Matching habitat choice by experimentally mismatched phenotypes

Karpestam, Einat; Wennersten, Lena; Forsman, Anders

doi:10.1007/s10682-011-9530-6

Cited by 46 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We would expect that environmental heterogeneity would sometimes facilitate the evolution of FAD, as dispersal is favored when either the environment is the cause of low fitness and the individual might prosper in a different environment [59], or the genotype is the cause of low fitness regardless of the environment, and changing genetic backgrounds might be advantageous, as we have shown here. In cases where the environment is heterogeneous and different genotypes match different patches in the environment, FAD can result in better genotype-to-environment matching [49,75] and accelerate local adaptation [59,76]. Third, our model assumes no temporal variation in the environment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dispersing away from bad genotypes: the evolution of Fitness-Associated Dispersal (FAD) in homogeneous environments

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDispersal is a major factor in ecological and evolutionary dynamics. Although empirical evidence shows that the tendency to disperse varies among individuals in many organisms, the evolution of dispersal patterns is not fully understood. Previous theoretical studies have shown that condition-dependent dispersal may evolve as a means to move to a different environment when environments are heterogeneous in space or in time. However, dispersal is also a means to genetically diversify offspring, a genetic advantage that might be particularly important when the individual fitness is low. We suggest that plasticity in dispersal, in which fit individuals are less likely to disperse (Fitness-Associated Dispersal, or FAD), can evolve due to its evolutionary advantages even when the environment is homogeneous and stable, kin competition is weak, and the cost of dispersal is high.ResultsUsing stochastic simulations we show that throughout the parameter range, selection favors FAD over uniform dispersal (in which all individuals disperse with equal probability). FAD also has significant long-term effects on the mean fitness and genotypic variance of the population.ConclusionsWe show that FAD evolves under a very wide parameter range, regardless of its effects on the population mean fitness. We predict that individuals of low quality will have an increased tendency for dispersal, even when the environment is homogeneous, there is no direct competition with neighbors, and dispersal carries significant costs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dispersing away from bad genotypes: the evolution of Fitness-Associated Dispersal (FAD) in homogeneous environments

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such “matching habitat choice” thus allows individuals to be an agent instead of a target of selection and thereby exerts a distinct evolutionary force that can lead to adaptive evolution, even in the absence of natural selection (Bolnick & Otto, ; Edelaar & Bolnick, ). Empirical evidence for matching habitat choice is still limited, yet, some studies have shown that, for example, different phenotypes disperse and settle preferentially in habitats where they are more camouflaged (Dreiss et al., ; Gillis, ; Karpestam, Wennersten, & Forsman, ; Rodgers, Gladman, Corless, & Morrell, ) or more physiologically adapted (Bestion, Clobert, & Cote, ; Jacob et al., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the consequences of natural selection, adaptive phenotypic plasticity, and matching habitat choice for phenotype–environment matching, population genetic structure, and reproductive isolation in meta‐populations

Nicolaus

Edelaar

2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organisms commonly experience significant spatiotemporal variation in their environments. In response to such heterogeneity, different mechanisms may act that enhance ecological performance locally. However, depending on the nature of the mechanism involved, the consequences for populations may differ greatly. Building on a previous model that investigated the conditions under which different adaptive mechanisms (co)evolve, this study compares the ecological and evolutionary population consequences of three very different responses to environmental heterogeneity: matching habitat choice (directed gene flow), adaptive plasticity (associated with random gene flow), and divergent natural selection. Using individual‐based simulations, we show that matching habitat choice can have a greater adaptive potential than plasticity or natural selection: it allows for local adaptation while protecting genetic polymorphism despite global mating or strong environmental changes. Our simulations further reveal that increasing environmental fluctuations and unpredictability generally favor the emergence of specialist genotypes but that matching habitat choice is better at preventing local maladaptation by individuals. This confirms that matching habitat choice can speed up the genetic divergence among populations, cause indirect assortative mating via spatial clustering, and hence even facilitate sympatric speciation. This study highlights the potential importance of directed dispersal in local adaptation and speciation, stresses the difficulty of deriving its operation from nonexperimental observational data alone, and helps define a set of ecological conditions which should favor its emergence and subsequent detection in nature.

show abstract

“…There are, in fact, few empirical studies of matching habitat choice (Karpestam et al. ) and none testing how matching habitat choice interacts with phenotypic plasticity or localized natural selection to affect phenotype–environment covariation (Sultan and Spencer , Scheiner et al. , Edelaar et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Matching habitat choice and plasticity contribute to phenotype–environment covariation in a stream salamander

Lowe

Addis

2019

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Populations optimize the match of phenotype to environment by localized natural selection, adaptive phenotypic plasticity, and habitat choice. Habitat choice may also be achieved by several mechanisms, including matching habitat choice, where individuals distribute themselves based on self‐assessment of the phenotype–environment match. Matching habitat choice is a relatively untested concept, but one that could advance our understanding of the interplay of movement ecology and intraspecific phenotypic variation. Morphology of the salamander Gyrinophilus porphyriticus differs in riffles and pools, the dominant habitats in headwater streams where this species occurs. Specifically, individuals found in riffles have shorter limbs than those found in pools. Here, we used 4 yr of spatially explicit capture–mark–recapture data from three streams to test the contributions of phenotypic plasticity and matching habitat choice to this phenotype–environment covariation. We quantified morphological variation in G. porphyriticus with size‐corrected principal component (PC) scores and assessed phenotype–environment match based on the difference between habitats in these PC scores. We found that both phenotypic plasticity and matching habitat choice contribute to phenotype–environment covariation in G. porphyriticus. The phenotypes of individuals that switched habitats (i.e., riffle→pool, pool→riffle) changed to become better matched to the recipient habitat, indicating a plastic response to local habitat conditions. Consistent with matching habitat choice, individuals were also more likely to switch habitats if their initial phenotype was a better match to the alternative habitat, independent of subsequent changes in morphology due to plasticity. Realized performance, survival adjusted for the likelihood of remaining in each habitat, was higher in individuals with phenotypes matched to each habitat than in those with mismatched phenotypes, but performance was generally lower in riffles than pools, suggesting that other factors influence the use of riffles. Our results underscore the value of considering how matching habitat choice interacts with other mechanisms that allow organisms to maximize performance when faced with environmental heterogeneity. More broadly, our study shows that it is important to account for movement in any study of the causes or consequences of intraspecific trait variation, a challenge that may require novel research approaches and experimental designs.

show abstract

Matching habitat choice by experimentally mismatched phenotypes

Cited by 46 publications

References 51 publications

Dispersing away from bad genotypes: the evolution of Fitness-Associated Dispersal (FAD) in homogeneous environments

Dispersing away from bad genotypes: the evolution of Fitness-Associated Dispersal (FAD) in homogeneous environments

Comparing the consequences of natural selection, adaptive phenotypic plasticity, and matching habitat choice for phenotype–environment matching, population genetic structure, and reproductive isolation in meta‐populations

Matching habitat choice and plasticity contribute to phenotype–environment covariation in a stream salamander

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About