4.4 Article

Sex-specific dispersal and evolutionary rescue in metapopulations infected by male killing endosymbionts

期刊

BMC EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-9-16

关键词

-

资金

  1. DB
  2. Wurzburg University
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DFG PO233/3]
  4. FWO research [G. 0057.09]
  5. Office Of The Director
  6. EPSCoR [814194] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Male killing endosymbionts manipulate their arthropod host reproduction by only allowing female embryos to develop into infected females and killing all male offspring. Because the resulting change in sex ratio is expected to affect the evolution of sex-specific dispersal, we investigated under which environmental conditions strong sex-biased dispersal would emerge, and how this would affect host and endosymbiont metapopulation persistence. Results: We simulated host-endosymbiont metapopulation dynamics in an individual-based model, in which dispersal rates are allowed to evolve independently for the two sexes. Prominent male-biased dispersal emerges under conditions of low environmental stochasticity and high dispersal mortality. By applying a reshuffling algorithm, we show that kin-competition is a major driver of this evolutionary pattern because of the high within-population relatedness of males compared to those of females. Moreover, the evolution of sex-specific dispersal rescues metapopulations from extinction by (i) reducing endosymbiont fixation rates and (ii) by enhancing the extinction of endosymbionts within metapopulations that are characterized by low environmental stochasticity. Conclusion: Male killing endosymbionts induce the evolution of sex-specific dispersal, with prominent male-biased dispersal under conditions of low environmental stochasticity and high dispersal mortality. This male-biased dispersal emerges from stronger kin-competition in males compared to females and induces an evolutionary rescue mechanism.

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

4.4
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