciation rates. Here, we investigated whether traits associated with precopulatory male-male competition (i.e., sexually selected weapons) have promoted speciation and diversification in insects. We focused on three clades with both weapons and suitable phylogenies: leaf-footed and broad-headed bugs (Coreidae+Alydidae; similar to 2850 species), stick insects and relatives (Phasmatodea; similar to 3284 species), and scarab beetles (Scarabaeoidea; similar to 39,717 species). We found no evidence that weapon-bearing lineages in these clades have higher rates of speciation or diversification than their weaponless relatives. Thus, our results suggest that precopulatory male-male competition may not have strong, general effects on speciation and diversification in insects, a group encompassing similar to 60% of all described species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据