The role of aedeagus size and shape in failed mating interactions among recently diverged taxa in the Drosophila mojavensis species cluster

BMC Evolutionary Biology

Maxi Polihronakis Richmond¹ 

[1] Division of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla 92093, CA, USA

关键词: Genitalia evolution;    Mating behavior;    Drosophila arizonae;    Drosophila mojavensis;    Pseudocopulation;   

Others  :  1118307
DOI  :  10.1186/s12862-014-0255-3

 received in 2014-09-11, accepted in 2014-11-24,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Investigating the evolution of species-specific insect genitalia is central to understanding how morphological diversification contributes to reproductive isolation and lineage divergence. While many studies evoke some form of sexual selection to explain genitalia diversity, the basis of selection and the mechanism of heterospecific mate exclusion remains vague. I conducted reciprocal mate pair trials in the Drosophila mojavensis species cluster to quantify the frequency of failed insemination attempts, historically referred to as pseudocopulation, between lineages with discrete size and shape differences of the male aedeagus.

Results

In cross-taxon matings aedeagus size had a significant effect on pseudocopulation frequencies, while aedeagus shape and genetic distance did not. The direction of the size difference was an important factor for successful mating. When females were mated to a cross-taxon male with a larger aedeagus than males from her own species, the pair could not establish a successful mating interaction. Females mated to cross-taxon males with a smaller aedeagus than conspecific males were able to establish the mating interaction but had issues disengaging at the end of the interaction.

Conclusions

The results of this study support a role for aedeagus size in the male-female mating interaction, with a secondary role for aedeagus shape. In natural populations, mating failure based on aedeagus size could serve as an important reproductive isolating mechanism resulting in failed insemination attempts after both the male and female show a willingness to mate.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Richmond; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Simmons LW: Sexual selection and genital evolution. Austral Entomol 2014, 53:1-17.
• [2]Eberhard WG, Huber BA, S Lucas Rodriguez R, Briceno D, Salas I, Rodriguez V: One size fits all? Relationships between the size and degree of variation in genitalia and other body parts in twenty species of insects and spiders. Evolution 1998, 52:415-431.
• [3]Eberhard WG: Static allometry and animal genitalia. Evolution 2008, 63:48-66.
• [4]Eberhard WG, Rodriguez RL, Polihronakis M: Pitfalls in understanding the functional significance of genital allometry. J Evol Biol 2009, 22:435-445.
• [5]Polihronakis M: Morphometric analysis of intraspecific shape variation in male and female genitalia of Phyllophaga hirticula (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 2006, 99:144-150.
• [6]Masly JP, Dalton JE, Srivastava S, Chen L, Arbeitman MN: The genetic basis of rapidly evolving male genital morphology in Drosophila. Genetics 2011, 189:357-U1089.
• [7]Rowe L, Arnqvist G: Sexual selection and the evolution of genital shape and complexity in water striders. Evolution 2011, 66:40-54.
• [8]Macagno ALM, Pizzo A, Parzer HF, Palestrini C, Rolando A, Moczek AP: Shape - but not size - codivergence between male and female copulatory structures in Onthophagus beetles. PLoS One 2011, 6:e28893.
• [9]Hocutt GD: Reinforcement of Premating Barriers to Reproduction Between Drosophila Arizonae and Drosophila Mojavensis. Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 2000.
• [10]Kelleher ES, Markow TA: Reproductive tract interactions contribute to isolation in Drosophila. Fly (Austin) 2007, 1:33-37.
• [11]Machado CA, Matzkin LM, Reed LK, Markow TA: Multilocus nuclear sequences reveal intra- and interspecific relationships among chromosomally polymorphic species of cactophilic Drosophila. Mol Ecol 2007, 16:3009-3024.
• [12]Reed LK, Nyboer M, Markow TA: Evolutionary relationships of Drosophila mojavensis geographic host races and their sister species Drosophila arizonae. Mol Ecol 2007, 16:1007-1022.
• [13]Pfeiler E, Castrezana S, Reed LK, Markow TA: Genetic, ecological and morphological differences among populations of the cactophilic Drosophila mojavensis from southwestern USA and northwestern Mexico, with descriptions of two new subspecies. J Nat Hist 2009, 43:923-938.
• [14]Wasserman M, Koepfer HR: Character displacement for sexual isolation between Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonensis. Evolution 1977, 31:812-823.
• [15]Ruiz A, Heed WB, Wasserman M: Evolution of the mojavensis cluster of cactophilic Drosophila with descriptions of two new species. J Hered 1990, 81:30-42.
• [16]Markow TA: Sexual isolation among populations of Drosophila mojavensis. Evolution 1991, 45:1525-1529.
• [17]Reed LK, Markow TA: Early events in speciation: polymorphism for hybrid male sterility in drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2004, 101:9009-9012.
• [18]Massie KR, Markow TA: Sympatry, allopatry and sexual isolation between Drosophila mojavensis and D. arizonae. Hereditas 2006, 142:51-55.
• [19]Markow TA, Hocutt GD: Speciation in Sonoran Desert Drosophila: Testing the Limits of the Rules. In Endless Forms: Species and Speciation. Edited by Howard D, Berlocher S. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1998:234-244.
• [20]Richmond MP, Johnson S, Markow TA: Evolution of reproductive morphology among recently diverged taxa in the Drosophila mojavensis species cluster. Ecol Evol 2012, 2:397-408.
• [21]McPeek MA, Shen L, Torrey JZ, Farid H: The tempo and mode of three-dimensional morphological evolution in male reproductive structures. Am Nat 2008, 171:e–article.
• [22]Tanabe T, Sota T: Copulatory behavior and the proximate effect of genital and body size differences on mechanical reproductive isolation in the millipede genus Parafontaria. Am Nat 2008, 171:692-699.
• [23]Kamimura Y: Correlated evolutionary changes in Drosophila female genitalia reduce the possible infection risk caused by male copulatory wounding. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2012, 66:1107-1114.
• [24]Soto IM, Carreira VP, Fanara JJ, Hasson E: Evolution of male genitalia: environmental and genetic factors affect genital morphology in two Drosophila sibling species and their hybrids. BMC Evol Biol 2007, 7:77. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Soto IM: Aedeagal divergence in sympatric populations of two sibling species of cactophilic Drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae): evidence of character displacement? Neotrop Entomol 2012, 41:207-213.
• [26]Soto IM, Carreira VP, Soto EM, Márquez F, Lipko P, Hasson E: Rapid divergent evolution of male genitalia among populations of Drosophila buzzatii. Evol Biol 2013, 40:395-407.
• [27]Markow TA, Toolson EC: Temperature Effects on Epicuticular Hydrocarbons and Sexual Isolation in Drosophila Mojavensis. In Ecological and Evolutionary Genetics of Drosophila Edited by Barker, Starmer, Macintyre. Springer US, Boston, MA; 1990:315-331.
• [28]Etges WJ, Jackson LL: Epicuticular hydrocarbon variation in Drosophila mojavensis cluster species. J Chem Ecol 2001, 27:2125-2149.
• [29]Etges WJ, Ahrens MA: Premating isolation is determined by larval-rearing substrates in cactophilic Drosophila mojavensis. V. Deep geographic variation in epicuticular hydrocarbons among isolated populations. Am Nat 2001, 158:585-598.
• [30]Toolson EC, Markow TA, Jackson LL, Howard RW: Epicuticular hydrocarbon composition of wild and laboratory-reared Drosophila mojavensis Patterson and Crow (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 1990, 83:1165-1176.
• [31]Markow TA: Courtship behavior and control of reproductive isolation between Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonensis. Evolution 1981, 35:1022-1026.
• [32]Heed WB: The Origin of Drosophila in the Sonoran Desert. In Ecological Genetics and Evolution: The Cactus-Yeast-Drosophila Model System. Edited by Barker JSF, Starmer WT. Academic Press: Ecological Genetics and Evolution, New York, USA; 1982:65-80.
• [33]Jagadeeshan S, Singh RS: A time-sequence functional analysis of mating behaviour and genital coupling in Drosophila: role of cryptic female choice and male sex-drive in the evolution of male genitalia. J Evol Biol 2006, 19:1058-1070.
• [34]Wojcieszek JM, Austin P, Harvey MS, Simmons LW: Micro-CT scanning provides insight into the functional morphology of millipede genitalia. J Zool 2012, 287:91-95.
• [35]Hotzy C, Polak M, Ronn JL, Arnqvist G: Phenotypic engineering unveils the function of genital morphology. Curr Biol 2012, 22:2258-2261.
• [36]Heifetz Y, Wolfner MF: Mating, seminal fluid components, and sperm cause changes in vesicle release in the Drosophila female reproductive tract. PNAS 2004, 101:6261-6266.
• [37]Posada D: jModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. Mol Biol Evol 2008, 25:1253-1256.
• [38]Drummond AJ, Rambaut A: BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evol Biol 2007, 7:214. BioMed Central Full Text
• [39]Heled J, Drummond AJ: Bayesian inference of species trees from multilocus data. Mol Biol Evol 2010, 27:570-580.
• [40]R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2014.
• [41]Nakazawa M: Package ‘fmsb’.cran.r-project.org/web/packages/fmsb/fmsb.pdf 2014
• [42]McFerrin L: Package ‘HDMD’. cran.r-project.org/web/packages/HDMD/HDMD.pdf 2014.
• [43]Richmond MP: The role of aedeagus size and shape in failed mating interactions among recently diverged taxa in the Drosophila mojavensis species cluster.Dryad Digital Repository doi:10.5061/dryad.4jg3b.