All of the following are examples of prezygotic genetic isolating mechanisms except:

Reproductive isolation essentially becomes an increasing characteristic of the genome rather than of individual genes, as the genomes of populations congeal into the alternate adaptive entities we recognize as species.

From: Reference Module in Life Sciences, 2017

Reproductive Isolation

P. Nosil, in Brenner's Encyclopedia of Genetics (Second Edition), 2013

Uniform Selection (Mutation-Order Speciation)

Reproductive isolation might also evolve during a process of mutation-order speciation, defined as the evolution of reproductive isolation by the fixation of different advantageous mutations in separate populations experiencing similar selection pressures, that is, uniform selection. In essence, different populations find different genetic solutions to the same selective problem. In turn, the different genetic solutions (i.e., mutations) are incompatible with one another, causing reproductive isolation. During ecological speciation, different alleles are favored between two populations. By contrast, during mutation-order speciation, the same alleles are favored in both populations, but divergence occurs anyway because, by chance, the populations do not acquire the same mutations or fix them in the same order. Divergence is therefore stochastic, but the process involves selection, and, thus, is distinct from random genetic drift. Selection can be ecologically based under mutation-order speciation, but ecology does not favor divergence as such, and an association between ecological divergence and reproductive isolation is not expected. How might mutation-order speciation arise? Sexual selection may cause mutation-order speciation if reproductive isolation evolves by the fixation of alternative advantageous mutations in different populations living in similar ecological environments.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123749840013073

Reproductive Isolation

J. Coyne, in Encyclopedia of Genetics, 2001

Genetic Analysis of Reproductive Isolation: Principles

Reproductive isolation is unique in evolution because it is not a trait possessed by members of a single species, but a composite character that is the joint property of a pair of species. A single species can be reproductively isolated only with respect to another. Moreover, by its very nature, reproductive isolation is a trait that almost always involves epistatic interaction between alleles – but alleles occurring in different species. Hybrid inviability, for example, results from genes that produce normal viability in members of their own species but are lethal when interacting with alien genes in hybrids. Similarly, sexual isolation is caused when females evolved to prefer traits of conspecific males encounter different traits in other species. This composite and epistatic nature of reproductive isolation guarantees that speciation will not only show emergent genetic and phenotypic properties not seen in studies of a single species (e.g., Haldanes rule; see below), but also that mathematical theories of speciation will be different – and perhaps more complicated – than models of evolution in single lineages. While genetic analysis of reproductive isolation has occurred since the mid-1930s, mathematical theories of speciation are only now beginning to appear.

There are several reasons for studying the genetic basis of speciation. First, just as with a trait that evolves within a lineage, one wants to know whether a reproductive isolating mechanism has a ‘simple’ genetic basis (i.e., involves only a few genes of large effect) or is based on the accumulation of many genes. The number of genes involved may, in turn, allow inferences about the evolutionary process producing reproductive isolation. For example, if the difference in plumage color between males of two sexually dimorphic bird species is due to many genes of small effect, one may posit that these differences arose by sexual selection during which the male trait evolved step-by-step in concert with the female preference for that trait.

Similarly, the pattern of genetic differences causing reproductive isolation may give clues to the underlying evolutionary processes. It has been found, for example, that there are often many more genes causing hybrid male than female sterility between closely related species of Drosophila. This has led to the idea that hybrid sterility may result from sexual selection acting in isolated populations. Such selection, based on female choice, may cause more evolutionary change in males than in females, leading to the preferential sterility of male hybrids as an accidental outcome. Finally, genetic analysis can help localize small sections of chromosomes containing genes causing reproductive isolation, a necessary prelude to cloning and sequencing these genes. Such molecular work is essential for understanding the developmental basis of reproductive isolation, including the question of how a gene that works normally within a species causes deleterious effects in hybrids. At this writing we understand the developmental basis of only one case of reproductive isolation: the formation of lethal melanomas in hybrids between the swordfish and platyfish. This hybrid lethality is based on an oncogene in one species that is normally suppressed by another gene in the same species; the absence of suppression in hybrids causes the appearance of tumors.

Ideally, a study of the genetics of speciation should involve only reproductive isolating mechanisms that evolved up to the point at which gene exchange between populations was first reduced to zero, for it is at that point that speciation is complete. Because of divergent evolution, however, reproductive isolation continues to accumulate even after species cannot exchange genes, but such isolation is incidental to speciation. A proper study of speciation thus requires identifying the isolating mechanisms leading up to complete isolation (there may, of course, be more than one). This is not easy, as it requires that one must find either incipient species that have not yet evolved complete reproductive isolation, or species in which gene flow is prevented by only a single form of reproductive isolation. This has been possible in some cases, as with polyploidy in plants (see below), but in no group of animals or plants have there been systematic attempts to determine which forms of reproductive isolation are the first to evolve. Instead, there are only tentative conclusions based on general impressions. It has been suggested, for example, that sexual isolation is the most important factor causing speciation in birds, as closely related species do not hybridize in the wild but will produce fertile hybrids when forcibly crossed in the laboratory. Such suppositions are intriguing, but neglect possible ecological isolation, and must be buttressed by systematic analysis of populations at different stages of evolutionary divergence.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0122270800014427

Reproductive Isolation, Prezygotic

M.G Ritchie, in Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology, 2016

Prezygotic Isolation

Reproductive isolation represents a breakdown in the ability to reproduce successfully with sexual partners of another type of organism, and speciation requires a build up of reproductive isolation between diverging types of organism until gene flow is sufficiently rare or ineffective that the entities are considered ‘good species.’ Traditionally this was thought to require complete or near complete cessation of gene flow, though increasingly absolute reproductive isolation is thought to be too stringent a criterion (Mallet, 1995; Wu, 2001). Factors which influence prezygotic isolation are those that come into play before gametes of the different types meet and form zygotes. After this point postzygotic isolation occurs, and this simple classification of categories of reproductive isolation based on pre- and post-gametic fusion has been widely adopted since Dobzhansky originally categorized major factors influencing the origin of species into various ‘reproductive isolating mechanisms’ (Dobzhansky, 1937). However, it is important to appreciate that all factors influencing reproductive isolation act in combination. If cross-matings between males and females of different types are half as likely as within types we say their isolation index (I) is 0.5. If the viability of their offspring is also around 50% these are equally effective barriers to gene flow, and acting together will produce a combined I of 0.75, though prezygotic isolation will have made a greater contribution to the overall isolation only because it occurs first (Coyne and Orr, 2004).

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128000496000640

Species Concepts and Speciation

D. Ortiz-Barrientos, in Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology, 2016

What are Speciation Genes?

Studies of reproductive isolation have attempted to isolate the genes responsible for reproductive isolation. However, the very definition of what a speciation gene is makes it difficult to agree how many speciation genes have been found, and whether they reveal patterns of speciation (Rieseberg and Blackman, 2010; Presgraves, 2010a,b). Under the view that speciation is the evolution of reproductive isolation, it is clear that genes whose alleles contribute to some form of reproductive isolation can be considered a speciation gene (Nosil and Schluter, 2011). On one hand, there are genes contributing to DBM genetic incompatibilities, and therefore to the evolution of intrinsic reproductive isolation (hybrid sterility and inviability). On the other hand there are genes responsible for local adaptation and the evolution of extrinsic reproductive isolation (immigrant inviability and extrinsic postzygotic isolation), and those responsible for gametic recognition, for male–female interactions, and mate choice. In this sense, the list of speciation genes that have been discovered is perhaps larger than anticipated; yet they still have not clearly revealed whether there are special categories of speciation genes.

Questions about the contribution of a particular gene to speciation are similar to those applied to measurements of reproductive isolation. It would be important to know when the speciation gene arose, and whether or not speciation genes create full or weak reproductive isolation (Nosil and Schluter, 2011; Coyne and Orr, 2004). In relative terms, a speciation gene causing strong reproductive isolation might see its effects reduced to a very small magnitude if it arose very late in the speciation process. In a similar fashion, a gene whose expression is late during the life cycle of the organism (e.g., hybrid sterility), might also contribute relatively little to total reproductive isolation if genes expressed earlier during development (e.g., genes responsible for seed germination in plants) already produced high levels of isolation between populations.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128000496000615

The Taxonomy of Primates in the Laboratory Context

Groves Colin, in The Laboratory Primate, 2005

What are species? The biological species concept

Disagreement as to what precisely constitutes a species is to be expected, given that the concept serves so many functions (Vane-Wright, 1992). We may be interested in classification as such, or in the evolutionary implications of species; in the theory of species, or in simply how to recognize them; or in their reproductive, physiological, or husbandry status.

Most non-specialists probably have some vague idea that species are defined by not interbreeding with each other; usually, that hybrids between different species are sterile, or that they are incapable of hybridizing at all. Such an impression ultimately derives from the definition by Mayr (1940), whereby species are “groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups” (the Biological Species Concept). Mayr never actually said that species can't breed with each other, indeed he denied that that this was in any way a necessary part of reproductive isolation; he merely said that, under natural conditions, they don't.

Reproductive isolation, in some form, stands at the basis of what a species is. Having said this, it must be admitted that it is no longer possible to follow Mayr's concept as definitive. In a recent book (Groves, 2001, see especially Chapter 3) I sketched the main reasons why this is so:

It offers no guidance for the allocation of allopatric populations.

Many distinct species actually do breed with each other under natural conditions, but manage to remain distinct.

The interrelationships of organisms under natural conditions are often (usually?) unknown.

Many species do not reproduce sexually anyway.

Allopatry

To say that two populations are allopatric means that their geographic distributions do not overlap – they are entirely separate. This means that they do not have the chance to breed with each other, even if they wanted to. There is, for example, no way of testing whether Macaca fuscata (of Japan), M.cyclopis (of Taiwan) and M.mulatta (the Rhesus Macaque, of the East Asian mainland) are actually different species or not; they are classified as distinct species in all major checklists, but there is no objective way of testing this classification under the Biological Species Concept.

Indeed, this is the usual situation: populations that differ, in some respect, from one another and are, by relevant criteria, closely related are usually allopatric. To take demonstrable reproductive isolation, the requisite criterion under the Biological Species Concept, as the sine qua non of species status would be to leave the majority of living organisms unclassifiable except by some arbitrary fiat.

Natural interbreeding

The two common species of North American deer (Odocoileus virginanus, the Whitetail, and O.hemionus, the Blacktail) are found together over a wide geographic area, and are always readily distinguishable; yet molecular studies have found evidence that there has been hybridization. For example, in Pecos Country, west Texas, four out of the nine whitetails examined had mitochondrial DNA characteristic of the blacktails with which they share their range (Carr and Hughes, 1993). Evidently in the not-too-distant past blacktail females joined whitetail breeding herds and, while the whitetail phenotype was strongly selected for, the blacktail mtDNA has remained in the population, fossil documentation of the hybridization event.

In Primates, also, there are examples of hybridization in the wild. A good example of the first case, Cercopithecus ascanius (Redtail monkey) and C.mitis (Blue monkey) in Uganda, has been described in detail by Struhsaker et al. (1988). The two monkeys, which are widely sympatric, meaning that they live in the same areas over a wide range, interbreed at quite noticeable levels, yet remain separate and clearly distinguishable and no one has ever proposed to regard them as anything but distinct species. This case is not unlike that of the North American deer, mentioned above.

These are two examples – one non-Primate, one Primate – of pairs of distinct species which manage to remain distinct over wide areas even though there is gene-flow between them. Much more common (or, better, more readily documented) are cases where pairs of species occupy ranges that are largely separate but meet along their margins (parapatric), and interbreed where they do so. Interbreeding varies from occasional to full hybrid zones, and such cases have, unlike the hybridization-in-sympatry cases, been regarded as evidence that reproductive isolation does not exist, so the two species should be merged into one. But there is no difference, in principle, from the hybridization-in-sympatry cases.

The classic study of a hybrid zone is that of two mice, Mus musculus and Mus domesticus, across the Jutland peninsula, Denmark (see summary in Wilson et al., 1985). The hybrid zone, as measured by morphology and protein alleles, is very narrow; yet the mtDNA of the southern species, M.domesticus, introgresses well across the boundary, and across the seaway (the Skagerrak) into Sweden. This suggests both that hybridization has been occurring, and that M.musculus has been expanding its range, and the hybrid zone has been moving south since before the sea broke through separating Denmark and Sweden in the early Holocene. There has been no selection against hybridization during this long period.

In a well-studied Primate example, two baboons, Papio hamadryas (Hamadryas baboon) and P.anubis (Olive baboon), are parapatric and hybridize where their ranges meet in Ethiopia, the hybrid zone being not more than a few kilometres wide. The two taxa are adapted to more arid and more mesic environments, respectively, and the hybrid zone travels up and down the Awash River according to whether there has been a run of dry seasons or a run of wet seasons, but remains more or less the same width. This case is therefore not unlike that of the two mice in Denmark. Unlike the Cercopithecus example, the two baboon taxa have been shuffled back and forth between subspecies and species (compare Jolly, 1993 and Groves, 2001). Yet what is the difference, really?

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780120802616500015

Of Cockroaches and Wolves

Michael D. Breed, Janice Moore, in Animal Behavior (Second Edition), 2016

Speciation and Behavior

Finally, the formation of species (called speciation) provides a powerful tool for asking questions about the history of traits, including behavioral traits. So far, this review of evolution has addressed changes in gene frequency and the manner in which those changes happen. How can such genetic shifts within a population of animals result in the biological diversity we see today? Something else has to happen: the flow of genes within that population must be interrupted. This can occur when a population is subdivided and parts of that population are isolated from each other. Eventually, if environments of the subdivided groups differ, natural selection will favor different traits in the two new populations. As time passes, differences accumulate, and the two populations will no longer be able to interbreed were they to have that opportunity. For instance, foxes, coyotes, wolves, and domestic dogs all evolved from the same ancestor, with foxes diverging earliest in evolutionary time. Differences have accumulated so that now foxes cannot successfully interbreed with any of the other species. However, coyotes, wolves, and domestic dogs split more recently and remain so similar that hybrids are common. By the way, complete isolation is not necessary for species formation; a small amount of gene flow does not counteract the accumulation of differences.

Such reproductive isolation can result from a variety of causes:

1.

Geographic barriers. If a population is subdivided by the emergence of a mountain range, river, or other inhospitable habitat, animals on one side of the barrier will be unable to breed with animals on the other side. The same effect occurs if part of the population moves away.

2.

Resource shifts. For animals that live and reproduce on a resource, the ability to colonize new resources decreases the likelihood that they will encounter or mate with individuals in the parent population.

3.

Mate choice. If females diverge in their preferences for male characteristics, for instance, and if that divergence has a genetic basis, then eventually there will be two distinct gene pools, each sporting one or the other preferred male trait.

4.

Genetic change. Mutations that prevent proper meiosis can produce individuals that cannot mate with other members of the population. This is thought to be the origin of about 4% of plant species.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128015322000015

Reinforcement

R Hopkins, in Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology, 2016

The Genetics of Reinforcement

The dilemma of reproductive isolation evolving in sympatry has also sparked theoretical work investigating the genetic basis of reinforcement. Specifically, it has been shown that the genetic architecture of the reproductive isolating mechanism can influence the success of reinforcing selection. If a mutant allele increases RI when it occurs in either or both of the two sympatric species, then reinforcement is more likely to be successful. This is referred to as a one-allele mechanism (Felsenstein, 1981). For example, an allele that increases ‘choosiness’ or reduces dispersal could cause both sympatric species to mate more frequently with conspecifics than heterospecifics. Despite much hypothesizing about the types of traits that could be one-allele mechanisms of reinforcement, it has only actually been identified once. Drosophila pseudoobscura individuals that co-occur with Drosophila persimilis show a greater reluctance to hybridize than individuals from allopatric populations. The sympatric allele at one locus, Coy-2, that increases assortative mating in D. pseudoobscura, has also been shown to increase assortative mating when it is occurring in D. persimilis as well (Ortiz-Barrientos and Noor, 2005). In other words, the same allele in either species will cause a decrease in hybridization. The one-allele mechanism overcomes the problems associated with gene flow because recombination of the derived assortative mating allele into the sympatric species will increase reproductive isolation instead of decrease it.

Besides some work on genetic architecture of trait variation caused by reinforcement, little is known about the genetics of reinforcement. In fact, Phlox is the only system for which the genes involved in reinforcement have been identified. Flower color variation in P. drummondii is caused by expression variation in two genes known to be involved in pigment production in flowering plants. Yet even in this case, we know little about the evolutionary history of these genes. Did a single mutation arise once and spread or are there multiple mutations causing the same changes in flower color? Did the alleles causing flower color variation arise under selection or were they segregating in the population prior to the two Phlox species hybridizing? Clearly, much more research is needed before we can determine if there are particular genetic or genomic patterns associated with reinforcement.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128000496000755

Species and Speciation

C.L. Boggs, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

2.3 Differentiation: Selection and Chance

Both the development of reproductive isolation and the differentiation of other characters identifying organisms as members of a species could be influenced by selection or by genetic drift. In the former case, adaptation to a particular set of environmental conditions drives speciation. In the latter case, chance events, such as the genetic diversity present in individuals that become geographically isolated, or that happens to be included when a polyploid individual is formed, influence the results of speciation. The relative influence of these two forces has been the subject of debate; like many polarized debates in biology, most cases probably fall along the continuum between the two ends.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767030734

Speciation Genes

B.K. Blackman, in Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology, 2016

Evolutionary Characterization of Speciation Genes

Recognizing that the evolution of RI is a temporally dynamic process that begins prior to and continues after speciation, the definition advanced above also requires that the gene ‘contribute to the splitting of two lineages.’ Genetic changes that contribute to contemporary barriers to reproduction between fully isolated species may have accumulated long after speciation was already complete. Likewise, the relative importance of different barriers to gene flow, and consequently the impact of particular alleles on total RI, may change over time. Therefore, it has been argued that speciation genes must meet two additional evolutionary criteria (Nosil and Schluter, 2011). First, divergence at the locus must have occurred before speciation was complete. Second, the gene should have had a measurable effect on RI at the time it diverged. Obtaining empirical data addressing the first criterion can be straightforward, but demonstrating a gene meets the second criterion is potentially far more challenging.

The divergence time criterion is automatically met for genes that contribute to barriers between incipient species. For species pairs that are already completely isolated, divergence time can be assessed with gene trees or genealogies (Nosil and Schluter, 2011). If divergence at a putative speciation gene occurred prior to full cessation of gene flow, then its genealogy should be discordant with genealogies of unlinked neutral loci, which are more likely to show shallower coalescence and greater evidence of gene flow. Such tests can be problematic, however, in that they may yield false negatives depending on the evolutionary process driving divergence (Lessios, 2011). For instance, RI between species often arises as a by-product of accelerated sequence evolution driven by arms races mediated by sexual or genomic conflict within species that continue well after speciation is complete. Thus, a pattern of coalescence within species, rather than a pattern of coalescence prior to the timing of species divergence, may be expected and has been observed for some speciation genes evolving in this manner (Palumbi, 2009).

As for the second criterion, it is unclear whether a speciation gene’s effect on RI relative to all other current barriers at the time of its divergence can be rigorously estimated for any species. The absolute effect of allelic divergence at a speciation gene on the strength of a contemporary RI barrier may be readily estimated by the methods discussed above. Moreover, a speciation gene’s relative contribution to contemporary RI as a whole may also be estimated to the extent that the full genetic architecture for the barrier trait and the relative strength of that barrier relative to other barrier traits on RI are known. All these parameters are important because isolating barriers, to a large extent, act sequentially to prevent successful fertilization or to impair hybrid fitness, and hence it is possible that loci with major effects on later acting barriers (e.g., hybrid dysfunction) may only have minor contributions to overall RI.

By extension then, estimating a speciation gene’s contribution to historical levels of RI would require not only knowledge of the temporal dynamics of evolution at a given locus (and interacting loci if RI is caused by epistatic incompatibilities) in one or both lineages, but also the past history of all other loci contributing to the cessation of gene flow. Thus, meeting this criteria may only be possible in rare systems where speciation in action can be followed over observable time scales. Alternatively, in species pairs isolated by few barriers with tractable genetics, it is conceivable that the historical series of genotypes at speciation loci could be reconstructed if the order of substitutions causing RI were inferable from genes trees or observable in ancient DNA time series. Estimates of absolute and relative contributions to contemporary RI may help determine the bounds to paths historically possible in other systems. However, given the pragmatic hurdles to determining historical dynamics (irrespective of any complexity introduced by gene×environment effects), it seems sufficient to demonstrate a speciation gene affects contemporary isolation and acknowledge the caveat that the specific contribution to total RI at the time of divergence is unknown.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128000496000664

Speciation, Process of☆

J.L. Feder, ... P. Meyers, in Reference Module in Life Sciences, 2017

Barriers to Gene Exchange

Given that the key question in speciation is how populations of organisms diverge into genetically distinguishable entities, it is important to understand and categorize the different types of gene flow barriers that can evolve to generate new species. Two pioneers in this area were Poulton (1908) and Dobzhansky (1937) who divided RI into two different major categories of prezygotic and postzygotic isolation depending upon whether the barrier to gene exchange occurred prior to fertilization (zygote creation) or after (see Table 1 for summary of different types of pre- and post-zygotic barriers to gene exchange and examples).

Table 1. Barriers to gene flow between populations causing reproductive isolation (RI) and examples of each barrier

Type of reproductive isolationDescriptionExample
Premating Prezygotic Geographic isolation Geographic barriers prevent gene flow Spotted owls (Barrowclough and Gutierrez, 1990); Dessert pupfish (Duvernell and Turner, 1998; Martin et al., 2016); Marine species after closing of Isthmus of Panama (Knowlton et al., 1993, 1998; Lessios, 1998; Marko, 2002); Certain freshwater species of fish (Seehausen and Wagner, 2014)
Behavioral isolation “Sexual isolation” due to different mate signals prevent individuals from different populations from mating Drosophila (Coyne and Orr, 1989, 1997); Darters (Mendelson 2003); Bossu and Near (2015); European Corn Borer (Hansson et al., 1987; Dopman et al., 2004); Birds (Price, 1998)
Ecological isolation Adaptation to different habitats and/or different activity or breeding time can inhibit gene flow Rhagoletis fruit flies (Egan et al., 2015); Timema walking sticks (Soria-Carrasco et al., 2014); Mosquitos (Turner et al., 2005); Heliconius butterflies (Nadeau et al., 2012); Flycatchers (Ellegren et al., 2012); Whitefish (Renaut et al., 2012); Sticklebacks (Hohenlohe et al., 2012); Lorde Howe palm trees (Savolainen et al., 2006; Papadopulos et al., 2011); Monkeyflowers (Ramsey et al., 2003)
Postmating Mechanical isolation Different genitalia structures impede successful transfer of sperm despite attempted mating (copulation) Angiosperms (Grant, 1994); Japanese carabid beetles (Sota and Kubota, 1998)
Gametic isolation Transferred gametes cannot effect fertilization Abalone (Kresge et al., 2001); Sea urchins (Palumbi, 1998); Sunflowers (Rieseberg et al., 1995)
Postzygotic Extrinsic Ecological inviability: hybrids fall between parental ecological niches Stickleback fish (Hatfield and Schluter, 1999; Rundle et al., 2000; Arnegard et al., 2014), Leaf beetles (Egan and Funk, 2009); Big sagebrush (Wang et al., 1997)
Behavioral sterility: hybrids are less attractive (and successful) in obtaining mates Blackcap birds (Helbig, 1991); Wolf spiders (Stratton and Uetz, 1986); Orchids (Nilsson, 1983)
Intrinsic Hybrid inviability: hybrids suffer developmental problems Drosophila (Orr, 1991)
Hybrid sterility: hybrids suffer reproductive problems and produce fewer number or no functional gametes Drosophila (Noor, 1997); Fall armyworm (Pashley and Martin, 1987); Heliconius butterflies (Jiggins et al., 2001)

Prezygotic Isolation

Prezygotic isolation refers to RI that occurs prior to zygote formation for sexually reproducing taxa (Coyne and Orr, 2004; Nosil, 2012). For example, a difference in when or where individuals from different species prefer to mate in time or space or a difference in their signals and courtship displays constitute premating prezygotic isolation. Differences in the preferences of pollinators like birds and insects for different plants can also cause premating prezygotic isolation (Ramsey et al., 2003). Many premating barriers between species may have originally evolved due to sexual selection occurring within populations (Panhuis et al., 2001), as a consequence of males and females preferring to mate with partners that possessed certain characteristics or traits over others. Prezygotic isolation can also occur after mating. For example, gametic isolation (postmating prezygotic isolation) occurs when gametes of different species fail to unite. Again, these differences could have evolved due to sexual selection. However, in this case the selection may often stem from inter-sexual conflict, involving males evolving sperm to maximally fertilize eggs and females evolving counter measures to avoid polyspermy (Howard, 1999; Panhuis et al., 2006). As a result, the reproductive tracts and/or sperm and eggs of different species may not be compatible (Rice, 1996). A similar scenario may apply to the reproductive organs of males and females, where an arms race between sexes within species may result in the evolution of differences in copulatory systems between species that cause mechanical difficulties in interspecific mating or fertilization (Eberhard, 1985; Grant, 1994; Arnqvist, 1998; Masly, 2012). These differences used to be attributed to “lock and key” type recognition systems between species but the body of evidence now favors sexual selection or more precisely sexual conflict as the primary evolutionary driver of rapid morphological differentiation among taxa in genitalia, resulting in mechanical isolation (Eberhard, 1985; Grant, 1994; Arnqvist, 1998; Masly, 2012). Differences in the shapes of flowers that have variable consequences for birds and insects successfully pollinating plants can also be considered a form of mechanical isolation, while differences in flower color attracting pollinators may be considered a form of behavioral prezygotic isolation. In a related vein, for bacteria, factors that impeded conjugation might be considered to represent pre-exchange mechanical barriers to gene flow (Polz et al., 2013).

Postzygotic Isolation

Postzygotic isolation for sexually reproducing organisms occurs when zygotes (offspring) produced from hybrid matings are inviable or sterile (Coyne and Orr, 2004). Postzygotic RI can be due to negative interactions of hybrids with external environmental/ecological conditions (termed “extrinsic”) or due to internal genomic incompatibilities independent of the environment (termed “intrinsic”) (Coyne and Orr, 2004). Post-exchange isolation may occur in asexual bacteria if, following conjugation, DNA sequences are not stably integrated (recombined) into the genome of recipients and/or are quickly lost due to selection.

Intrinsic isolation

Intrinsic incompatibility in hybrids was first articulated as a barrier to genetic exchange by Bateson (1909) (Orr, 1996), and elaborated upon and empirically studied by Dobzhansky (1937) and Muller (1942). Under the Bateson–Dobzhansky–Muller (B–D–M) model, populations initially become geographically isolated in “allopatry” and independently evolve genetic differences from one another. Following subsequent secondary contact, if hybrids form, then they may possess certain mutations from the two populations that, when brought together for the first time in individuals of mixed ancestry, interact negatively with one another and cause sterility or inviability. RI is intrinsic because hybrids suffer inherent developmental problems regardless of external environmental conditions (Coyne and Orr, 2004).

One feature of intrinsic RI is that it can evolve at different rates in males and females according to Haldane’s rule (Haldane, 1922). When hybrids of one sex are disproportionately sterile or inviable, it will most often be the heterogametic sex (ie, the sex of a species in which the sex chromosomes are not the same) that suffers.

A second feature of intrinsic postzygotic isolation is that the number of genes contributing to B–D–M incompatibilities may increase exponentially and not linearly with time (Orr and Turelli, 2001; Matute et al., 2010). The reason is that as the number of loci interacting to cause incompatibilities increases, the number of opportunities for new mutations to negatively interact with those already causing postzygotic isolation increases, resulting in a snowballing effect of exponentially increasing genes involved with time (Orr and Turelli, 2001). The snowball effect does not mean, however, that RI necessarily increases exponentially with time, only that the number of loci involved may increase (Coyne and Orr, 2004). In addition, the snowball effect is contingent on certain types of developmental and physiological pathways in which there are a large number of loci that can potentially interact with one another to generate B–D–M incompatibilities (Porter and Johnson, 2002; Gourbiere and Mallet, 2010). If this is not the case, then as a new mutation establishes in one population, only changes in a few loci will result in postzygotic RI and the snowball will not start to roll and non-linearly increase in size.

B–D–M incompatibilities are not the only possible cause of intrinsic hybrid sterility. If meiotic drive systems and transposable elements that are usually suppressed within conspecific populations become active in hybrids, then they can also cause intrinsic hybrid sterility (Frank, 1991; Crespi and Nosil, 2013). There is currently debate as to how often intrinsic isolation is due to classic B–D–M incompatibilities, which may initially owe their origins within populations to natural selection or genetic drift, as opposed to selfish genetic entities involved in intragenomic conflict, involving meiotic drive and transposable elements (Hurst and Schilthuizen, 1998; Crespi and Nosil, 2013).

Extrinsic isolation

In contrast to intrinsic isolation, extrinsic postzygotic isolation can evolve both in allopatry and in cases of speciation occurring with gene flow (see below) (Coyne and Orr, 2004). Extrinsic postzygotic isolation is ecologically context dependent. Thus, hybrids may not suffer when reared, for example, under benign conditions in the laboratory. However, they fare poorly in natural conditions (Forister, 2005). Thus, extrinsic RI is not due to inherent negative interactions among genes per se, but results from the way in which these genes interact with the environment to cause hybrids to have reduced fitness. Extrinsic postzygotic isolation may often evolve before intrinsic isolation (Seehausen et al., 2014), suggesting that divergent ecological selection (adaptation) may often play a critical early role in initiating speciation.

Synopsis

In summary, many different types of barriers can evolve to impede genetic exchange between populations before or after zygote formation (Table 1). Because prezygotic isolation acts earlier in the life cycle than postzygotic isolation, the former can have a relatively greater effect on reducing gene flow between sexually reproducing organisms (Kirkpatrick and Ravigne, 2002; Marie Curie Speciation Network, 2012). However, prezygotic RI is not always expected to be complete, especially early in the divergence process, and, thus, postzygotic RI is also likely to be an important contributor to speciation for most taxa. Indeed, in cases of allopatric (geographic) speciation (see below) where individuals from different populations do not encounter one another, there is no reason to assume that postzygotic isolation should not evolve at the same rate as prezygotic RI (Coyne and Orr, 1997).

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128096338023669

What are the 5 Prezygotic isolating mechanisms?

Prezygotic mechanisms include habitat isolation, mating seasons, "mechanical" isolation, gamete isolation and behavioral isolation.

What are the 4 types of Prezygotic isolation?

Prezygotic isolation occurs before the formation of a zygote can take place. In most cases mating does not even occur. Forms of prezygotic isolation include spatial, behavioral, mechanical and temporal isolation. Postzygotic isolation occurs after members of two different species have mated and produced a zygote.

What are the 4 isolating mechanisms?

Some examples include geographic, temporal, reproductive, and behavioral isolation. For two groups of organisms to be considered separate species, they must not be able to produce viable offspring.

What is an example of Prezygotic isolation?

An example of this is some species of flowers that produce pollen at times that only their same species is receptive. Other, related, species produce pollen at different times to maintain reproductive isolation. This is an example of prezygotic isolation because the gametes do not meet to ever make a zygote.