Ecological speciation and phenotypic plasticity affect ecosystems

Abstract

Abstract. Phenotypic differences among closely related populations and species can cause contrasting effects on ecosystems; however, it is unknown whether such effects result from genetic divergence, phenotypic plasticity, or both. To test this, we reared sympatric limnetic and benthic species of whitefish from a young adaptive radiation in a common garden, where the benthic species was raised on two distinct food types. We then used these fish in a mesocosm experiment to test for contrasting ecosystem effects of closely related species and of plastically induced differences within a species. We found that strong contrasting ecosystem effects resulted more frequently from genetic divergence, although they were not stronger overall than those resulting from phenotypic plasticity. Overall, our results provide evidence that genetically based differences among closely related species that evolved during a young adaptive radiation can affect ecosystems, and that phenotypic plasticity can modify the ecosystem effects of such species.

A way forward with eco evo devo: an extended theory of resource polymorphism with postglacial fishes as model systems

“…“Bodenbalchen” and a limnetic C. zugensis ) species (Hudson, Vonlanthen, & Seehausen, ) are genetically differentiated in both feeding‐related morphological and behavioural traits (Vonlanthen et al ., ; Lundsgaard‐Hansen et al ., ) but also show notable phenotypic plasticity in foraging behaviour and efficiency (Lundsgaard‐Hansen et al ., ). Direct tests of the relative contribution of genetic and plastic trait variation showed that ecosystem properties were changed through both processes (Lundsgaard‐Hansen et al ., ). These studies illustrate how both evolution and ecology can affect the phenotype (evo devo and eco devo, respectively) (Vonlanthen et al ., ; Lundsgaard‐Hansen et al ., ) and, jointly feed back on ecosystem‐level processes (evo eco and devo eco).…”

“…These ‘constructed’ conditions could prove especially relevant to evolution if they remain across generations, providing a form of ecological inheritance (Danchin, ; Odling‐Smee et al ., ). Mesocosm experiments with polymorphic whitefish and three‐spined stickleback have shown that intra‐generation plastic phenotypic changes affect the environment (Lundsgaard‐Hansen et al ., ; Matthews et al ., ), influencing the selective and developmental conditions of the offspring (Sultan, ; see Section VI). Similarly, phenotypically plastic morphs of Eurasian perch or pumpkinseed sunfish ( Lepomis gibbosus ) (Wainwright et al ., ; Parsons & Robinson, ; Svanbäck & Eklöv, ) may have environmental effects that could influence, and even reinforce, selective and developmental processes that maintain and potentially promote the evolution of further divergence (e.g.…”

Does eutrophication-driven evolution change aquatic ecosystems?

“…[43,44]). The ecological effects of speciation reversal and associated loss of ecological specialists through relaxed selection and/or increased gene flow are, therefore, likely to be similarly pronounced.…”

Cryptic eco‐evolutionary dynamics

“…58,[81][82][83] The odds of detecting significant effects of contemporary evolution on ecology, or ecology on evolution, are likely to be further improved in contexts where there are strong a priori reasons to suspect links between particular traits and particular ecological variables, as well as when or where those effects will be measurable. Some traits appear to have amazingly widespread or consistent ecological effects (e.g., plant condensed tannins and defensive compounds, 46,74 body size, 39,58 trophic specializations 73,84 ). By contrast, when traits and ecological responses are selected in a more exploratory fashion, the range of relative ecological effect sizes of evolution within a single system can vary markedly.…”