Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols Used xiii 1. The Importance of Islands 3 2. Area and Number of Speicies 8 3. Further Explanations of the Area-Diversity Pattern 19 4. The Strategy of Colonization 68 5. Invasibility and the Variable Niche 94 6. Stepping Stones and Biotic Exchange 123 7. Evolutionary Changes Following Colonization 145 8. Prospect 181 Glossary 185 References 193 Index 201

The Theory of Island Biogeography

So far in this course we have dealt entirely with the evolution of characters that are controlled by simple Mendelian inheritance at a single locus. There are notes on the course website about gametic disequilibrium and how allele frequencies change at two loci simultaneously, but we didn’t discuss them. In every example we’ve considered we’ve imagined that we could understand something about evolution by examining the evolution of a single gene. That’s the domain of classical population genetics. For the next few weeks we’re going to be exploring a field that’s actually older than classical population genetics, although the approach we’ll be taking to it involves the use of population genetic machinery. If you know a little about the history of evolutionary biology, you may know that after the rediscovery of Mendel’s work in 1900 there was a heated debate between the “biometricians” (e.g., Galton and Pearson) and the “Mendelians” (e.g., de Vries, Correns, Bateson, and Morgan). Biometricians asserted that the really important variation in evolution didn’t follow Mendelian rules. Height, weight, skin color, and similar traits seemed to

Human biochemical genetics

Recent studies suggest that populations and species often exhibit behavioral syndromes; that is, suites of correlated behaviors across situations. An example is an aggression syndrome where some individuals are more aggressive, whereas others are less aggressive across a range of situations and contexts. The existence of behavioral syndromes focuses the attention of behavioral ecologists on limited (less than optimal) behavioral plasticity and behavioral carryovers across situations, rather than on optimal plasticity in each isolated situation. Behavioral syndromes can explain behaviors that appear strikingly non-adaptive in an isolated context (e.g. inappropriately high activity when predators are present, or excessive sexual cannibalism). Behavioral syndromes can also help to explain the maintenance of individual variation in behavioral types, a phenomenon that is ubiquitous, but often ignored. Recent studies suggest that the behavioral type of an individual, population or species can have important ecological and evolutionary implications, including major effects on species distributions, on the relative tendencies of species to be invasive or to respond well to environmental change, and on speciation rates. Although most studies of behavioral syndromes to date have focused on a few organisms, mainly in the laboratory, further work on other species, particularly in the field, should yield numerous new insights.

/pdf/behavioral-syndromes-an-ecological-and-evolutionary-overview-53ct6xj1u3.pdf

Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview.

Summary
1The role of phenotypic plasticity in evolution has historically been a contentious issue because of debate over whether plasticity shields genotypes from selection or generates novel opportunities for selection to act. Because plasticity encompasses diverse adaptive and non-adaptive responses to environmental variation, no single conceptual framework adequately predicts the diverse roles of plasticity in evolutionary change.
2Different types of phenotypic plasticity can uniquely contribute to adaptive evolution when populations are faced with new or altered environments. Adaptive plasticity should promote establishment and persistence in a new environment, but depending on how close the plastic response is to the new favoured phenotypic optimum dictates whether directional selection will cause adaptive divergence between populations. Further, non-adaptive plasticity in response to stressful environments can result in a mean phenotypic response being further away from the favoured optimum or alternatively increase the variance around the mean due to the expression of cryptic genetic variation. The expression of cryptic genetic variation can facilitate adaptive evolution if by chance it results in a fitter phenotype.
3We conclude that adaptive plasticity that places populations close enough to a new phenotypic optimum for directional selection to act is the only plasticity that predictably enhances fitness and is most likely to facilitate adaptive evolution on ecological time-scales in new environments. However, this type of plasticity is likely to be the product of past selection on variation that may have been initially non-adaptive.
4We end with suggestions on how future empirical studies can be designed to better test the importance of different kinds of plasticity to adaptive evolution.

/pdf/adaptive-versus-non-adaptive-phenotypic-plasticity-and-the-55680hih4y.pdf

Adaptive versus non‐adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments

The costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity are thought to have important ecological and evolutionary consequences, yet they are not as well understood as the benefits of plasticity. At least nine ideas exist regarding how plasticity may be costly or limited, but these have rarely been discussed together. The most commonly discussed cost is that of maintaining the sensory and regulatory machinery needed for plasticity, which may require energy and material expenses. A frequently considered limit to the benefit of plasticity is that the environmental cues guiding plastic development can be unreliable. Such costs and limits have recently been included in theoretical models and, perhaps more importantly, relevant empirical studies now have emerged. Despite the current interest in costs and limits of plasticity, several lines of reasoning suggest that they might be difficult to demonstrate.

Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity.

Dedication Acknowledgements Preface Contents Contributors 1. Phenotypic variation from single genotypes: a primer 2. From the reaktionsnorm to the evolution of adaptive plasticity: a historical sketch, 1909-1995 3. Genetics and mechanics of plasticity 4. Evolution of reaction norms 5. Evolutionary importance and pattern of phenotypic plasticity: insights gained from development 6. Models of reaction norm evolution 7. Integrated solutions to environmental heterogeneity: theory of multimoment reaction norms 8. A behavioral ecological view of phenotypic plasticity 9. Patterns and analysis of adaptive phenotypic plasticity in animals 10. Plasticity and the functional ecology of plants 11. The genotype-environment interaction and evolution when the environment contains genes 12. The role of phenotypic plasticity in evolutionary diversification 13. Future research directions References Index

Phenotypic plasticity : functional and conceptual approaches

Predation is heterogeneously distributed across space and time, and is presumed to represent a major source of evolutionary diversification. In fishes, fast-starts—sudden, high-energy swimming bursts—are often important in avoiding capture during a predator strike. Thus, in the presence of predators, we might expect evolution of morpho- logical features that facilitate increased fast-start speed. We tested this hypothesis using populations of western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis ) that differed in level of predation by piscivorous fish. Body morphology ofG. affinis males, females, and juveniles diverged in a consistent manner between predatory environments. Fish collected from predator populations exhibited a larger caudal region, smaller head, more elongate body, and a posterior, ventral position of the eye relative to fish from predator-free populations. Divergence in body shape largely matched a priori predictions based on biomechanical principles, and was evident across space (multiple populations) and time (multiple years). We measured maximum burst-swimming speed for male mosquitofish and found that individuals from predator populations produced faster bursts than fish from predator-free populations (about 20% faster). Biomechanical models of fish swimming and intrapopulation morphology-speed correlations suggested that body shape differences were largely responsible for enhanced locomotor performance in fish from predator populations. Morphological differences also persisted in offspring raised in a common laboratory environment, suggesting a heritable component to the observed morphological divergence. Taken together, these results strongly support the hypothesis that divergent selection between predator regimes has produced the observed phenotypic differences among populations of G. affinis . Based on biomechanical principles and recent findings in other species, it appears that the general ecomorphological model described in this paper will apply for many aquatic taxa, and provide insight into the role of predators in shaping the body form of prey organisms.

/pdf/predator-driven-phenotypic-diversification-in-gambusia-1z5qpljw1k.pdf

Predator‐driven phenotypic diversification in gambusia affinis

A fundamental question in evolutionary biology asks whether organisms experiencing similar selective pressures will evolve similar solutions or whether historical contingencies dominate the evolutionary process and yield disparate evolutionary outcomes. It is perhaps most likely that both shared selective forces as well as unique histories play key roles in the course of evolution. Consequently, when multiple species face a common environmental gradient, their patterns of divergence might exhibit both shared and unique elements. Here we describe a general framework for investigating and evaluating the relative importance of these contrasting features of diversification. We examined morphological diversification in three species of livebearing fishes across a predation gradient. All species (Gambusia affinis from the United States of America, Brachyrhaphis rhabdophora from Costa Rica, and Poecilia reticulata from Trinidad) exhibited more elongate bodies, a larger caudal peduncle, and a relatively...

/pdf/shared-and-unique-features-of-evolutionary-diversification-3ivk8t45lb.pdf

Shared and Unique Features of Evolutionary Diversification

Potential constraints on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity were tested using data from a previous study on predator-induced morphology and life history in the freshwater snail Physa heterostropha. The benefit of plasticity can be reduced if facultative development is associated with energetic costs, developmental instability, or an impaired developmental range. I examined plasticity in two traits for 29 families of P. heterostropha to see if it was associated with growth rate or fecundity, within-family phenotypic variance, or the potential to produce extreme phenotypes. Support was found for only one of the potential constraints. There was a strong negative selection gradient for growth rate associated with plasticity in shell shape (β = −0.3, P < 0.0001). This result was attributed to a genetic correlation between morphological plasticity and an antipredator behavior that restricts feeding. Thus, reduced growth associated with morphological plasticity may have had unmeasured fitness benefits. The growth reduction, therefore, is equivocal as a cost of plasticity. Using different fitness components (e.g., survival, fecundity, growth) to seek constraints on plasticity will yield different results in selection gradient analyses. Procedural and conceptual issues related to tests for costs and limits of plasticity are discussed, such as whether constraints on plasticity will be evolutionarily ephemeral and difficult to detect in nature.

/pdf/costs-and-limits-of-phenotypic-plasticity-tests-with-3c37zvvtuk.pdf

Thomas J. DeWitt

Papers

Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity.

Phenotypic plasticity : functional and conceptual approaches

Predator‐driven phenotypic diversification in gambusia affinis

Shared and Unique Features of Evolutionary Diversification

Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity: Tests with predator-induced morphology and life history in a freshwater snail