The research bias is unfortunate but also unsurprising: a comment on Tinghitella et al.

The research bias is unfortunate but also unsurprising: a comment on Tinghitella et al. The official journal of the Behavioral ISBE Ecology International Society for Behavioral Ecology Behavioral Ecology (2018), 00(00), 1–1. Invited Commentary be a powerful driver of speciation given the direct links between mate The research bias is unfortunate but preference, mate selection, and reproductive isolation. also unsurprising: a comment on By contrast, male–male competition is expected to be less effec- Tinghitella et al. tive in promoting speciation because additional processes are almost a b certainly required to prevent homogenizing gene flow between Erin L. McCullough and Douglas J. Emlen diverging populations (van Doorn et  al. 2009). Even if male–male Centre for Evolutionary Biology, University of Western Australia, competition contributes to the divergence of male phenotypes, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia and Division of Biological unless females differ in their choice of breeding habitats, or unless Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA they choose males on the basis of competitive phenotypes, then male–male competition may have little potential to strengthen Sexual selection continues to be an active and exciting focus of assortative mating and the likelihood of speciation. That is, spe- research for behavioral ecologists and evolutionary biologists, but also ciation by male–male competition may not depend on differences continues to be heavily biased towards studies of female mate choice. in female preference for secondary sexual traits, but without rein- In particular, research on sexual selection as a driver of speciation has forcement from female choice, speciation by male–male competition focused almost exclusively on the role of mate choice. Tinghitella et al. probably would require some other form of divergent ecologi- (2017) offer a timely and insightful review that expands our under - cal selection. Intriguingly, comparative studies find support for the standing of how sexual selection can contribute to speciation. The hypothesis that male–male competition has a weaker effect on spe- authors summarize recent evidence that shows how male–male com- ciation than mate choice: speciation rate is positively correlated with petition can facilitate divergence in sympatry, allopatry, and secondary dichromatism, which is probably targeted by female choice, but neg- contact, and give specific recommendations for future research. atively correlated with sexual size dimorphism, which is probably Tinghitella et  al. (2017) argue that our ability to describe how favored in the context of male–male competition (Kraaijeveld et al. sexual selection contributes to speciation has been hampered by the 2011). We doubt that male–male competition is ever a stronger or fact that the potential impact of male–male competition has been faster driver of speciation than female choice. However, we agree largely overlooked. We believe that this oversight is due (at least in with Tinghitella et  al. that more empirical, theoretical, and com- part) to imprecise terminology by sexual selection researchers—an parative studies are clearly needed to determine when male–male issue that we argue has hampered our understanding of sexual selec- competition can and is most likely to contribute to species divergence. tion in general (McCullough et  al. 2016). For example, Tinghitella et al. highlight that previous authors have erroneously defined specia- tion by sexual selection as occurring when “a parallel change in mate Address correspondence to E.L. McCullough. E-mail: mccullough.e@ preference and secondary sexual traits within a population leads to gmail.com. prezygotic isolation between populations” (Panhuis et al. 2001). This is a perfect example of the problem with conflating terms: when Received 28 November 2017; accepted 9 December 2017; editorial decision 4 December 2017 “sexual selection” is used synonymously with “mate preference” or “mate choice”, research on the other components of sexual selection doi:10.1093/beheco/arx187 get ignored (McCullough et  al. 2016). We hope that the review by Editor-in-Chief: Leigh Simmons Tinghitella et  al. (2017) not only encourages more research on the role of male–male competition in driving speciation, but also, and more broadly, that it reminds researchers that male–male competi- REFERENCES tion and female choice are distinct mechanisms of sexual selection. van Doorn GS, Dieckmann U, Weissing FJ, Associate Editor: Sergey There is another reason why it is not surprising that research on Gavrilets. 2004. Sympatric speciation by sexual selection: a critical speciation by sexual selection has focused more on the role of mate reevaluation. Am Nat. 163:709–725. choice than male–male competition: the potential for mate choice to van Doorn GS, Edelaar P, Weissing FJ. 2009. On the origin of species by natural and sexual selection. Science. 326:1704–1707. lead to assortative mating is simply more direct. Because females often Kraaijeveld K, Kraaijeveld-Smit FJ, Maan ME. 2011. Sexual selection and select mates based on their preferences for secondary sexual traits, dif- speciation: the comparative evidence revisited. Biol Rev Camb Philos ferences in female mate choice can be a direct barrier to gene flow Soc. 86:367–377. between diverging populations. Although theoretical models suggest McCullough EL, Miller CW, Emlen DJ. 2016. Why sexually selected weap- ons are not ornaments. Trends Ecol Evol. 31:742–751. that mate choice is more likely to promote species divergence in con- Panhuis TM, Butlin R, Zuk M, Tregenza T. 2001. Sexual selection and spe- junction with other processes (e.g., divergent ecological selection and/ ciation. Trends Ecol Evol. 16:364–371. or divergent male–male competition), and probably rarely occurs on Tinghitella RM, Lackey ACR, Martin M, Dijkstra PD, Drury JP, Heathcote R, its own (van Doorn et al. 2004; van Doorn et al. 2009), there is still Keagy J, Scordato ESC, Tyers AM. 2017. On the role of male competition obvious intuitive appeal in the hypothesis that female preference can in speciation: a review and research agenda. Behav Ecol. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/beheco/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/beheco/arx187/4786636 All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 07 June 2018 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Behavioral Ecology Oxford University Press

The research bias is unfortunate but also unsurprising: a comment on Tinghitella et al.

Free
1 page

Loading next page...
1 Page
 
/lp/ou_press/the-research-bias-is-unfortunate-but-also-unsurprising-a-comment-on-Ph0y6BWJBI
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
ISSN
1045-2249
eISSN
1465-7279
D.O.I.
10.1093/beheco/arx187
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The official journal of the Behavioral ISBE Ecology International Society for Behavioral Ecology Behavioral Ecology (2018), 00(00), 1–1. Invited Commentary be a powerful driver of speciation given the direct links between mate The research bias is unfortunate but preference, mate selection, and reproductive isolation. also unsurprising: a comment on By contrast, male–male competition is expected to be less effec- Tinghitella et al. tive in promoting speciation because additional processes are almost a b certainly required to prevent homogenizing gene flow between Erin L. McCullough and Douglas J. Emlen diverging populations (van Doorn et  al. 2009). Even if male–male Centre for Evolutionary Biology, University of Western Australia, competition contributes to the divergence of male phenotypes, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia and Division of Biological unless females differ in their choice of breeding habitats, or unless Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA they choose males on the basis of competitive phenotypes, then male–male competition may have little potential to strengthen Sexual selection continues to be an active and exciting focus of assortative mating and the likelihood of speciation. That is, spe- research for behavioral ecologists and evolutionary biologists, but also ciation by male–male competition may not depend on differences continues to be heavily biased towards studies of female mate choice. in female preference for secondary sexual traits, but without rein- In particular, research on sexual selection as a driver of speciation has forcement from female choice, speciation by male–male competition focused almost exclusively on the role of mate choice. Tinghitella et al. probably would require some other form of divergent ecologi- (2017) offer a timely and insightful review that expands our under - cal selection. Intriguingly, comparative studies find support for the standing of how sexual selection can contribute to speciation. The hypothesis that male–male competition has a weaker effect on spe- authors summarize recent evidence that shows how male–male com- ciation than mate choice: speciation rate is positively correlated with petition can facilitate divergence in sympatry, allopatry, and secondary dichromatism, which is probably targeted by female choice, but neg- contact, and give specific recommendations for future research. atively correlated with sexual size dimorphism, which is probably Tinghitella et  al. (2017) argue that our ability to describe how favored in the context of male–male competition (Kraaijeveld et al. sexual selection contributes to speciation has been hampered by the 2011). We doubt that male–male competition is ever a stronger or fact that the potential impact of male–male competition has been faster driver of speciation than female choice. However, we agree largely overlooked. We believe that this oversight is due (at least in with Tinghitella et  al. that more empirical, theoretical, and com- part) to imprecise terminology by sexual selection researchers—an parative studies are clearly needed to determine when male–male issue that we argue has hampered our understanding of sexual selec- competition can and is most likely to contribute to species divergence. tion in general (McCullough et  al. 2016). For example, Tinghitella et al. highlight that previous authors have erroneously defined specia- tion by sexual selection as occurring when “a parallel change in mate Address correspondence to E.L. McCullough. E-mail: mccullough.e@ preference and secondary sexual traits within a population leads to gmail.com. prezygotic isolation between populations” (Panhuis et al. 2001). This is a perfect example of the problem with conflating terms: when Received 28 November 2017; accepted 9 December 2017; editorial decision 4 December 2017 “sexual selection” is used synonymously with “mate preference” or “mate choice”, research on the other components of sexual selection doi:10.1093/beheco/arx187 get ignored (McCullough et  al. 2016). We hope that the review by Editor-in-Chief: Leigh Simmons Tinghitella et  al. (2017) not only encourages more research on the role of male–male competition in driving speciation, but also, and more broadly, that it reminds researchers that male–male competi- REFERENCES tion and female choice are distinct mechanisms of sexual selection. van Doorn GS, Dieckmann U, Weissing FJ, Associate Editor: Sergey There is another reason why it is not surprising that research on Gavrilets. 2004. Sympatric speciation by sexual selection: a critical speciation by sexual selection has focused more on the role of mate reevaluation. Am Nat. 163:709–725. choice than male–male competition: the potential for mate choice to van Doorn GS, Edelaar P, Weissing FJ. 2009. On the origin of species by natural and sexual selection. Science. 326:1704–1707. lead to assortative mating is simply more direct. Because females often Kraaijeveld K, Kraaijeveld-Smit FJ, Maan ME. 2011. Sexual selection and select mates based on their preferences for secondary sexual traits, dif- speciation: the comparative evidence revisited. Biol Rev Camb Philos ferences in female mate choice can be a direct barrier to gene flow Soc. 86:367–377. between diverging populations. Although theoretical models suggest McCullough EL, Miller CW, Emlen DJ. 2016. Why sexually selected weap- ons are not ornaments. Trends Ecol Evol. 31:742–751. that mate choice is more likely to promote species divergence in con- Panhuis TM, Butlin R, Zuk M, Tregenza T. 2001. Sexual selection and spe- junction with other processes (e.g., divergent ecological selection and/ ciation. Trends Ecol Evol. 16:364–371. or divergent male–male competition), and probably rarely occurs on Tinghitella RM, Lackey ACR, Martin M, Dijkstra PD, Drury JP, Heathcote R, its own (van Doorn et al. 2004; van Doorn et al. 2009), there is still Keagy J, Scordato ESC, Tyers AM. 2017. On the role of male competition obvious intuitive appeal in the hypothesis that female preference can in speciation: a review and research agenda. Behav Ecol. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/beheco/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/beheco/arx187/4786636 All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 07 June 2018

Journal

Behavioral EcologyOxford University Press

Published: Jan 3, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off