Abstract
A popular theory has proposed that anisogamy originated through disruptive selection acting on an ancestral isogamous population, though recent work has emphasized the importance of other factors in its evolution. We re-examine the disruptive selection theory, starting from an isogamous population with two mating types and taking into account the functional relationship, g(m), between the fitness of a gamete and its size, m, as well as the relationship, f(S), between the fitness of a zygote and its size, S. Evolutionary game theory is used to determine the existence and continuous stability of isogamous and anisogamous strategies for the two mating types under various models for the two functions g(m) and f(S). In the ancestral unicellular state, these two functions are likely to have been similar; this leads to isogamy whether they are sigmoidal or concave, though in the latter case allowance must be made for a minimal gamete size. The development of multicellularity may leave g(m) relatively unchanged while f(S) moves to the right, leading to the evolution of anisogamy. Thus, the disruptive selection theory provides a powerful explanation of the origin of anisogamy, though other selective forces may have been involved in the subsequent specialization of micro- and macrogametes.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (126.6 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Ball M. A., Parker G. A. Sperm competition games: a comparison of loaded raffle models and their biological implications. J Theor Biol. 2000 Oct 21;206(4):487–506. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.2000.2142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ball M. A., Parker G. A. Sperm competition games: external fertilization and "adaptive"' infertility. J Theor Biol. 1996 May 21;180(2):141–150. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.1996.0090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bell G. The evolution of anisogamy. J Theor Biol. 1978 Jul 20;73(2):247–270. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(78)90189-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Charlesworth B. The population genetics of anisogamy. J Theor Biol. 1978 Jul 20;73(2):347–357. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(78)90195-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hoekstra R. F. The evolution of sexes. Experientia Suppl. 1987;55:59–91. doi: 10.1007/978-3-0348-6273-8_3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Knowlton N. A note on the evolution of gamete dimorphism. J Theor Biol. 1974 Jul;46(1):283–285. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(74)90153-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Levitan DR. Optimal Egg Size in Marine Invertebrates: Theory and Phylogenetic Analysis of the Critical Relationship between Egg Size and Development Time in Echinoids. Am Nat. 2000 Aug;156(2):175–192. doi: 10.1086/303376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Parker G. A. Selection on non-random fusion of gametes during the evolution of anisogamy. J Theor Biol. 1978 Jul 6;73(1):1–28. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(78)90177-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Parker G. A. Why are there so many tiny sperm? Sperm competition and the maintenance of two sexes. J Theor Biol. 1982 May 21;96(2):281–294. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(82)90225-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Randerson J. P., Hurst L. D. A comparative test of a theory for the evolution of anisogamy. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Apr 22;268(1469):879–884. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]