Search for: All records

Abstract Reproduction is a fundamental aspect of life that affects all levels of biology, from genomes and development to population dynamics and diversification. The first Tree of Sex database synthesized a vast diversity of reproductive strategies and their intriguing distribution throughout eukaryotes. A decade on, we are reviving this initiative and greatly expanding its scope to provide the most comprehensive integration of knowledge on eukaryotic reproduction to date. In this perspective, we first identify important gaps in our current knowledge of reproductive strategies across eukaryotes. We then highlight a selection of questions that will benefit most from this new Tree of Sex project, including those related to the evolution of sex, modes of sex determination, sex chromosomes, and the consequences of various reproductive strategies. Finally, we outline our vision for the new Tree of Sex database and the consortium that will create it (treeofsex.org). The new database will cover all Eukaryota and include a wide selection of biological traits. It will also incorporate genomic data types that were scarce or non-existent at the time of the first Tree of Sex initiative. The new database will be publicly accessible, stable, and self-sustaining, thus greatly improving the accessibility of reproductive knowledge to researchers across disciplines for years to come. Lastly, the consortium will persist after the database is created to serve as a collaborative framework for research, prioritizing ethical standards in the collection, use, and sharing of reproductive data. The new Tree of Sex consortium is open, and we encourage all who are interested in this topic to join us. 

Abstract Eco‐evolutionary experiments are typically conducted in semi‐unnatural controlled settings, such as mesocosms; yet inferences about how evolution and ecology interact in the real world would surely benefit from experiments in natural uncontrolled settings. Opportunities for such experiments are rare but do arise in the context of restoration ecology—where different “types” of a given species can be introduced into different “replicate” locations. Designing such experiments requires wrestling with consequential questions. (Q1) Which specific “types” of a focal species should be introduced to the restoration location? (Q2) How many sources of each type should be used—and should they be mixed together? (Q3) Whichspecificsource populations should be used? (Q4) Which type(s) or population(s) should be introduced into which restoration sites? We recently grappled with these questions when designing an eco‐evolutionary experiment with threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) introduced into nine small lakes and ponds on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska that required restoration. After considering the options at length, we decided to use benthic versus limnetic ecotypes (Q1) to create a mixed group of colonists from four source populations of each ecotype (Q2), where ecotypes were identified based on trophic morphology (Q3), and were then introduced into nine restoration lakes scaled by lake size (Q4). We hope that outlining the alternatives and resulting choices will make the rationales clear for future studies leveraging our experiment, while also proving useful for investigators considering similar experiments in the future.