4.5 Article

STRONG ASSORTATIVE MATING BY DIET, COLOR, SIZE, AND MORPHOLOGY BUT LIMITED PROGRESS TOWARD SYMPATRIC SPECIATION IN A CLASSIC EXAMPLE: CAMEROON CRATER LAKE CICHLIDS

期刊

EVOLUTION
卷 67, 期 7, 页码 2114-2123

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/evo.12090

关键词

Adaptive radiation; ecological speciation; female preference; magic trait; mate choice; sexual selection

资金

  1. Young Explorer's Grant from the National Geographic Society
  2. American Philosophical Society
  3. National Science Foundation
  4. Center for Population Biology
  5. Dissertation Year Fellowship from UCDavis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Models predict that sympatric speciation depends on restrictive parameter ranges, such as sufficiently strong disruptive selection and assortative mating, but compelling examples in nature have rarely been used to test these predictions. I measured the strength of assortative mating within a species complex of Tilapia in Lake Ejagham, Cameroon, a celebrated example of incipient sympatric adaptive radiation. This species complex is in the earliest stages of speciation: morphological and ecological divergence are incomplete, species differ primarily in breeding coloration, and introgression is common. I captured 27 mated pairs in situ and measured the diet, color, size, and morphology of each individual. I found strong assortative mating by color, size, head depth, and dietary source of benthic or pelagic prey along two independent dimensions of assortment. Thus, Ejagham Tilapia showed strong assortative mating most conducive to sympatric speciation. Nonetheless, in contrast to a morphologically bimodal Sarotherodon cichlid species pair in the lake, Ejagham Tilapia show more limited progress toward speciation, likely due to insufficient strength of disruptive selection on morphology estimated in a previous study ( = 0.16). This supports the predicted dependence of sympatric speciation on strong assortment and strong disruptive selection by examining a potentially stalled example in nature.

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