Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×

Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.

Hostname: page-component-669899f699-chc8l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T20:41:00.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Artificial neural networks in models of specialisation, guild evolution and sympatric speciation

from Part III - Artificial neural networks as models of perceptual processing in ecology and evolutionary biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2011

By
Noél M. A. Holmgren ,
Niclas Norrström  and
Wayne M. Getz
Edited by
Colin R. Tosh  and
Graeme D. Ruxton
Noél M. A. Holmgren
Affiliation:
University of Skövde
Niclas Norrström
Affiliation:
University of Skövde
Wayne M. Getz
Affiliation:
University of California at Berkeley
Colin R. Tosh
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Graeme D. Ruxton
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
Get access

Summary

11.1 Introduction

The existence of sympatric speciation has been a contentious issue because empirical support was scarce and the underlying theoretical mechanisms were not as fully understood as we might like (e.g. Futuyma & Mayer, 1980; Rundle & Nosil, 2005). The view on sympatric speciation is currently changing, however. Recent theories demonstrate how ecological adaptations can drive speciation (Dieckmann et al., 2004; Doebeli et al., 2005). In concert with theoretical development, empirical evidence corroborating this view is accumulating (Barluenga et al., 2006; Panova et al., 2006; Savolainen et al., 2006). An obstacle for sympatric speciation is the exchange of alleles between lineages and the homogenising effect of recombination in sexual reproduction (Felsenstein, 1981; Rice & Salt, 1988). The current view on sympatric speciation is therefore that disruptive selection for evolutionary divergence has to be correlated with assortative mating and reproductive isolation (Felsenstein, 1981; Rundle & Nosil, 2005). This can be through linkage between ecological genes and mating genes, or a pleiotropic effect of ecological genes on mating behaviour. Orr & Smith (1998) make the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic barriers to gene flow. Extrinsic factors are physical barriers in the environment that prevent encounters between individuals. Intrinsic factors are genetic traits that increase pre- or post-zygotic reproductive isolation. They define sympatric speciation as ‘the evolution of intrinsic barriers to gene flow in the absence of extrinsic barriers’.

Type
Chapter
Information
Modelling Perception with Artificial Neural Networks , pp. 236 - 254
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abrahamson, W. G., Eubanks, M. D., Blair, C. P. & Whipple, A. V. 2001. Gall flies, inquilines, and goldenrods: A model for host-race formation and sympatric speciation. Am Zool 41, 928–938.Google Scholar
Alvarez, L. W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F., & Michel, H. V. 1980. Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. Science 208, 1095–1108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amemiya, T., Enomoto, T., Rossberg, A. G., Talamura, N. & Itoh, K. 2005. Lake restoration in terms of ecological resilience: a numerical study of biomanipulations under bistable conditions. Ecol Soc 10, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballabeni, P. & Rahier, M. 2000. Performance leaf beetle larvae on sympatric host and non-host plants. Entomol ExperApplicata 97, 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barluenga, M., Stöltig, K. N., Salzburger, W., Muschick, M. & Meyer, A. 2006. Sympatric speciation in Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid fish. Nature 439, 719–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernays, E. A. 2001. Neural limitations in phytophagous insects: implications for diet breadth and evolution of host affiliation. Ann Rev Entomol 46, 703–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crooks, J. A. 2002. Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: the role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 97, 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dethier, V. G. 1947. Chemical Insect Attractants and Repellents. Blakiston Co.Google Scholar
Dieckmann, U. & Doebeli, M. 1999. On the origin of species by sympatric speciation. Nature 400, 354–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dieckmann, U., Doebeli, M., Metz, J. A. J. & Tautz, D. 2004. Adaptive Speciation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doebeli, M., Dieckmann, U., Metz, J. A. J. & Tautz, D. 2005. What we have also learned: adaptive speciation is theoretically plausible. Evolution 59, 691–695.Google ScholarPubMed
Felsenstein, J. 1981. Skepticism towards Santa Rosalia, or why are there so few kinds of animals. Evolution 35, 124–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, R. A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fretwell, S. D. & Lucas, H. L. 1970. On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheoretica 19, 16–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futuyma, D. J. 1991. Evolution of host specificity in herbivorous insects: genetic, ecological, and phylogenetic aspects. In Plant–Animal Interactions: Evolutionary Ecology in Tropical and Temperate Regions (eds Price, P. W.et al.), pp. 431–454. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Futuyma, D. J. & Mayer, G. C. 1980. Non-allopatric speciation in animals. SystZool 29, 254–271.Google Scholar
Futuyma, D. J. & Moreno, G. 1988. The evolution of ecological specialization. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 19, 207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geritz, S. A. H. & Kisdi, E. 2000. Adaptive dynamics in diploid, sexual populations and the evolution of reproductive isolation. Proc R Soc B 267, 1671–1678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Getz, W. M. & Akers, R. P. 1997. Response of American cockroach (Periplaneta americana) olfactory receptors to selected alcohol odorants and their binary combinations. J Comp Physiol A 180, 701–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Getz, W. M. & Chapman, R. F. 1987. An odor perception model with application to kin discrimination in social insects. Int J Neuriosci 32, 963–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Getz, W. M. & Lutz, A. 1999. A neural network model of general olfactory coding in the insect antennal lobe. Chem Senses 24, 351–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Getz, W. M. & Smith, K. B. 1990. Odorant moiety and odor mixture perception in free flying honey bees (Apis mellifera). Chem Senses 15, 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haykin, S. 1994. Neural Networks. A Comprehensive Foundation. MacMillan College Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Holmgren, N. 1995. The ideal free distribution of unequal competitors: predictions from a behaviour-based functional response. J Anim Ecol 64, 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmgren, N. M. A. & Enquist, M. 1999. Dynamics of mimicry evolution. Biol J Linn Soc 66, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmgren, N. M. A. & Getz, W. M. 2000. Evolution of host plant selection in insects under perceptual constraints: a simulation study. Evol Ecol Res 2, 81–106.Google Scholar
Jaenike, J. 1990. Host specialization in phytophagous insects. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 21, 243–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janz, N., Nyblom, K. & Nylin, S. 2001. Evolutionary dynamics of host-plant specialization: a case study of the tribe Nymphalini. Evolution 55, 783–796.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jermy, T. 1984. Evolution of insect/host plant relationships. Am Nat 124, 609–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linn, Jr. C. E., Dambroski, H. R., Feder, J. L.et al. 2004. Postzygotic isolating factor in sympatric speciation in Rhagoletis flies: reduced response of hybrids to parental host-fruit odors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101, 17753–17758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maynard Smith, J. 1998. Evolutionary Genetics. 2nd Edn. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norrström, N., Getz, W. M. & Holmgren, N. M. A. 2006. Coevolution of exploiter specialization and victim mimicry can be cyclic and saltational. Evol Bioinform Online 2, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosil, P. 2002. Transition rates between specialization and generalization in phytophagous insects. Evolution 56, 1701–1706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsson, S. B., Linn, Jr. C. E., Michel, A.et al. 2006. Receptor expression and sympatric speciation: unique olfactory receptor neuron responses in F1 hybrid Rhagoletis populations. J Exp Biol 209, 3729–3741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orr, M. R. & Smith, T. B. 1998. Ecology and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 13, 502–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panova, M., Hollander, J. & Johannesson, K. 2006. Site-specific genetic divergence in parallel hybrid zones suggests nonallopatric evolution of reproductive barriers. Mol Ecol 15, 4021–4031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, W. R. 1984. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evoultion of reproductive isolation: a simulation study. Evolution 38, 1251–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, W. R. & Salt, G. W. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection of habitat preference: experimental evidence. Am Nat 131, 911–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, W. R. & Salt, G. W. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution 44, 1140–1152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rundle, H. D. & Nosil, P. 2005. Ecological speciation. Ecol Lett 8, 336–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rundle, H. D. & Schluter, D. 2004. Natural selection and ecological speciation in sticklebacks. In Adaptive Speciation (eds Dieckmann, U.et al.), pp. 192–209. Cambridge University Press.
Savolainen, V., Anstett, M.-C., Lexer, C.et al. 2006. Sympatric speciation in palms on an oceanic island. Nature 441, 210–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valen, L. 1973. A new evolutionary law. Evol Theor 1, 1–30.Google Scholar
Visser, J. H. 1986. Host odor perception in phytophagous insects. Ann Rev Ent 31, 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, B. D. 1864. On phytophagic varieties and phytophagous species. Proc Ent Soc Phila 3, 403–430.Google Scholar
Wiklund, C. 1975. The evolutionary relationship between adult oviposition preferences and larval host plant range in Papiliomachaon L. Oecologia 18, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×