Login | Register

Does source population size affect performance in new environments?

Title:

Does source population size affect performance in new environments?

Yates, Matthew C. and Fraser, Dylan J. (2014) Does source population size affect performance in new environments? Evolutionary Applications, 7 (8). pp. 871-882. ISSN 17524571

[img]
Preview
Text (application/pdf)
fraser-Evolutionary_Applications-2014.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Spectrum Terms of Access.
176kB

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eva.12181

Abstract

Small populations are predicted to perform poorly relative to large populations when experiencing environmental change. To explore this prediction in nature, data from reciprocal transplant, common garden, and translocation studies were compared meta-analytically. We contrasted changes in performance resulting from transplantation to new environments among individuals originating from different sized source populations from plants and salmonids. We then evaluated the effect of source population size on performance in natural common garden environments and the relationship between population size and habitat quality. In ‘home-away’ contrasts, large populations exhibited reduced performance in new environments. In common gardens, the effect of source population size on performance was inconsistent across life-history stages (LHS) and environments. When transplanted to the same set of new environments, small populations either performed equally well or better than large populations, depending on life stage. Conversely, large populations outperformed small populations within native environments, but only at later life stages. Population size was not associated with habitat quality. Several factors might explain the negative association between source population size and performance in new environments: (i) stronger local adaptation in large populations and antagonistic pleiotropy, (ii) the maintenance of genetic variation in small populations, and (iii) potential environmental differences between large and small populations.

Divisions:Concordia University > Faculty of Arts and Science > Biology
Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Authors:Yates, Matthew C. and Fraser, Dylan J.
Journal or Publication:Evolutionary Applications
Date:2014
Funders:
  • Concordia Open Access Author Fund
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):10.1111/eva.12181
Keywords:adaptation, conservation biology, meta-analysis, natural selection and contemporary evolution, population dynamics, population size, reciprocal transplant, translocation.
ID Code:982234
Deposited By: DANIELLE DENNIE
Deposited On:17 Mar 2017 20:03
Last Modified:18 Jan 2018 17:54

References:

Abramoff MD, Magalhaes PJ, Ram SJ. Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics International. 2004;11:36–42.

Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. 1974;19:716–723.

Anderson JT, Lee CR, Roshworth CA, Colautti RI, Mitchell-Olds T. Genetic trade-offs and conditional neutrality contribute to local adaptation. Molecular Ecology. 2013;3:699–708.

Angeloni F, Ouborg NJ, Leimu R. Meta-analysis on the association of population size and life history with inbreeding depression in plants. Biological Conservation. 2011;144:35–43.

Bagatell C, Rasch T, Johnson C. 1980. A review of the experiments with the 1970 and 1971 brood coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) from thirteen Washington Department of Fisheries hatcheries. Progress Report 94. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington.

Bagatell C, Rasch T, Johnson C. 1981. review of the 1972 brood coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) experiments from Puget Sound and coastal area Washington Department of Fisheries hatcheries. Progress Report 134. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington.

Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B. 2012. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0 http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.

Becker U, Colling G, Dostal P, Jakobsson A, Matthies D. Local adaptation in the monocarpic perennial Carlina vulgaris at different spatial scales across Europe. Oecologia. 2006;150:506–518.

Becker U, Dostal P, Jorritsma-Wienk LD, Matthies D. The Spatial scale of adaptive population differentiation in a wide-spread, well-dispersed plant species. Oikos. 2008;117:1865–1873.

Bijlsma R, Loeschcke V. Genetic erosion impedes adaptive responses to stressful environments. Evolutionary Applications. 2012;5:117.

Bowman G, Perret C, Hoehn S, Galeuchet DJ, Fischer M. Habitat fragmentation and adaptation: a reciprocal replant-transplant experiment among 15 populations of Lychnis flos-cuculi. Journal of Ecology. 2008;96:1056–1064.

Browne WJ, Subramanian SV, Jones K, Goldstein H. Variance partitioning in multilevel logistic models that exhibit overdispersion. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 2005;168:599–613.

Callahan HS, Pigliucci M. Shade-induced plasticity and its ecological significance in wild populations of Arabidopsis thaliana. Ecology. 2002;83:1965–1980.

DFO. 2012. Stock status of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in DFO Gulf Region (Salmon Fishing Areas 15 to 18). Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document. 2012/040.

Douglas SG, Chaput G, Hayward J, Sheasgreen J. 2013. Assessment of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in salmon fishing area 16 of the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Moncton, New Brunswick.

Ellstrand NC. Gene flow by pollen: implications for plant conservation genetics. Oikos. 1992;63:77–86.

Federenko AY, Shepherd BG. 1986. Review of salmon transplant procedures and suggested transplant guidelines. Canadian Technical Report on Fisheries and Aquatic Science 1479: 144.

Fox CW, Reed DH. Inbreeding depression increases with environmental stress: an experimental study and meta-analysis. Evolution. 2010;65:246–258.

Frankham R. Effective population size/adult population size ratios in wildlife – a review. Genetical research. 1995;66:95–107.
Frankham R. Genetics and extinction. Biological Conservation. 2005;126:131–140.

Frankham R, Bradshaw CJ, Brook BW. Genetics in conservation management: revised recommendations for the 50/500 rules, Red List criteria and population viability analyses. Biological Conservation. 2014;170:56–63.

Fraser DJ. How well can captive breeding programs conserve biodiversity? A review of salmonids. Evolutionary Applications. 2008;1:535–586.

Fraser DJ, Weir LK, Bernatchez L, Hansen MM, Taylor EB. Extent and scale of local adaptation in salmonid fishes: review and meta-analysis. Heredity. 2011;106:404–420.

Fuss H, Rasch T. 1981. A review of the 1974 brood coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) experiments from Puget Sound and Coastal Washington Department of Fisheries hatcheries. Progress Report 147. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington.

Gibson AJF, Amiro PG. 2003. Abundance of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the Stewiacke River, NS, from 1965 to 2002. Research Document 2003/108 Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

Gonzalez A, Bell G. Evolutionary rescue and adaptation to abrupt environmental change depends upon the history of stress. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2012;368:20120079.

Hadfield JD. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. Journal of Statistical Software. 2010;33:1–22.

Hereford J. A quantitative survey of local adaptation and fitness trade-offs. The American Naturalist. 2009;173:579–588. [PubMed]
Hoffmann AA, Blows MW. Species borders: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 1994;9:223–227.

Hooftman DAP, van Kleunen M, Diemer M. Effects of habitat fragmentation on the fitness of two common wetland species, Carex davalliana and Succisa pratensis. Oecologia. 2003;134:350–359.

Houde ALS, Fraser DJ, O'Reilly PT, Hutchings JA. Relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding depression in the wild in endangered salmon. Evolutionary Applications. 2011;4:634–647.

Hurvich CM, Tsai CL. Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika. 1989;76:297–307.
ISI Web of science. 2013. Thompson Reuters. http://www.webofknowledge.com (accessed on 10 June 2013)

Jakobsson A, Dinnetz P. Local Adaptation and the effects of isolation and population size – the semelparous perennial Carlina vulgaris as a study case. Evolutionary Ecology. 2005;19:449–466.
Jamieson IG, Allendorf FW. How does the 50/500 rule apply to MVPs? Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2012;27:578–584.

Kawecki TJ. Adaptation to marginal habitats. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 2008;39:321–342.
Kawecki TJ, Ebert D. Conceptual issues in local adaptation. Ecology Letters. 2004;7:1225–1241.

Kotiaho JS, Kaitala V, Komonen A, Paivinen J. Predicting the risk of extinction from shared ecological characteristics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2005;102:1963–1967.

Lande R. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science. 1988;241:1455–1460.

Leimu R, Fischer M. A meta-analysis of local adaptation in plants. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e4010.

Leimu R, Mutikainen P, Koricheva J, Fischer M. How general are positive relationships between plant population size, fitness, and genetic variation? Journal of Ecology. 2006;5:942–952.

Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical Meta-Analysis. Applied Social Research Methods Series: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA; 2001.

Lynch M. Evolution and extinction in response to environmental change. In: Kareiva P, Kingsolver JG, Huey R, Lande R, editors. Biotic Interactions and Global Change. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer; 1993. pp. 234–250.

Maschinski J, Baggs JE, Sacchi CF. Seedling recruitment and survival of an endangered limestone endemic in its natural habitat and experimental reintroduction sites. American Journal of Botany. 2004;91:689–698.

Oakley CG. Small effective size limits performance in a novel environment. Evolutionary Applications. 2013;6:823–831.

Ouborg NJ, Vergeer P, Mix C. The rough edges of the conservation genetics paradigm for plants. Journal of Ecology. 2006;94:1233–1248.

Palstra FP, Fraser DJ. Effective/census population size ratio estimation: a compendium and appraisal. Ecology and Evolution. 2012;2:2357–2365.

R Core Team. R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2013. Vienna, Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org/

Raabova J, Munzbergova Z, Fischer M. Ecological rather than geographic or genetic distance affects local adaptation of the rare perennial herb, Aster amellus. Biological Conservation. 2007;139:348–357.

Raabova J, Fischer M, Munzbergova Z. Niche differentiation between diploid and hexaploid Aster amellus. Oecologia. 2008;158:463–472.

Raabova J, Munzbergova Z, Fischer M. The role of spatial scale and soil for local adaptation in Inula hirta. Basic and Applied Ecology. 2011;12:152–160.

Reckinger C, Colling G, Matthies D. Restoring populations of the endangered plant Scorzonera humilis: influence of site conditions, seed source, and plant stage. Restoration Ecology. 2010;18:904–913.

Reed DH. Relationship between population size and fitness. Conservation Biology. 2005;19:563–568.

Reed DH, Frankham R. How closely correlated are molecular and quantitative measures of genetic variation? A Meta-analysis. Evolution. 2001;55:1095–1103.

Reed DH, Frankham R. Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conservation Biology. 2003;17:230–237.

Reed DH, Lowe EH, Briscoe DA, Frankham R. Fitness and adaptation in a novel environment: effect of inbreeding, prior environment, and lineage. Evolution. 2003;57:1822–1828.

Ritter JA. 1975. Lower ocean survival rates for hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) stocks released in rivers other than their native streams. CM 1975/M: 26. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Samani P, Bell G. Adaptation of experimental yeast populations to stressful conditions in relation to population size. Journal of Evolutional Biology. 2010;23:791–796.

Seifert B, Fischer M. Experimental establishment of a declining dry-grassland flagship species in relation to seed origin and target environment. Biological Conservation. 2010;143:1202–1211.

Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Linde AVD. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 2002;64:583–639.

Theoharides KA, Dukes JS. Plant invasion across space and time: factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytologist. 2007;176:256–273.

Unwin MJ, Kinnison MT, Boustead NC, Quinn TP. Genetic control over survival in Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.): experimental evidence between and within populations of New Zealand Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2003;60:1–11.

Vergeer P, Kunin WE. Adaptation at range margins: common garden trials and the performance of Arabidopsis lyrata across its northwestern european range. New Phytologist. 2013;197:989–1001.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. SalmonScape. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html (accessed on 12 May 2012)

Willi Y, van Buskirk J, Hoffmann AA. Limits to the adaptive potential of small populations. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics. 2006;37:433–458.

Wood JLA, Belmar-Lucero S, Hutchings JA, Fraser DJ. Relationship of habitat variability to population size in a stream fish. Ecological Applications. 2014;24:1085–1100.
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access.

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Downloads per month over past year

Back to top Back to top