Data from: Mating environments mediate the evolution of behavioral isolation during ecological speciation
Data files
Jan 23, 2024 version files 115.84 KB
-
assay1_RawData.csv
-
assay1_Y_corn_as_reference_colour.csv
-
assay1_Y_corn_as_reference.csv
-
assay1_Y_salt_as_reference.csv
-
assay2_RawData.csv
-
assay2_Y_No_Colour.csv
-
assay2_Y.csv
-
assay3_data.csv
-
README.md
Abstract
The evolution of behavioral isolation is often the first step towards speciation. While past studies show that behavioral isolation will sometimes evolve as a by-product of divergent ecological selection, we lack a more nuanced understanding of factors that may promote or hamper its evolution. The environment in which mating occurs may be important in mediating whether behavioral isolation evolves for two reasons. Ecological speciation could occur as a direct outcome of different sexual interactions being favored in different mating environments. Alternatively, mating environments may vary in the constraint they impose on traits underlying mating interactions, such that populations evolving in a ‘constraining’ mating environment would be less likely to evolve behavioral isolation than populations evolving in a less constraining mating environment. In the latter, mating environment is not the direct cause of behavioral isolation but rather permits its evolution only if other drivers are present. We test these ideas with a set of 28 experimental fly populations, each of which evolved under one of two mating environments and one of two larval environments. Counter to the prediction of ecological speciation by mating environment, behavioral isolation was not maximal between populations evolved in different mating environments. Nonetheless, mating environment was an important factor as behavioral isolation evolved among populations from one mating environment but not among populations from the other. Though one mating environment was conducive to the evolution of behavioral isolation, it was not sufficient: assortative mating only evolved between populations adapting to different larval environments within that mating environment, indicating a role for ecological speciation. Intriguingly, the mating environment that promoted behavioral isolation is characterized by less sexual conflict compared to the other mating environment. Our results suggest that mating environments plays a key role in mediating ecological speciation via other axes of divergent selection.
README: Mating environments mediate the evolution of behavioral isolation during ecological speciation
https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.2547d7wzp
Data collection is described in the associated paper: Barerra et al. (2024) in Evolution Letters. There were three assays (experiments) performed. R code and accompanying data files are provided separately for each. Files with 'RawData' in the name are not called by the R script, but are provided for completeness as they include additional information not included in processed data files.
Description of the data and file structure
assay1_RawData\
Rows are individual replicate mating trials. Columns are as follows:\
A-D: Mating environments (simple vs. complex) and larval environments (salt vs corn) of first (cols A and B) and second (cols C and D) populations in a given mating trial pair.\
E-H: color (R = red, G= Green) of males and females from the first and second population\
I: indicates whether the male and female from a given population were the same or different color.\
J: ordinal categories of the day a given trial was performed.\
K: ordinal categories of the time of day a given trial was performed.\
L-O: number of matings observed involving Corn females (C_f), Corn males (C_m), Salt females (S_f) and Salt males (S_m).\
P: Total number of matings observed.\
Q: cage replicate number (categorical variable)\
R: categorical variable indicating person that observed that cage\
S & T: Full identities of populations 1 and 2 including larval and matings environments from cols A-D as well as replicate population number of each (7 populations for each combination of larval and mating environment).
assay1_Y_corn_as_reference\
Rows are average number of matings among replicate cages of the indicated type. Averages are calculated across the various replicate corn populations tested with a given salt population. Columns are:\
A-B: the mating environment (simple vs complex) of the salt and of the corn populations used in a given type of pairing. \
C: the replicate population number of the corn population (categorical, 1 to 7)\
The average number of matings of each of the four combinations of males and females; labels as in assay1_RawData\
Y: continuous, the index of assortative mating calculated from the mating combinations.
assay1_Y_salt_as_reference\
Same as assay1_Y_corn_as_reference except averages are calculated across the various replicate salt populations tested with a given corn population.
assay1_Y_corn_as_reference_colour\
Same as assay1_Y_corn_as_reference except each particular combination of two populations is split depending on whether males and females from a given population were coloured the same or had different colours (as indicated in col. E).
assay2_RawData\
Rows are replicate mating trials between a given combination of two populations. All populations were from the complex mating environment.\
A: the combination of populations where 1SC = population 1 from salt complex, 1CC = pop 1 from corn complex; others follow the same labeling convention;\
B: the larval environments (salt vs corn) of the two populations in a given replicate\
C: whether the pair tested involved a combination within a given larval environment (i.e. both salt or both corn), or between (i.e. one salt and one corn).\
D: replicates were performed across 9 blocks (days, first digit) and within four temporal blocks during a day (number after the decimal). \
E: cage ID\
F: observer for a given cage\
G indicates whether the males and females from a given population are the same or different colour; col H appends to this the colour of the females from the population listed first in col A\
I: total number of matings observed\
J-M, am = assortative matings, dm = disassortative matings; so J is the number of pop 1 females mating with pop 1 males, K is the number of pop 2 females mating with pop 2 males, and L and M are the number of pop 1 females with pop 2 males and vice versa.
assay2_Y_No_Colour\
Rows are average number of matings among replicate cages of the indicated type. \
A-C: as in cols A-C of assay2_RawData\
D-G: as in cols J-M of assay2_RawData except numbers are averages across all replicates of a given type.
assay2_Y\
Same as assay2_Y_No_Colour except each particular combination of two populations is split depending on whether males and females from a given population were coloured the same or had different colours (as indicated in col. C).
assay3_data\
Each row is a replicate female-choice mating trial (one female with one homospecific and one heterospecific male).\
A: whether the outcome (i.e. the mating mating) was assortative (female mated with her homospecific male) or disassortative (female mated with the heterospecific male).\
B: whether the heterospecific male was from the same (within_trt) or the other (among_trt) larval environment.\
C: ordinal variable for the day the trial was performed.\
D: population ID of the female used in the trial\
E: larval environment for the female\
F: concatenating cols D and E (all females were from the complex mating environment) and adding the replicate population number; 1CC is population 1 of corn complex, on so on\
G: population ID of the male the female mated with\
H: larval environment of the male the female mated with\
I: concatenating cols G and H (males were from the complex mating environment) and adding the replicate population number for the male the female mated with; 1CC is population 1 of corn complex, on so on\
J: colour marking of the mated male\
K: order of trials within a given day (ordinal variable)
Code/Software
Code is script for R version 4.2.3.
Methods
Data collection is described in the associated manuscript by Barerra et al. (2024) in Evolution Letters.