The Red Queen: parasitism, arms races, and the origin/maintenance of sexual reproduction

All of the costs of parasitism lead to ...

antagonistic coevolution between hosts and parasites, or arms races.

But before we go there, let's (of course) take another detour ...

Sex and mating systems

Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it, let's do it ...
Why do it? (reproduce sexually, that is)

In our self-centered way we (humans) tend to assume that obligate, two-sex reproduction with separate male and female organisms (dioecy) whose sex is determined genetically is the only way to go. If you look around the tree of life a bit, though, you realize that there are lots of other alternatives. Some of the alternatives, moving from clonality to obligately dioecous, sexual organisms:

As we will see, this range of possibilities will allow us to dissect some of the different costs and benefits of sex.

There are many taxa (unlike the very unusual class Mammalia) where there are variations in mating systems. It's only when there is variation that we can actually start to think about the evolutionary pressures that lead to one system or another. If there are different systems within a single populations, within different populations within a species, or within different closely related species, we can begin to ask why and how it all works out.

But we also need to think about explaining obligate sexuality and asexuality.

The costs of sex

One of the things we tend to miss as a result of our own, human biology and culture is that in a perfect, homogeneous world where we were just trying to produce as many copies of our genes as possible, as quickly as possible (which is after all the name of the Darwinian game), sex would be a really bad idea. (This is perhaps one of the greatest strengths of theory in biology---making us see that trying to explain some of the things we don't see in nature can provide the best puzzles and the greatest insights, rather than just explaining the things we do see.)

There are several problems with sex.

Reproductive assurance

In environments where population densities are very low, it can be very hard to find a mate (or activities associated with mating can be costly or risky).

Cost of males

Why spend time, energy and nutrients producing males when you could be producing females? (Parthenogenetic females manage quite happily producing females alone.) Given that you only get one copy of your genes per egg, shouldn't you be pumping out eggs as fast as possible? Doesn't that mean the more females the better?

Cost of meiosis

Why pass on only one copy of your genes when you could pass on two? This is often considered the strongest and most basic cost of sex, because it imposes a 50% fitness cost relative to asexual lineages: somehow, sexuals have to be twice as fit to make up for the cost of meiosis.

Cost of outbreeding

Too much variation could be bad, if sexual recombination breaks up co-adapted gene complexes. This would lead to what is called outbreeding depression; hybrid sterility or inviability is the extreme case of this, when an organism mates across species lines.

Q: which variants above (clonality, monoecy/dioecy, selfing, etc.) have which of these disadvantages?