Interpreting local adaptation studies

IF 0.2 Q4 EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
Amy L. Parachnowitsch
{"title":"Interpreting local adaptation studies","authors":"Amy L. Parachnowitsch","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2013.6.8.C","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Adaptation through natural selection is the basis for evolutionary change. At the micro-evolutionary scale, population differentiation is the path from which species eventually form. For this reason, researchers have a long history of studying local adaptation within species. Tests of local adaptation usually involve reciprocal transplants of individuals between populations and com-paring some kind of performance/fitness measure of the individuals. In general, local adaptation is defined as when local individuals do better in their local habitat than individuals transplanted from other environments ('local vs. foreign', Kawecki and Ebert 2004). Alternat-ively, local adaptation can also be defined as individuals having higher fitness at their home site compared with other sites ('home vs. away', Kawecki and Ebert 2004). Of course, not all comparisons of reciprocal transplants meet these criteria, and Kawecki and Ebert (2004) suggest that the ‘local vs. foreign’ criteria should be used as a diagnostic for local adaptation, especially when the ‘home vs. away’ criterion is met, but not the ‘local vs. foreign.’ In these cases, further studies could reveal why some genotypes do better than the local ones. Of course, local adaptation is not predicted to be or found in all cases (Leimu and Fischer 2008, Hereford 2009). However, Vesakoski and Jormalainen (2013) suggest we might be ignoring a signal of local adapta-tion from reciprocal transplant studies. Similar to the ‘home vs. away’ criterion, their ‘allopatric site advantage’ hypothesis (naming is mine) suggests some genotypes are superior in all conditions. However, it differs from the ‘home vs. away’ criterion because the ‘home’ site is not necessarily the best for all populations. Vesakoski and Jormalainen suggest that individuals may locally adapt to the level of stress to which they are exposed. If the ‘allopatric site advantage’ operates in populations, than Vesakoski and Jormalainen lay out a particular pattern that one would expect from reciprocal transplant studies. Here, a ‘low’ stress population should do better in its home site than away sites, meeting the ‘home vs. away’ criterion. In a ‘high’ stress population, individuals from the high stress environment should do better than individuals from the low stress environment, meeting the ‘local vs. foreign’ criterion. However, at the low stress site, individuals from the high stress environment should do equally well or better than the low stress individuals, meeting none of the local adaptation criteria. The ‘allopatric site advantage’ hypothesis shares similarities with the idea that the opportunity for selection is related to the interaction strength (e.g. Vanhoenacker et al. 2013). In general, the opportunity for selection on traits is expected to increase with the interaction strength (although perhaps not linearly). Similarly, if a population is tolerant of the local stress, than one would not expect further selection for having even higher tolerance to that stress. Presumably a population would need to be exposed to increased levels of the stressor to have further selection to increase tolerance. Thus, in the hypothetical example given by Vesakoski and Jormalainen (2013), herbivores adapt to tolerate the local level of a plant resistance chemical. Once a population of herbivores has adapted to the local defense levels, the interaction strength is diminished (for the herbivore) and there is little/no opportunity for selection on the traits associated with tolerance. Of course, for illustrative purposes, this example simplifies plant-herbivore interactions to a moment in time and","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2013-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4033/IEE.2013.6.8.C","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2013.6.8.C","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Adaptation through natural selection is the basis for evolutionary change. At the micro-evolutionary scale, population differentiation is the path from which species eventually form. For this reason, researchers have a long history of studying local adaptation within species. Tests of local adaptation usually involve reciprocal transplants of individuals between populations and com-paring some kind of performance/fitness measure of the individuals. In general, local adaptation is defined as when local individuals do better in their local habitat than individuals transplanted from other environments ('local vs. foreign', Kawecki and Ebert 2004). Alternat-ively, local adaptation can also be defined as individuals having higher fitness at their home site compared with other sites ('home vs. away', Kawecki and Ebert 2004). Of course, not all comparisons of reciprocal transplants meet these criteria, and Kawecki and Ebert (2004) suggest that the ‘local vs. foreign’ criteria should be used as a diagnostic for local adaptation, especially when the ‘home vs. away’ criterion is met, but not the ‘local vs. foreign.’ In these cases, further studies could reveal why some genotypes do better than the local ones. Of course, local adaptation is not predicted to be or found in all cases (Leimu and Fischer 2008, Hereford 2009). However, Vesakoski and Jormalainen (2013) suggest we might be ignoring a signal of local adapta-tion from reciprocal transplant studies. Similar to the ‘home vs. away’ criterion, their ‘allopatric site advantage’ hypothesis (naming is mine) suggests some genotypes are superior in all conditions. However, it differs from the ‘home vs. away’ criterion because the ‘home’ site is not necessarily the best for all populations. Vesakoski and Jormalainen suggest that individuals may locally adapt to the level of stress to which they are exposed. If the ‘allopatric site advantage’ operates in populations, than Vesakoski and Jormalainen lay out a particular pattern that one would expect from reciprocal transplant studies. Here, a ‘low’ stress population should do better in its home site than away sites, meeting the ‘home vs. away’ criterion. In a ‘high’ stress population, individuals from the high stress environment should do better than individuals from the low stress environment, meeting the ‘local vs. foreign’ criterion. However, at the low stress site, individuals from the high stress environment should do equally well or better than the low stress individuals, meeting none of the local adaptation criteria. The ‘allopatric site advantage’ hypothesis shares similarities with the idea that the opportunity for selection is related to the interaction strength (e.g. Vanhoenacker et al. 2013). In general, the opportunity for selection on traits is expected to increase with the interaction strength (although perhaps not linearly). Similarly, if a population is tolerant of the local stress, than one would not expect further selection for having even higher tolerance to that stress. Presumably a population would need to be exposed to increased levels of the stressor to have further selection to increase tolerance. Thus, in the hypothetical example given by Vesakoski and Jormalainen (2013), herbivores adapt to tolerate the local level of a plant resistance chemical. Once a population of herbivores has adapted to the local defense levels, the interaction strength is diminished (for the herbivore) and there is little/no opportunity for selection on the traits associated with tolerance. Of course, for illustrative purposes, this example simplifies plant-herbivore interactions to a moment in time and
解读本地适应研究
通过自然选择的适应是进化变化的基础。在微观进化尺度上,种群分化是物种最终形成的途径。由于这个原因,研究人员研究物种内部的局部适应已有很长的历史。局部适应的测试通常涉及个体在种群之间的相互移植,并比较个体的某种表现/适应性指标。一般来说,本地适应被定义为本地个体在其本地栖息地比从其他环境移植的个体表现更好(“本地vs.外国”,Kawecki和Ebert 2004)。另外,局部适应也可以定义为个体在其主场比在其他地点具有更高的适应性(“主场vs客场”,Kawecki和Ebert 2004)。当然,并不是所有互惠移植的比较都符合这些标准,Kawecki和Ebert(2004)认为,“本地与外国”的标准应该被用作本地适应的诊断标准,特别是当“主场与客场”的标准得到满足时,而不是“本地与外国”的标准。“在这些情况下,进一步的研究可能会揭示为什么某些基因型比局部基因型表现更好。”当然,局部适应并不是在所有情况下都被预测或发现(Leimu and Fischer 2008, Hereford 2009)。然而,Vesakoski和Jormalainen(2013)认为,我们可能忽略了互惠移植研究中局部适应的信号。类似于“主场vs客场”的标准,他们的“异域位点优势”假说(命名是我的)表明一些基因型在所有条件下都更优越。然而,它不同于“主场vs客场”的标准,因为“主场”地点不一定对所有人群都是最好的。Vesakoski和Jormalainen认为,个体可能在局部适应他们所暴露的压力水平。如果“异域地点优势”在种群中起作用,那么Vesakoski和Jormalainen提出了一种人们可以从互惠移植研究中预期到的特殊模式。在这里,“低”压力人群在主场应该比客场表现更好,符合“主场vs客场”标准。在“高”压力人群中,来自高压力环境的个体应该比来自低压力环境的个体做得更好,符合“本地与外国”的标准。然而,在低应激环境下,来自高应激环境的个体与来自低应激环境的个体表现相同或更好,不符合任何局部适应标准。“异域地点优势”假说与选择机会与相互作用强度有关的观点有相似之处(例如Vanhoenacker等人,2013年)。一般来说,性状选择的机会随着相互作用强度的增加而增加(尽管可能不是线性的)。同样地,如果一个种群能够忍受局部的压力,那么人们就不会期望对这种压力具有更高的耐受性的进一步选择。据推测,一个种群可能需要暴露在更高水平的压力源中,以便有进一步的选择来增加耐受性。因此,在Vesakoski和Jormalainen(2013)给出的假设例子中,食草动物适应耐受当地水平的植物抗性化学物质。一旦食草动物种群适应了当地的防御水平,相互作用强度就会减弱(对食草动物来说),并且与耐受性相关的性状几乎没有选择的机会。当然,为了便于说明,这个例子将植物-食草动物的相互作用简化为一个时刻
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ideas in Ecology and Evolution
Ideas in Ecology and Evolution EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信