Workshop on "Behaviour and Speciation" in Oslo

This is a quick greeting and update from Oslo (Norway), where I have participated in a very stimulating research workshop entitled "Behaviour and Speciation", funded by FroSpects and organized by Glenn-Peter Saetre at CEES (Oslo). There were a number of interesting talks by invited speakers, including from Ole Seehausen, Lee Dugatkin, Darren Irwin and Anna Qvarnström, to mention only a few. It was nice to meet friends and colleauges like Darren who I have not seen for ten years, i. e. since he was postdoc in Lund.

It was also nice to meet former PhD-student Fabrice Eroukhmanoff (see picture above), who seems to be doing very well in his new research group and who now works in transgressive hybridization in a homoploid hybrid species of Passer-sparrow and its effects on various phenotypic traits, including beak morphology and beak allometry. Fabrice, Glenn-Peter and several others from the "Sparrow-group" gave several interesting talks about the ongoing work in this fascinating system where genomic, phenotypic and ecological data are now being put together to reveal a complicated but interesting speciation history.

I am writing this post from Fabrice's apartment in Oslo, where I am staying two nights before continuing to North Carolina and the NESCent-meeting about "Environmental determinants of selection". I was of course also pleased to hear that EXEB lab-member in Lund Jessica Abbott have been shortlisted for interview in her application for a "Startup Grant" for junior researcher to the European Research Council (ERC). Well done! An impressive achievement to make it this far, irrespective of the outcome during the interview in Brussels in April, I think.

"Target Review" in Journal of Evolutionary Biology about hybridization and speciation and a comment

Posted by Erik Svensson

In the latest issue of Journal of Evolutionary Biology there is a so-called "Target Review" by a large group of evolutionary biologists entitled: "Hybridization and speciation".  This review, as well as the comments on it, are published "Open Acccess", meaning that anyone can read and download them, even if you are not in a university library. One of the co-authors of this multi-authored paper is by the way Fabrice Eroukhmanoff, former PhD-student in Lund and past member of the EXEB lab, and currently postdoc in Oslo (Norway).  Below is the Abstract:

Abstract

Hybridization has many and varied impacts on the process of speciation. Hybridization may slow or reverse differentiation by allowing gene flow and recombination. It may accelerate speciation via adaptive introgression or cause near-instantaneous speciation by allopolyploidization. It may have multiple effects at different stages and in different spatial contexts within a single speciation event. We offer a perspective on the context and evolutionary significance of hybridization during speciation, highlighting issues of current interest and debate. In secondary contact zones, it is uncertain if barriers to gene flow will be strengthened or broken down due to recombination and gene flow. Theory and empirical evidence suggest the latter is more likely, except within and around strongly selected genomic regions. Hybridization may contribute to speciation through the formation of new hybrid taxa, whereas introgression of a few loci may promote adaptive divergence and so facilitate speciation. Gene regulatory networks, epigenetic effects and the evolution of selfish genetic material in the genome suggest that the Dobzhansky–Muller model of hybrid incompatibilities requires a broader interpretation. Finally, although the incidence of reinforcement remains uncertain, this and other interactions in areas of sympatry may have knock-on effects on speciation both within and outside regions of hybridization.

The Target Review is, as usual for these types of invited reviews,  followed by a number of comments, some of them critical, by several evolutionary biologists, including myself. My comment can be found here and is entitled: "Beyond hybridization: diversity of interactions with heterospecifics, direct fitness consequences and the effects on mate preferences".  There are also contributions by Nick Barton, Servedio, Hermisson and Dorn, Seehausen, Björklund and Shaw and Mendelson, to mention only a few comments of what seems to be an interesting discussion around a controversial topic, namely the role of hybridization in speciation. Enjoy!

Some thoughts from ASAB:s winter meeting in London: remembering Mayr's and Tinbergen's legacies

Together with Machteld Verzijden from our lab, I recently attended the annual "winter meeting" for the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB), close to London Zoo. The theme for this year's meeting was "Why do animals mate with the "wrong" partner?", and you can find a list of the talks here. There were several interesting talks, including contributions from Marlene Zuk about "same-sex behaviour" and Karen Pfennig about adaptive hybridization in spadefoot toads. The most interesting talk, in my opinion, was however Tamra Mendelson, who pointed out the need for a clear operational definition of species recognition, and emphasized that it should be integrated with the need for a general theory of mate recognition.

Other contributions were more controversial, including a talk by Joan Roughgarden, about the evolution of cooperation and mutual affection, and Malin Ah-King from Uppsala University about the need for developing gender-neutral models of sexual selection. Malin Ah-King took as her starting point a model based on five demographic parameters that makes no assumptions about past evolutionary history of the two sexes and argued that the so-called "w-distribution" (distribution of male-female joint fitnesses) was crucial in determining the degree of mate acceptance and promiscuity. Although I see some validity in moving away from the evoutionary psychology tradition of stereotypic sex differences to better understand mating system evolution, the opposite approach, ignoring sex differences altogether seems to be a bit too drastic in my opinion. But I might have misunderstood some underlying assumptions of this model, of course.

Even more controversial was when Ah-King suggested that we should consider alternative explanations for why animals mate than the classical evolutionary one: that animals mate because natural selection favours reproduction and the transmission of genetic material across generations. King instead suggested that animals more often mate because of "pleasure", which to me seems to be making the classical mistake of confusing proximate ("mechanistic") and ultimate ("evolutionary") explanations of animal behaviour. 

As evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr and ethologist Niko Tinbergen have taught us, proximate and ultimate explanations are not mutually exclusive, but rather complementary, and adress different "layers" in the explanation of behaviours and other traits. Thus, contrary to what Ah-King claimed, the two statements "animals mate because of pleasure" and "animals mate to maximize the transmission of their genes" are not contradicting each other. They can even be integrated by stating: "Animals have evolved pleasure of reproduction as an internal reward system because natural selection has favoured organisms which are efficient in spreading their genetic material".

This took very long time for many biologists to undertand, particularly for geneticists, physiologists and developmental biologists. There is a famous story about fly geneticist TH Morgan who, in the early twentieth century stated that: "Darwin thought that male birds had evolved bright plumage colouration because of sexual selection by female choice. We now know that this explanation was incorrect, and the reason why male birds have more bright plumage than females is because of difference in sex hormones".  It would be sad if the important conceptual insights about the crucial difference between proximate and ultimate explanations, so clearly explained by Mayr and Tinbergen were forgotten again. And yet, that is the impression I got after listening to Ah-King's talk.