Andrew P. Hendry

Contemporary evolution meets conservation biology

Recent research has revealed that evolution often occurs on contemporary timescales, often within decades. Contemporary evolution is associated with the same factors that are driving the current extinction crisis: habitat loss and degradation, overharvesting and exotic species. Thus, it is relevant to many conservation situations. First, habitat fragmentation might influence the potential of a population to adapt in response environmental degradation. Second, certain harvesting strategies can result in the evolution of life-history traits, ultimately resulting in negative impacts on harvestable yield. Third, the establishment of exotic species can be influenced by their adaptive potential and our ability to limit that potential. Furthermore, contemporary evolution is of concern for intensively managed species, because it might reduce their fitness in native habitats. Ultimately, contemporary evolution is influenced by complex interactions among population size, genetic variation, the strength of selection, and gene flow, making most management scenarios unique. In a world filled with contemporary evolution, conservation efforts that ignore its implications will be less efficient and perhaps even risk prone. Humans have become an evolutionary force of extraordinary influence [1], evidenced most obviously by an unprecedented extinction rate that is attributable to their activities [2]. Human activities are also associated with evolutionary changes that can occur within a few hundred years, otherwise known as CONTEMPORARY EVOLUTION (see Glossary) [3‐5].

PERSPECTIVE: THE PACE OF MODERN LIFE: MEASURING RATES OF CONTEMPORARY MICROEVOLUTION

We evaluate methods for measuring and specifying rates of microevolution in the wild, with particular regard to studies of contemporary, often deemed “rapid,” evolution. A considerable amount of ambiguity and inconsistency persists within the field, and we provide a number of suggestions that should improve study design, inference, and clarity of presentation. (1) Some studies measure change over time within a population (allochronic) and others measure the difference between two populations that had a common ancestor in the past (synchronic). Allochronic studies can be used to estimate rates of “evolution,” whereas synchronic studies more appropriately estimate rates of “divergence.” Rates of divergence may range from a small fraction to many times the actual evolutionary rates in the component populations. (2) Some studies measure change using individuals captured from the wild, whereas others measure differences after rearing in a common environment. The first type of study can be used to specify “phenotypic” rates and the later “genetic” rates. (3) The most commonly used evolutionary rate metric, the darwin, has a number of theoretical shortcomings. Studies of microevolution would benefit from specifying rates in standard deviations per generation, the haldane. (4) Evolutionary rates are typically specified without an indication of their precision. Readily available methods for specifying confidence intervals and statistical significance (regression, bootstrapping, randomization) should be implemented. (5) Microevolutionists should strive to accumulate time series, which can reveal temporal shifts in the rate of evolution and can be used to identify evolutionary patterns. (6) Evolutionary rates provide a convenient way to compare the tempo of evolution across studies, traits, taxa, and time scales, but such comparisons are subject to varying degrees of confidence. Comparisons across different time scales are particularly tenuous. (7) A number of multivariate rate measures exist, but considerable theoretical development is required before their utility can be determined. We encourage the continued investigation of evolutionary rates because the information they provide is relevant to a wide range of theoretical and practical issues.

Human influences on rates of phenotypic change in wild animal populations

Human activities can expose populations to dramatic environmental perturbations, which may then precipitate adaptive phenotypic change. We ask whether or not phenotypic changes associated with human‐disturbed (anthropogenic) contexts are greater than those associated with more ‘natural’ contexts. Our meta‐analysis is based on more than 3000 rates of phenotypic change in 68 ‘systems’, each representing a given species in a particular geographical area. We find that rates of phenotypic change are greater in anthropogenic contexts than in natural contexts. This difference may be influenced by phenotypic plasticity — because it was evident for studies of wild‐caught individuals (which integrate both genetic and plastic effects) but not for common‐garden or quantitative genetic studies (which minimize plastic effects). We also find that phenotypic changes in response to disturbance can be remarkably abrupt, perhaps again because of plasticity. In short, humans are an important agent driving phenotypic change in contemporary populations. Although these changes sometimes have a genetic basis, our analyses suggest a particularly important contribution from phenotypic plasticity.

Climate change, adaptation, and phenotypic plasticity: the problem and the evidence

Many studies have recorded phenotypic changes in natural populations and attributed them to climate change. However, controversy and uncertainty has arisen around three levels of inference in such studies. First, it has proven difficult to conclusively distinguish whether phenotypic changes are genetically based or the result of phenotypic plasticity. Second, whether or not the change is adaptive is usually assumed rather than tested. Third, inferences that climate change is the specific causal agent have rarely involved the testing – and exclusion – of other potential drivers. We here review the various ways in which the above inferences have been attempted, and evaluate the strength of support that each approach can provide. This methodological assessment sets the stage for 11 accompanying review articles that attempt comprehensive syntheses of what is currently known – and not known – about responses to climate change in a variety of taxa and in theory. Summarizing and relying on the results of these reviews, we arrive at the conclusion that evidence for genetic adaptation to climate change has been found in some systems, but is still relatively scarce. Most importantly, it is clear that more studies are needed – and these must employ better inferential methods – before general conclusions can be drawn. Overall, we hope that the present paper and special issue provide inspiration for future research and guidelines on best practices for its execution.

Potential responses to climate change in organisms with complex life histories: evolution and plasticity in Pacific salmon

Salmon life histories are finely tuned to local environmental conditions, which are intimately linked to climate. We summarize the likely impacts of climate change on the physical environment of salmon in the Pacific Northwest and discuss the potential evolutionary consequences of these changes, with particular reference to Columbia River Basin spring/summer Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) salmon. We discuss the possible evolutionary responses in migration and spawning date egg and juvenile growth and development rates, thermal tolerance, and disease resistance. We know little about ocean migration pathways, so cannot confidently suggest the potential changes in this life stage. Climate change might produce conflicting selection pressures in different life stages, which will interact with plastic (i.e. nongenetic) changes in various ways. To clarify these interactions, we present a conceptual model of how changing environmental conditions shift phenotypic optima and, through plastic responses, phenotype distributions, affecting the force of selection. Our predictions are tentative because we lack data on the strength of selection, heritability, and ecological and genetic linkages among many of the traits discussed here. Despite the challenges involved in experimental manipulation of species with complex life histories, such research is essential for full appreciation of the biological effects of climate change.

The pace of modern life II: From rates of contemporary microevolution to pattern and process

We compiled a database of microevolution on contemporary time scales in nature (47 source articles; 30 animal species), comprising 2649 evolutionary rates in darwins (proportional change per million years) and 2151 evolutionary rates in haldanes (standard deviations per generation). Here we demonstrate how quantitative rate measures can provide general insights into patterns and processes of evolution. The frequency distribution of evolutionary rates was approximately log-normal, with many slow rates and few fast rates. Net selection intensities estimated from haldanes were on average lower than selection intensities commonly measured directly in natural populations. This difference suggests that natural selection could easily accomplish observed microevolution but that the intensities of selection typically measured in nature are rarely maintained for long (otherwise observed evolutionary rates would be higher). Traits closely associated with fitness (life history traits) appear to evolve at least as fast as traits less closely tied to fitness (morphology). The magnitude of evolutionary difference increased with the length of the time interval, particularly when maximum rates from a given study were considered. This pattern suggests a general underlying tendency toward increasing evolutionary diversification with time. However, evolutionary rates also tended to decrease with time, perhaps because longer time intervals average increasingly disparate rates over time, or because evolution slows when populations approach new optima or as genetic variation is depleted. In combination, our results suggest that macroevolutionary transitions may ultimately arise through microevolution occasionally ‘writ large’ but are perhaps temporally characterized by microevolution ‘writ in fits and starts’.

ADAPTIVE DIVERGENCE AND THE BALANCE BETWEEN SELECTION AND GENE FLOW: LAKE AND STREAM STICKLEBACK IN THE MISTY SYSTEM

Abstract We investigated the interplay between natural selection and gene flow in the adaptive divergence of threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) that reside parapatrically in lakes and streams. Within the Misty Lake system (Vancouver Island, British Columbia), stickleback from the inlet stream (flowing into the lake) have fewer gill rakers and deeper bodies than stickleback from the lake–differences thought to facilitate foraging (benthic macroinvertebrates in the stream vs. zooplankton in the open water of the lake). Common‐garden experiments demonstrated that these differences have a genetic basis. Reciprocal transplant enclosure experiments showed that lake and inlet stickleback grow best in their home environments (although differences were subtle and often not significant). Release‐recapture experiments in the inlet showed that lake fish are less well‐suited than inlet fish for life in the stream (higher mortality or emigration in lake fish). Morphological divergence in the wild and under common rearing was greater between the lake and the inlet than between the lake and the outlet. Genetic divergence (mitochondrial DNA and microsatellites) was greatest between the lake and the upper inlet (1.8 km upstream from the lake), intermediate between the lake and the lower inlet (0.9 km upstream), and least between the lake and the outlet stream (1.2 km downstream). Relative levels of gene flow estimated from genetic data showed the inverse pattern. The negative association between morphological divergence and gene flow is consistent with the expectation that gene flow can constrain adaptation. Estimated absolute levels of gene flow also implied a constraint on adaptation in the outlet but not the inlet. Our results suggest that natural selection promotes the adaptive divergence of lake and stream stickleback, but that the magnitude of divergence can be constrained by gene flow.

Population structure attributable to reproductive time: isolation by time and adaptation by time

Many populations are composed of a mixture of individuals that reproduce at different times, and these times are often heritable. Under these conditions, gene flow should be limited between early and late reproducers, even within populations having a unimodal temporal distribution of reproductive activity. This temporal restriction on gene flow might be called ‘isolation by time’ (IBT) to acknowledge its analogy with isolation by distance (IBD). IBD and IBT are not exactly equivalent, however, owing to differences between dispersal in space and dispersal in time. We review empirical studies of natural populations that provide evidence for IBT based on heritabilities of reproductive time and on molecular genetic differences associated with reproductive time. When IBT is present, variation in selection through the reproductive season may lead to adaptive temporal variation in phenotypic traits [adaptation by time (ABT)]. We introduce a novel theoretical model that shows how ABT increases as (i) selection on the trait increases; (ii) environmental influences on reproductive time decrease; (iii) the heritability of reproductive time increases; and (iv) the temporal distribution of reproductive activity becomes increasingly uniform. We then review empirical studies of natural populations that provide evidence for ABT by documenting adaptive temporal clines in phenotypic traits. The best evidence for IBT and ABT currently comes from salmonid fishes and flowering plants, but we expect that future work will show these processes are more widespread.

How much of the variation in adaptive divergence can be explained by gene flow? An evaluation using lake-stream stickleback pairs.

Abstract How much of the variation in adaptive divergence can be explained by gene flow? The answer to this question should objectively reveal whether gene flow generally places a substantial constraint on evolutionary diversification. We studied multiple independent lake‐stream population pairs of threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus acu‐leatus). For each pair, we quantified adaptive divergence based on morphological traits that have a genetic basis and are subject to divergent selection. We then estimated gene flow based on variation at five unlinked microsatellite loci. We found a consistent and significant pattern for morphological divergence to be positively correlated with genetic divergence and negatively correlated with gene flow. Statistical significance and the amount of variation explained varied within and among traits: 36.1–74.1% for body depth and 11.8–51.7% for gill raker number. Variation within each trait was the result of differences among methods for estimating genetic divergence and gene flow. Variation among traits likely reflects different strengths of divergent selection. We conclude that gene flow has a substantial effect on adaptive divergence in nature but that the magnitude of this effect varies among traits. An alternative explanation is that cause and effect are reversed: adaptive divergence is instead constraining gene flow. This effect seems relatively unimportant for our system because genetic divergence and gene flow were not correlated with ecologically relevant habitat features of lakes (surface area) or streams (width, depth, flow, canopy openness).

The relative influence of natural selection and geography on gene flow in guppies

Two general processes may influence gene flow among populations. One involves divergent selection, wherein the maladaptation of immigrants and hybrids impedes gene flow between ecological environments (i.e. ecological speciation). The other involves geographic features that limit dispersal. We determined the relative influence of these two processes in natural populations of Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata). If selection is important, gene flow should be reduced between different selective environments. If geography is important, gene flow should be impeded by geographic distance and physical barriers. We examined how genetic divergence, long‐term gene flow, and contemporary dispersal within a watershed were influenced by waterfalls, geographic distance, predation, and habitat features. We found that waterfalls and geographic distance increased genetic divergence and reduced dispersal and long‐term gene flow. Differences in predation or habitat features did not influence genetic divergence or gene flow. In contrast, differences in predation did appear to reduce contemporary dispersal. We suggest that the standard predictions of ecological speciation may be heavily nuanced by the mating behaviour and life history strategies of guppies.