4.2 Article

Role of parasite load and differential habitat preferences in maintaining the coexistence of sexual and asexual competitors in fish of the Cobitis taenia hybrid complex

期刊

BIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 113, 期 1, 页码 220-235

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/bij.12329

关键词

diploid-polyploid complexes; European distribution; habitat partitioning; niche shift; parasite-mediated coexistence; Red Queen hypothesis; spined loach; unisexuality

资金

  1. National Science Centre (NCN), Poland [DEC-2011/03/B/NZ8/02095]
  2. Grant Agency of the Czech Republic [206-09-1298, P505/12/G112, P506/13/12580S]
  3. Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics [RVO: 67985904]
  4. Institute of Environmental Technologies [CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0100 IET]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the context of the paradoxical ubiquity of sex, we tested whether stable coexistence of sexual and asexual fish of the genus Cobitis is mediated by parasites, as asexual fish suffer more from parasitic infections because of their lower genetic variability [the Red Queen hypothesis (RQH)], or by partial niche shift of the two strains differing in mode of reproduction. We did not find a clear correlation between infection risk with a helminth parasite and the proportion of sexuals, and we found similar infection rates among sexual females and co-occurring asexuals in general, including the most frequent clone in particular. These results suggest that the mechanisms of the RQH are not directly engaged in stabilizing this asexual complex. On the other hand, the temporally stable gradient in sexual/asexual proportions along the river correlated with gradients in environmental parameters (physicochemical water parameters, velocity, and shading of the habitat) and turnover in the fish assemblage structure. Sexual and asexual forms thus appear to prefer different habitats. The Cobitis teania asexual complex thus contributes to the view that persistence of sex may, as in many taxa, be driven by case-specific processes. (C) 2014 The Linnean Society of London,

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

4.2
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