Search

Individual repeatability (R), defined as the proportion of observed variance attributable to among‐individual differences, is a widely used summary statistic in evolutionarily motivated studies of morphology, life history, physiology and, especially, behaviour. Although statistical methods to estimate R are well known and widely available, there is a growing tendency for researchers to interpret R in ways that are subtly, but importantly, different. Some view R as a property of a dataset and a statistic to be interpreted agnostically with respect to mechanism. Others wish to isolate the contributions of 'intrinsic' and/or 'permanent' individual differences, and draw a distinction between true (intrinsic) and pseudo‐repeatability arising from uncontrolled extrinsic effects. This latter view proposes a narrower, more mechanistic interpretation, than the traditional concept of repeatability, but perhaps one that allows stronger evolutionary inference as a consequence (provided analytical pitfalls are successfully avoided). Neither perspective is incorrect, but if we are to avoid confusion and fruitless debate, there is a need for researchers to recognise this dichotomy, and to ensure clarity in relation to how, and why, a particular estimate of R is appropriate in any case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

FST and RST estimates for Arctic charr from six microsatelite markers collected from two neighbouring Scottish lakes, Loch Maree and Loch Stack, confirm the presence of two distinct genetic groupings representing separate populations within each lake. In both lakes, there was also a clear body size dimorphism, with large and small body size forms that segregated according to genetic grouping. There was evidence of only subtle foraging ecology differences between morphs, with the small body size morph in both lakes being more generalist in its foraging in the summer (consuming mostly plankton but also some macrobenthos) than the large body size morph, which specialized on planktonic prey. Trophic morphology (head and mouth shape) did not differ significantly between morphs (although the small sample size for Maree makes this a preliminary finding). Cluster analysis of the microsatelite data and the presence of private alleles showed that morphologically similar forms in different lakes were not genetically similar, as would be expected under a multiple invasion hypothesis. Thus, the data do not support a hypothesis of a dual invasion of both lakes by two common ancestors but instead suggest an independent origin of the two forms in each lake. Thus parallel sympatric divergence as a result of common selection pressures in both lakes is the most parsimonious explanation of the evolutionary origin of these polymorphisms. © 2008 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2008, 95, 748–757. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers the author's insights on the study "Indirect genetic effects in behavioral ecology: does behavior play a special role in evolution?" by N. W. Bailey and colleagues. Topics include the possible indirect genetic effects (IGEs) on the behavioral traits, the issues on IGE variance partitioning such as dyadic interactions, and the plasticity in the social environment.

Background: Populations of a species often differ in key traits. However, it is rarely known whether these differences are associated with genetic variation and evolved differences between populations, or are instead simply a plastic response to environmental differences experienced by the populations. Here we examine the interplay of plasticity and direct genetic control by investigating temperature-size relationships in populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura from North America. We used 27 isolines from three populations and exposed them to four temperature regimes (16°C, 20°C, 23°C, 26°C) to examine environmental, genetic and genotype-by-environment sources of variance in wing size. Results: By far the largest contribution to variation in wing size came from rearing temperature, with the largest flies emerging from the coolest temperatures. However, we also found a genetic signature that was counter to this pattern as flies originating from the northern, cooler population were consistently smaller than conspecifics from more southern, warmer populations when reared under the same laboratory conditions. Conclusions: We conclude that local selection on body size appears to be acting counter to the environmental effect of temperature. We find no evidence that local adaptation in phenotypic plasticity can explain this result, and suggest indirect selection on traits closely linked with body size, or patterns of chromosome inversion may instead be driving this relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the evolution of flexible parenting. Topics include parental behaviors that are highly responsive to changes in environment, such as the provisioning of food for offspring, how such changes affect the ways in which parenting is adapted and evolves in response to environmental variation, the diversity of parental care in animals and the impact of social and non-social environmental factors, and the use of behavioral reaction norms (BRNs) to describe individual plasticity.

While it is universally recognised that environmental factors can cause phenotypic trait variation via phenotypic plasticity, the extent to which causal processes operate in the reverse direction has received less consideration. In fact individuals are often active agents in determining the environments, and hence the selective regimes, they experience. There are several important mechanisms by which this can occur, including habitat selection and niche construction, that are expected to result in phenotype–environment correlations (i.e. non‐random assortment of phenotypes across heterogeneous environments). Here we highlight an additional mechanism – intraspecific competition for preferred environments – that may be widespread, and has implications for phenotypic evolution that are currently underappreciated. Under this mechanism, variation among individuals in traits determining their competitive ability leads to phenotype–environment correlation; more competitive phenotypes are able to acquire better patches. Based on a concise review of the empirical evidence we argue that competition‐induced phenotype–environment correlations are likely to be common in natural populations before highlighting the major implications of this for studies of natural selection and microevolution. We focus particularly on two central issues. First, competition‐induced phenotype–environment correlation leads to the expectation that positive feedback loops will amplify phenotypic and fitness variation among competing individuals. As a result of being able to acquire a better environment, winners gain more resources and even better phenotypes – at the expense of losers. The distinction between individual quality and environmental quality that is commonly made by researchers in evolutionary ecology thus becomes untenable. Second, if differences among individuals in competitive ability are underpinned by heritable traits, competition results in both genotype–environment correlations and an expectation of indirect genetic effects (IGEs) on resource‐dependent life‐history traits. Theory tells us that these IGEs will act as (partial) constraints, reducing the amount of genetic variance available to facilitate evolutionary adaptation. Failure to recognise this will lead to systematic overestimation of the adaptive potential of populations. To understand the importance of these issues for ecological and evolutionary processes in natural populations we therefore need to identify and quantify competition‐induced phenotype–environment correlations in our study systems. We conclude that both fundamental and applied research will benefit from an improved understanding of when and how social competition causes non‐random distribution of phenotypes, and genotypes, across heterogeneous environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Phenotypic plasticity is an important mechanism via which populations can respond to changing environmental conditions, but we know very little about how natural populations vary with respect to plasticity. Here we use random-regression animal models to understand the multivariate phenotypic and genetic patterns of plasticity variation in two key life-history traits, laying date and clutch size, using data from long-term studies of great tits in The Netherlands (Hoge Veluwe [HV]) and UK (Wytham Woods [WW]). We show that, while population-level responses of laying date and clutch size to temperature were similar in the two populations, between-individual variation in plasticity differed markedly. Both populations showed significant variation in phenotypic plasticity (IxE) for laying date, but IxE was significantly higher in HV than in WW. There were no significant genotype-by-environment interactions (GxE) for laying date, yet differences in GxE were marginally nonsignificant between HV and WW. For clutch size, we only found significant IxE and GxE in WW but no significant difference between populations. From a multivariate perspective, plasticity in laying date was not correlated with plasticity in clutch size in either population. Our results suggest that generalizations about the form and cause of any response to changing environmental conditions across populations may be difficult. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]