The DOI matches its Crossref record.
SINGLE FOUNDER-FLUSH EVENTS AND THE EVOLUTION OF REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION
Abstract
By demonstrating the evolution of significant premating isolation, previous laboratory experiments have provided some evidence for the founder-flush model of speciation. However, these experiments are subject to a number of criticisms, including the use of hybrid populations recently collected from the wild and the use of multiple bottlenecks. Here we present the results of a test of founder-flush speciation using a single, well-adapted laboratory stock of Drosophila melanogaster subjected to one founder-flush event. The experiment was replicated at larger scale than previous studies, and results indicate that none of 50 independent founder-flush lines evolved significant assortative mating relative to the control (base) population. This suggests a diminished emphasis on population bottlenecks in speciation of D. melanogaster and perhaps in general.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Studies using experimental populations offered limited evidence that RI could arise as a by-product of population bottlenecks.
“Also, studies using experimental populations offered limited evidence that RI could arise as a by-product of population bottlenecks (e.g., Moya et al., 1995; Rundle et al., 1998).”
From Genomics of plant speciation (2023) · cites this paper as Rundle et al., 1998
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- Ahearn, 1980, Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris., Experientia, 36, 63, 10.1007/BF02003975 · DOI
- Arita, 1979, Ethological isolation between two stocks of Drosophila Adiastola, Hardy. Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. Soc., 23, 31
- Averhoff, 1974, Pheromonal control of mating patterns in Drosophila melanogaster., Behav. Genet., 4, 207, 10.1007/BF01074155 · DOI
- Averhoff, 1976, Multiple pheromone system controlling mating in Drosophila melanogaster., Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 73, 591, 10.1073/pnas.73.2.591 · DOI
- Baker, 1965, Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds., 147
- Barton, 1989, Founder effect speciation., 229
- Bishop, 1975, Discrete multivariate analysis: theory and practice
- Carson, 1984, Genetic revolutions in relation to speciation phenomena: the founding of new populations., Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 15, 97, 10.1146/annurev.es.15.110184.000525 · DOI
- Charlesworth, 1982, A neo-Darwinian commentary on macroevolution., Evolution, 36, 474, 10.2307/2408095 · DOI
- Dodd, 1985, Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila., Evolution, 39, 1388, 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb05704.x · DOI
- Fienberg, 1977, The analysis of cross-classified categorical data
- Galiana, 1993, Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large-scale experiment., Evolution, 47, 432, 10.2307/2410062 · DOI
- Gromko, 1993, Courtship and remating in field populations of Drosophila., Anim. Behav., 45, 253, 10.1006/anbe.1993.1031 · DOI
- Mayr, 1963, Animal species and evolution, 10.4159/harvard.9780674865327 · DOI · Paper page
- Meffert, 1991, Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly., Evolution, 45, 293, 10.2307/2409664 · DOI
- Mooers , A. Ø. H. D. Rundle M. C. Whitlock 1999 The effects of selection and bottlenecks on male mating success in peripheral isolates. Am. Nat. In press. · DOI
- Moya, 1995, Founder-effect speciation theory: failure of experimental corroboration., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 92, 3983, 10.1073/pnas.92.9.3983 · DOI · Paper page
- Powell, 1978, The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach., Evolution, 32, 465, 10.2307/2407714 · DOI
- Powell, 1979, Inbreeding and mating patterns in Drosophila pseudoobscura., Behav. Genet., 9, 425, 10.1007/BF01066981 · DOI
- Rice, 1993, Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years?, Evolution, 47, 1637, 10.2307/2410209 · DOI
- Ringo, 1985, An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation., Am. Nat., 126, 642, 10.1086/284445 · DOI
- Templeton, 1979, The unit of selection in Drosophila mercatorum. II. Genetic revolution and the origin of coadapted genomes in parthenogenetic strains., Genetics, 92, 1265, 10.1093/genetics/92.4.1265 · DOI
- Templeton, 1980, The theory of speciation via the founder principle., Genetics, 94, 1011, 10.1093/genetics/94.4.1011 · DOI
- Templeton, 1989, Founder effects and the evolution of reproductive isolation., 329
- Templeton, 1996, Experimental evidence for the genetic-transilience model of speciation., Evolution, 50, 909, 10.2307/2410862 · DOI
- True, 1996, Differences in crossover frequency and distribution among three sibling species of Drosophila., Genetics, 142, 507, 10.1093/genetics/142.2.507 · DOI
- Whitlock, 1996, The distribution among populations in phenotypic variance with inbreeding., Evolution, 50, 1919, 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb03579.x · DOI
- Wilkinson, 1990, Resistance of genetic correlation structure to directional selection in Drosophila melanogaster., Evolution, 44, 1990, 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1990.tb04305.x · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bock, D. G., Cai, Z., Elphinstone, C., González-Segovia, E., Hirabayashi, K., Huang, K., Keais, G. L., Kim, A., Owens, G. L., & Rieseberg, L. H. (2023) · Plant Communications · doi:10.1016/j.xplc.2023.100599 · Cited by 84
“Also, studies using experimental populations offered limited evidence that RI could arise as a by-product of population bottlenecks (e.g., Moya et al., 1995; Rundle et al., 1998).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Rundle, H. D., Mooers, A. Ø., & Whitlock, M. C.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Venue
- Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1998-12
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1850-1855
- ISSN
- 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2136774025
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 2.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Evolution (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Green College Research Award
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
- Keywords
- speciation, reproductive isolation, premating isolation, assortative mating, Drosophila melanogaster, population bottleneck, laboratory populations, hybrid populations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
