Article

Reverse evolution of armor plates in the threespine stickleback.

Division of Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109, USA.
Current Biology (Impact Factor: 9.92). 06/2008; 18(10):769-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.04.027
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Faced with sudden environmental changes, animals must either adapt to novel environments or go extinct. Thus, study of the mechanisms underlying rapid adaptation is crucial not only for the understanding of natural evolutionary processes but also for the understanding of human-induced evolutionary change, which is an increasingly important problem [1-8]. In the present study, we demonstrate that the frequency of completely plated threespine stickleback fish (Gasterosteus aculeatus) has increased in an urban freshwater lake (Lake Washington, Seattle, Washington) within the last 40 years. This is a dramatic example of "reverse evolution,"[9] because the general evolutionary trajectory is toward armor-plate reduction in freshwater sticklebacks [10]. On the basis of our genetic studies and simulations, we propose that the most likely cause of reverse evolution is increased selection for the completely plated morph, which we suggest could result from higher levels of trout predation after a sudden increase in water transparency during the early 1970s. Rapid evolution was facilitated by the existence of standing allelic variation in Ectodysplasin (Eda), the gene that underlies the major plate-morph locus [11]. The Lake Washington stickleback thus provides a novel example of reverse evolution, which is probably caused by a change in allele frequency at the major plate locus in response to a changing predation regime.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
173 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While ecological monitoring and biodiversity assessment programs are widely implemented and relatively well developed to survey and monitor the structure and dynamics of populations and communities in many ecosystems, quantitative assessment and monitoring of genetic and phenotypic diversity that is important to understand evolutionary dynamics is only rarely integrated. As a consequence, monitoring programs often fail to detect changes in these key components of biodiversity until after major loss of diversity has occurred. The extensive efforts in ecological monitoring have generated large data sets of unique value to macro-scale and long-term ecological research, but the insights gained from such data sets could be multiplied by the inclusion of evolutionary biological approaches. We argue that the lack of process-based evolutionary thinking in ecological monitoring means a significant loss of opportunity for research and conservation. Assessment of genetic and phenotypic variation within and between species needs to be fully integrated to safeguard biodiversity and the ecological and evolutionary dynamics in natural ecosystems. We illustrate our case with examples from fishes and conclude with examples of ongoing monitoring programs and provide suggestions on how to improve future quantitative diversity surveys.
    Evolutionary Applications 11/2014; 7(9). · 4.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evolutionary rescue occurs when adaptive evolutionary change restores positive growth to declining populations and prevents extinction. Here we outline the diagnostic features of evolutionary rescue and distinguish this phenomenon from demographic and genetic rescue. We then synthesize the rapidly accumulating theoretical and experimental studies of evolutionary rescue, highlighting the demographic, genetic, and extrinsic factors that affect the probability of rescue. By doing so, we clarify the factors to target through management and conservation. Additionally, we identify several putative cases of evolutionary rescue in nature, but conclude that compelling evidence remains elusive. We conclude with a horizon scan of where the field might develop, highlighting areas of potential application, and suggest areas where experimental evaluation will help to evaluate theoretical predictions.
    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 09/2014; · 15.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most predators eat only a subset of possible prey. However, studies evaluating diet selection rarely measure prey availability in a manner that accounts for temporal–spatial overlap with predators, the sensory mechanisms employed to detect prey, and constraints on prey capture.We evaluated the diet selection of cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) feeding on a diverse planktivore assemblage in Lake Washington to test the hypothesis that the diet selection of piscivores would reflect random (opportunistic) as opposed to non-random (targeted) feeding, after accounting for predator–prey overlap, visual detection and capture constraints.Diets of cutthroat trout were sampled in autumn 2005, when the abundance of transparent, age-0 longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) was low, and 2006, when the abundance of smelt was nearly seven times higher. Diet selection was evaluated separately using depth-integrated and depth-specific (accounted for predator–prey overlap) prey abundance. The abundance of different prey was then adjusted for differences in detectability and vulnerability to predation to see whether these factors could explain diet selection.In 2005, cutthroat trout fed non-randomly by selecting against the smaller, transparent age-0 longfin smelt, but for the larger age-1 longfin smelt. After adjusting prey abundance for visual detection and capture, cutthroat trout fed randomly. In 2006, depth-integrated and depth-specific abundance explained the diets of cutthroat trout well, indicating random feeding. Feeding became non-random after adjusting for visual detection and capture. Cutthroat trout selected strongly for age-0 longfin smelt, but against similar sized threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and larger age-1 longfin smelt in 2006. Overlap with juvenile sockeye salmon (O. nerka) was minimal in both years, and sockeye salmon were rare in the diets of cutthroat trout.The direction of the shift between random and non-random selection depended on the presence of a weak versus a strong year class of age-0 longfin smelt. These fish were easy to catch, but hard to see. When their density was low, poor detection could explain their rarity in the diet. When their density was high, poor detection was compensated by higher encounter rates with cutthroat trout, sufficient to elicit a targeted feeding response. The nature of the feeding selectivity of a predator can be highly dependent on fluctuations in the abundance and suitability of key prey.
    Freshwater Biology 08/2014; · 3.93 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
42 Downloads
Available from
Jun 2, 2014