Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Maynard Smith Maynard Smith (1966)
Sympatric speciationAm. Nat., 100
I. Hardy, S. Field (1998)
Logistic analysis of animal contestsAnimal Behaviour, 56
M. Servedio, M. Noor (2003)
The role of reinforcement in speciation: Theory and dataAnnual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 34
M. Ridgway, J. Mcphail (1984)
Ecology and evolution of sympatric sticklebacks (Gasterosteus): mate choice and reproductive isolation in the Enos Lake species pairCanadian Journal of Zoology, 62
J. Coyne (2007)
Sympatric speciationCurrent Biology, 17
T. Hatfield (1997)
Genetic Divergence in Adaptive Characters Between Sympatric Species of SticklebackThe American Naturalist, 149
D. Schluter, J. Mcphail (1992)
Ecological Character Displacement and Speciation in SticklebacksThe American Naturalist, 140
and two anonymous reviewers. Funding was provided by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) postgraduate scholarship to AYKA and NSERC operating grants to D
N. Clayton (1990)
The effects of cross-fostering on assortative mating between zebra finch subspeciesAnimal Behaviour, 40
J. Felsenstein (1981)
SKEPTICISM TOWARDS SANTA ROSALIA, OR WHY ARE THERE SO FEW KINDS OF ANIMALS?Evolution, 35
William Wagner (1998)
Measuring female mating preferencesAnimal Behaviour, 55
M. Kirkpatrick, V. Ravigné (2002)
Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and ExperimentsThe American Naturalist, 159
T. Slagsvold, B. Hansen, L. Johannessen, J. Lifjeld (2002)
Mate choice and imprinting in birds studied by cross-fostering in the wildProceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269
Arianne Albert, D. Schluter (2004)
REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTER DISPLACEMENT OF MALE STICKLEBACK MATE PREFERENCE: REINFORCEMENT OR DIRECT SELECTION?, 58
(1994)
Ecology of the threespine stickleback on the breeding grounds
D. Irwin, T. Price (1999)
Sexual imprinting, learning and speciationHeredity, 82
K. Laland (1994)
ON THE EVOLUTIONARY CONSEQUENCES OF SEXUAL IMPRINTINGEvolution, 48
Debra Kirchhof-Glazier (1979)
Absence of sexual imprinting in house mice cross-fostered to deermicePhysiology & Behavior, 23
Wagner Wagner (1998)
Measuring female preferenceAnim. Behav., 55
J. Mckinnon, Seiichi Mori, B. Blackman, L. David, D. Kingsley, L. Jamieson, Jennifer Chou, D. Schluter (2004)
Evidence for ecology's role in speciationNature, 429
T. Hatfield, D. Schluter (1996)
A TEST FOR SEXUAL SELECTION ON HYBRIDS OF TWO SYMPATRIC STICKLEBACKSEvolution, 50
C. Cate, Dave Vos (1999)
Sexual imprinting and evolutionary processes in birds: A reassessmentAdvances in The Study of Behavior, 28
J. Mcphail (1992)
Ecology and evolution of sympatric sticklebacks (Gasterosteus): evidence for a species-pair in Paxton Lake, Texada Island, British ColumbiaCanadian Journal of Zoology, 70
H. Rundle, D. Schluter (1998)
REINFORCEMENT OF STICKLEBACK MATE PREFERENCES: SYMPATRY BREEDS CONTEMPTEvolution, 52
Edelaar helped to improve the design and analysis. Previous versions of this manuscript benefited greatly from comments by
K. Kendrick, M. Hinton, K. Atkins, M. Haupt, J. Skinner (1998)
Mothers determine sexual preferencesNature, 395
L. Nagel, D. Schluter (1998)
BODY SIZE, NATURAL SELECTION, AND SPECIATION IN STICKLEBACKSEvolution, 52
J. Mckinnon, J. Staton, M. Bell, S. Foster (1995)
The Evolutionary biology of the threespine sticklebackCopeia, 1996
Abstract One‐allele isolating mechanisms should make the evolution of reproductive isolation between potentially hybridizing taxa easier than two‐allele mechanisms, but the generality of one‐allele mechanisms in nature has yet to be established. A potentially important one‐allele mechanism is sexual imprinting, where the mate preferences of individuals are based on the phenotype of their parents. Here I test the possibility that sexual imprinting promotes reproductive isolation using sympatric species of threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Sympatric species of sticklebacks consist of large benthic species and small limnetic species that are reproductively isolated and adapted to feeding in different environments. I fostered families of F1 hybrids between the species to males of both species. Preferences of these fostered females for males of either type revealed little or no effect of sexual imprinting on assortative mating. However, F1 females showed preferences for males that were similar to themselves in length, suggesting that size‐assortative mating may be more important than sexual imprinting for promoting reproductive isolation between species pairs of threespine sticklebacks.
Evolution – Oxford University Press
Published: Apr 1, 2005
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.