Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Disruptive selection and then what?
Introduction
A population experiences disruptive selection (see Glossary) on a quantitative trait when intermediate phenotypes have a fitness disadvantage compared with more extreme phenotypes. During the 1950s and 1960s, disruptive selection figured prominently in mainstream evolutionary thinking, with the realization that it might have several consequences for the evolution of phenotypic variability 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, including the maintenance of high levels of genetic variation, sympatric speciation, the emergence of allelic switches between alternative phenotypes and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. After a period of diminished interest in the idea 7, 8, renewed attempts at understanding disruptive selection were made during the 1990s 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. An important new insight was that two types of disruptive selection must be distinguished, of which only one has a diversifying effect (Box 1).
For disruptive selection to occur, the mean phenotype has to experience the lowest fitness. In the first type, which does not lead to diversification, selection prevents a population from experiencing such a situation for any significant amount of time. Instead, the population evolves away from the region of disruptive selection (Box 1, Figure Ia). For example, imagine a situation where a consumer feeds on two resources, say, large and small seeds, whose abundance is maintained at relatively constant levels by other factors. Consumers with intermediate phenotypes perform poorly on both resources and have a smaller energy intake rate than do either of the more extreme phenotypes. Thus, directional selection acts towards specialization in the direction of the closer fitness peak.
For the second type of disruptive selection, we can imagine a situation where a population exploits a continuously varying resource, such as seeds that range from very small to very large and where the level of consumption influences seed abundance. Individuals that efficiently exploit the most abundant resource (e.g. seeds of intermediate size) have a fitness advantage and the mean of the population will move towards this optimum (Figure 1a). Once most of the population is specialized on the most abundant resource, this part of the resource spectrum is depleted, and that phenotype is no longer favored (Figure 1b). As a result, phenotypes that deviate from the most common type have a fitness advantage and the population experiences disruptive selection. This is maintained until phenotypic variation increases to the point where the available resource spectrum is used more equally (Box 1 Figure Ic). This scenario is driven by negative frequency-dependent selection, emerging from competition for resources. Rare types enjoy an advantage because of decreased competition with the majority (Box 1).
For asexual populations, the advantage of rarity means that phenotypes on opposite sides of the fitness minimum can coexist in a protected polymorphism 11, 12. Disruptive selection acts to drive the coexisting types further apart, until they reside on different fitness peaks (Box 1, Figure Ic). In freely interbreeding sexual populations, however, the distribution of phenotypes is constrained by the processes of segregation and recombination, which cause many individuals to have the maladaptive intermediate phenotype 13, 14. As a consequence, processes that prevent the production of intermediates are favored, and it is these that we consider here. In addition to competition for resources, other ecological interactions can cause disruptive selection 10, 15. Common types can, for instance, be at a disadvantage by attracting the attention of their predators, experiencing increased incidence of disease, or having too few mutualists.
Empirical support for these theoretical insights is hard to come by owing to substantial experimental difficulties. However, it has recently been demonstrated that intraspecific competition for food in sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus can favor both limnetic and benthic specialist phenotypes over generalists [16]. Other studies have shown that competition produces negative frequency dependence between phenotypes 17, 18, 19, 20.
The twin realizations that disruptive selection can persist for significant periods of time and that many ecological scenarios produce just this sort of selection regime has triggered a massive effort among theoreticians to explore the evolutionary consequences of such scenarios. To date, the consequence that has attracted the most attention is the phenomenon of evolutionary branching of a lineage 15, 21, 22, including the possibility of sympatric speciation 23, 24, 25. However, splitting of a single lineage into genetically distinct lineages is not the only possible response to disruptive selection.
There is presently a limited awareness of the full spectrum of possible adaptive responses to disruptive selection and how to assess their relative likelihoods. All of the potential responses are characterized by a reduction or elimination of disruptive selection via some increase in the diversity of phenotypes and there are many ways in which this can be realized. Although much remains to be learned about the relative frequency of different responses to prolonged disruptive selection, it is unlikely that sympatric speciation will be the most common one. To appreciate the scope of disruptive selection as a creative evolutionary force, it is therefore important to understand the circumstances favoring the different potential responses to this form of natural selection.
Section snippets
Adaptive responses to disruptive selection
Here, we use ‘disruptive selection’ to refer to the second scenario above, where disruptive selection acts to increase phenotypic variation. The possible processes leading to such an increase can be roughly subdivided into three categories, consisting of those that lead to an increase in genetic variation within a species, those that lead to an increase in phenotypic variation without an increase in genetic variation, and those involving other species in the community (Table 1).
Which response should we expect?
As we have illustrated, various processes can be triggered by disruptive selection. To evaluate the importance of disruptive selection for biological evolution, one needs to be aware of this spectrum and of the circumstances favoring one process over the others. Much recent interest in disruptive selection has focused on sympatric speciation. Although an interesting topic, it should be compared with other outcomes that might be more common, given the broad spectrum of possibilities. It is also
Conclusion
Disruptive selection has regained a prominent role in evolutionary thinking, especially in speciation research. The revival of interest in this category of natural selection seems justified, based on the large number of ecological scenarios that could lead to frequency-dependent disruptive selection. We suggest that, to better understand the effects of such selection on biological diversity, future work must develop a more systematic understanding of the full spectrum of responses that can
Acknowledgements
We thank Aneil Agrawal for comments and discussion. C.R. was supported by the Research Council for Earth and Life Sciences with financial aid from the Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research (NWO). P.A.A. and C.R. were supported by a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. T.V.D. was supported by a Dutch NWO-VENI grant and O.L. thanks the Swedish Research Council for support.
Glossary
- Assortative mating:
- when sexually reproducing organisms tend to mate with individuals that are similar to themselves in some respect. Can be caused by assortative mate choice, or by environmental factors that cause non-random associations between mating partners.
- Attractor:
- in dynamical systems, an attractor is a set to which the system approaches given enough time. Trajectories moving close to the attractor remain close when slightly disturbed. Stable equilibrium points, cycles and strange
References (72)
Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants
Adv. Genet.
(1965)The evolutionary ecology of dominance-recessivity
J. Theor. Biol.
(1999)- et al.
Resource polymorphisms in vertebrates
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(1995) Genetic equilibrium when more than one ecological niche is available
Am. Nat.
(1953)Polymorphism as an outcome of disruptive selection
Evolution
(1955)Disruptive selection, polymorphism and sympatric speciation
Nature
(1962)Evolution in Changing Environments
(1968)- Wright, S. (1969) Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Vol. 2: The Theory of Gene Frequencies, University of...
- et al.
Theoretical considerations of sympatric divergence
Am. Nat.
(1973) - et al.
Stable underdominance and the evolutionary invasion of empty niches
Am. Nat.
(1986)
On conditions for evolutionary stability for a continuously varying character
Am. Nat.
Evolutionarily unstable fitness maxima and stable fitness minima of continuous traits
Evol. Ecol.
Adaptive dynamics: a geometrical study of the consequences of nearly faithful reproduction
Evolutionarily singular strategies and the adaptive growth and branching of the evolutionary tree
Evol. Ecol.
On the origin of species by sympatric speciation
Nature
The effects of intraspecific competition and stabilizing selection on a polygenic trait
Genetics
Evolutionary branching and sympatric speciation caused by different types of ecological interactions
Am. Nat.
Can intraspecific competition drive disruptive selection? An experimental test in natural populations of sticklebacks
Evolution
Frequency-dependent natural selection in the handedness of scale-eating fish
Science
Are the bill crossing morphs in crossbills the result of frequency-dependent selection?
Evol. Ecol.
Frequency dependent natural selection during character displacement in sticklebacks
Evolution
Trophic polymorphism and behavioral differences decrease intraspecific competition in a cichlid, Herichthys minckleyi
Ecology
Adaptive dynamics in allele space: evolution of genetic polymorphism by small mutations in a heterogeneous environment
Evolution
20 questions about adaptive dynamics
J. Evol. Biol.
Speciation
Fitness Landscapes and the Origin of Species
The Mathematical Theory of Quantitative Genetics
The maintenance (or not) of polygenic variation by soft selection in heterogeneous environments
Am. Nat.
A multilocus analysis of intraspecific competition and stabilizing selection on a quantitative trait
J. Math. Biol.
Population genetic perspectives on the evolution of recombination
Annu. Rev. Genet.
Frequency-dependent selection for the dominance of rare polymorphic genes
Evolution
Models of the evolution of dominance
Proc. R. Soc. B
Disruptive selection and the genetic basis of bill size polymorphism in the African finch Pyrenestes
Nature
Interactions among quantitative traits in the course of sympatric speciation
Nature
Adaptive dynamics in diploid, sexual populations and the evolution of reproductive isolation
Proc. R. Soc. B
Cited by (248)
The importance of distinguishing individual differences in ‘social impact’ versus ‘social responsiveness’ when quantifying indirect genetic effects on the evolution of social plasticity
2023, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral ReviewsCitation Excerpt :Accordingly, individuals occupy different social niches in the social networks and partition social roles to reduce or prevent conflict. For instance, niche construction and disruptive selection (Rueffler et al., 2006) on aggression and mating behaviour can maintain genetic variation in social behaviours in populations of Drosophila flies (Saltz and Foley, 2011). Although within-individual variance (and thus social responsiveness) should be reduced, social niches are expected to maintain repeatable differences in social traits (Bergmüller and Taborsky, 2010; Westneat et al., 2015).
Transient polymorphisms in parental care strategies drive divergence of sex roles
2023, Nature Communications