Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction: Modelling perception with artificial neural networks
- Part I General themes
- Part II The use of artificial neural networks to elucidate the nature of perceptual processes in animals
- Part III Artificial neural networks as models of perceptual processing in ecology and evolutionary biology
- 9 Evolutionary diversification of mating behaviour: using artificial neural networks to study reproductive character displacement and speciation
- 10 Applying artificial neural networks to the study of prey colouration
- 11 Artificial neural networks in models of specialisation, guild evolution and sympatric speciation
- 12 Probabilistic design principles for robust multi-modal communication networks
- 13 Movement-based signalling and the physical world: modelling the changing perceptual task for receivers
- Part IV Methodological issues in the use of simple feedforward networks
- Index
- References
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
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction: Modelling perception with artificial neural networks
- Part I General themes
- Part II The use of artificial neural networks to elucidate the nature of perceptual processes in animals
- Part III Artificial neural networks as models of perceptual processing in ecology and evolutionary biology
- 9 Evolutionary diversification of mating behaviour: using artificial neural networks to study reproductive character displacement and speciation
- 10 Applying artificial neural networks to the study of prey colouration
- 11 Artificial neural networks in models of specialisation, guild evolution and sympatric speciation
- 12 Probabilistic design principles for robust multi-modal communication networks
- 13 Movement-based signalling and the physical world: modelling the changing perceptual task for receivers
- Part IV Methodological issues in the use of simple feedforward networks
- Index
- References
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 - 254Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
, , & 2001. Gall flies, inquilines, and goldenrods: A model for host-race formation and sympatric speciation. Am Zool 41, 928–938.Google Scholar
, , , & 1980. Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. Science 208, 1095–1108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , & 2005. Lake restoration in terms of ecological resilience: a numerical study of biomanipulations under bistable conditions. Ecol Soc 10, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& 2000. Performance leaf beetle larvae on sympatric host and non-host plants. Entomol ExperApplicata 97, 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , & 2006. Sympatric speciation in Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid fish. Nature 439, 719–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2001. Neural limitations in phytophagous insects: implications for diet breadth and evolution of host affiliation. Ann Rev Entomol 46, 703–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2002. Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: the role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 97, 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& 1999. On the origin of species by sympatric speciation. Nature 400, 354–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , & 2005. What we have also learned: adaptive speciation is theoretically plausible. Evolution 59, 691–695.Google ScholarPubMed
1981. Skepticism towards Santa Rosalia, or why are there so few kinds of animals. Evolution 35, 124–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& 1970. On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheoretica 19, 16–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 et al.), pp. 431–454. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
& 1988. The evolution of ecological specialization. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 19, 207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& 2000. Adaptive dynamics in diploid, sexual populations and the evolution of reproductive isolation. Proc R Soc B 267, 1671–1678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& 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
& 1987. An odor perception model with application to kin discrimination in social insects. Int J Neuriosci 32, 963–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& 1999. A neural network model of general olfactory coding in the insect antennal lobe. Chem Senses 24, 351–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& 1990. Odorant moiety and odor mixture perception in free flying honey bees (Apis mellifera). Chem Senses 15, 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1994. Neural Networks. A Comprehensive Foundation. MacMillan College Publishing Company.Google Scholar
1995. The ideal free distribution of unequal competitors: predictions from a behaviour-based functional response. J Anim Ecol 64, 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& 2000. Evolution of host plant selection in insects under perceptual constraints: a simulation study. Evol Ecol Res 2, 81–106.Google Scholar
1990. Host specialization in phytophagous insects. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 21, 243–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & 2001. Evolutionary dynamics of host-plant specialization: a case study of the tribe Nymphalini. Evolution 55, 783–796.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , 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
, & 2006. Coevolution of exploiter specialization and victim mimicry can be cyclic and saltational. Evol Bioinform Online 2, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2002. Transition rates between specialization and generalization in phytophagous insects. Evolution 56, 1701–1706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , 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
, & 2006. Site-specific genetic divergence in parallel hybrid zones suggests nonallopatric evolution of reproductive barriers. Mol Ecol 15, 4021–4031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1984. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evoultion of reproductive isolation: a simulation study. Evolution 38, 1251–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection of habitat preference: experimental evidence. Am Nat 131, 911–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution 44, 1140–1152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& 2004. Natural selection and ecological speciation in sticklebacks. In Adaptive Speciation (eds et al.), pp. 192–209. Cambridge University Press.
, , et al. 2006. Sympatric speciation in palms on an oceanic island. Nature 441, 210–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1864. On phytophagic varieties and phytophagous species. Proc Ent Soc Phila 3, 403–430.Google Scholar
1975. The evolutionary relationship between adult oviposition preferences and larval host plant range in Papiliomachaon L. Oecologia 18, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed