Evidence of adaptive divergence in plasticity: density- and site-dependent selection on shade-avoidance responses in Impatiens capensis.

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, USA.
Evolution (Impact Factor: 4.66). 01/2001; 54(6):1956-68. DOI: 10.1554/0014-3820(2000)054[1956:EOADIP]2.0.CO;2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We investigated the conditions under which plastic responses to density are adaptive in natural populations of Impatiens capensis and determined whether plasticity has evolved differently in different selective environments. Previous studies showed that a population that evolved in a sunny site exhibited greater plasticity in response to density than did a population that evolved in a woodland site. Using replicate inbred lines in a reciprocal transplant that included a density manipulation, we asked whether such population differentiation was consistent with the hypothesis of adaptive divergence. We hypothesized that plasticity would be more strongly favored in the sunny site than in the woodland site; consequently, we predicted that selection would be more strongly density dependent in the sunny site, favoring the phenotype that was expressed at each density. Selection on internode length and flowering date was consistent with the hypothesis of adaptive divergence in plasticity. Few costs or benefits of plasticity were detected independently from the expressed phenotype, so plasticity was selected primarily through selection on the phenotype. Correlations between phenotypes and their plasticity varied with the environment and would cause indirect selection on plasticity to be environment dependent. We showed that an appropriate plastic response even to a rare environment can greatly increase genotypic fitness when that environment is favorable. Selection on the measured characters contributed to local adaptation and fully accounted for fitness differences between populations in all treatments except the woodland site at natural density.


Available from: Kathleen Donohue, Apr 01, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Environmental variation often induces shifts in functional traits, yet we know little about whether plasticity will reduce extinction risks under climate change. As climate change proceeds, phenotypic plasticity could enable species with limited dispersal capacity to persist in situ, and migrating populations of other species to establish in new sites at higher elevations or latitudes. Alternatively, climate change could induce maladaptive plasticity, reducing fitness, and potentially stalling adaptation and migration. Here, we quantified plasticity in life history, foliar morphology, and ecophysiology in Boechera stricta (Brassicaceae), a perennial forb native to the Rocky Mountains. In this region, warming winters are reducing snowpack and warming springs are advancing the timing of snow melt. We hypothesized that traits that were historically advantageous in hot and dry, low-elevation locations will be favored at higher elevation sites due to climate change. To test this hypothesis, we quantified trait variation in natural populations across an elevational gradient. We then estimated plasticity and genetic variation in common gardens at two elevations. Finally, we tested whether climatic manipulations induce plasticity, with the prediction that plants exposed to early snow removal would resemble individuals from lower elevation populations. In natural populations, foliar morphology and ecophysiology varied with elevation in the predicted directions. In the common gardens, trait plasticity was generally concordant with phenotypic clines from the natural populations. Experimental snow removal advanced flowering phenology by 7 days, which is similar in magnitude to flowering time shifts over 2-3 decades of climate change. Therefore, snow manipulations in this system can be used to predict eco-evolutionary responses to global change. Snow removal also altered foliar morphology, but in unexpected ways. Extensive plasticity could buffer against immediate fitness declines due to changing climates. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
    Global Change Biology 12/2014; DOI:10.1111/gcb.12770 · 8.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Invasion ecologists have often found that exotic invaders evolve to be more plastic than conspecific populations from their native range. However, an open question is why some exotic invaders can even evolve to be more plastic given that there may be costs to being plastic. Investigation into the benefits and costs of plasticity suggests that stress may constrain the expression of plasticity (thereby reducing the benefits of plasticity) and exacerbate the costs of plasticity (although this possibility might not be generally applicable). Therefore, evolution of adaptive plasticity is more likely to be constrained in stressful environments. Upon introduction to a new range, exotic species may experience more favorable growth conditions (e.g., because of release from natural enemies). Therefore, we hypothesize that any factors mitigating stress in the introduced range may promote exotic invaders to evolve increased adaptive plasticity by reducing the costs and increasing the benefits of plasticity. Empirical evidence is largely consistent with this hypothesis. This hypothesis contributes to our understanding of why invasive species are often found to be more competitive in a subset of environments. Tests of this hypothesis may not only help us understand what caused increased plasticity in some exotic invaders, but could also tell us if costs (unless very small) are more likely to inhibit the evolution of adaptive plasticity in stressful environments in general.
    Ecology and Evolution 02/2015; 5(6). DOI:10.1002/ece3.1424 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Plant diversity can affect ecological processes such as competition and herbivory, and these ecological processes can act as drivers of evolutionary change. However, surprisingly little is known about how ecological variation in plant diversity can alter selective regimes on members of the community. Here, we examine how plant diversity at two different scales (genotypic and species diversity) impacts natural selection on a focal plant species, the common evening primrose (Oenothera biennis). Because competition is frequently relaxed in both genotypically and species rich plant communities, we hypothesized that increasing diversity would weaken selection on competitive ability. Changes in plant diversity can also affect associated arthropod communities. Therefore, we hypothesized that diversity would alter selection on plant traits mediating these interactions, such as herbivory related traits. We grew 24 focal O. biennis genotypes within four different neighbourhoods: genotypic monocultures or polycultures of O. biennis, and species monocultures or polycultures of old-field species that commonly co-occur with O. biennis. We then measured genotypic selection on nine plant traits known to be ecologically important for competition and herbivory. Focal O. biennis plants were smaller, flowered for shorter periods of time, had lower fitness, and experienced greater attack from specialist predispersal seed predators when grown with conspecifics versus heterospecifics. While neither conspecific nor heterospecific diversity altered trait means, both types of diversity altered the strength of selection on focal O. biennis plants. Specifically, selection on plant biomass was stronger in conspecific monocultures versus polycultures, but weaker in heterospecific monocultures versus polycultures. We found no evidence of selection on plant traits that mediate insect interactions, despite differences in arthropod communities on plants surrounded by conspecifics versus heterospecifics. Our data demonstrate that plant genotypic and species diversity can act as agents of natural selection, potentially driving evolutionary changes in plant communities.
    Evolutionary Ecology 11/2014; 28(6):1139-1153. DOI:10.1007/s10682-014-9727-6 · 2.37 Impact Factor