Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 589–604 | Cite as

Temporal stability of niche use exposes sympatric Arctic charr to alternative selection pressures

  • Rune Knudsen
  • Anna Siwertsson
  • Colin E. Adams
  • Monica Garduño-Paz
  • Jason Newton
  • Per-Arne Amundsen
Original Paper


There is now strong evidence that foraging niche specialisation plays a critical role in the very early stages of resource driven speciation. Here we test critical elements of models defining this process using a known polymorphic population of Arctic charr from subarctic Norway. We test the long-term stability of niche specialisation amongst foraging predators and discuss the possibility that contrasting foraging specialists are exposed to differing selection regimes. Inter-individual foraging niche stability was measured by combining two time-integrated ecological tracers of the foraging niche (each individual’s δ13C and δ15N stable isotope (SI) signatures and their food borne parasite fauna) with a short-term measure of foraging niche use (stomach contents composition). Three dietary subgroups of predators were identified, including zooplankton, gammarid and benthivore specialists foragers. Zooplanktivorous specialists had muscle low in δ 13C, a high abundance of parasites transmitted from pelagic copepods, a smaller head, longer snout and a more slender body-form than gammaridivorous specialist individuals which had muscle more enriched in δ 13C and high abundance of parasites transmitted from benthic Gammarus. Benthivorous individuals were intermediate between the other two foraging groups according to muscle SI-signals (δ13C) and loadings of parasites transmitted from both copepods and Gammarus. The close relationship between subgroups identified by stomach contents, time-integrated tracers of niche use (SI and parasites) and functional trophic morphology (niche adaptations) demonstrate a long-term temporally stable niche use of each individual predator. Differential habitat use and contrasting parasite communities and loadings, show differential exposure to different suites of selection pressures for different foraging specialists. Results also show that individual specialisation in trophic behaviour and thus exposure to different suites of selection pressures are stable over time, and thus provide a platform for disruptive selection to operate within this sympatric system.


Stable isotopes Food web transmitted parasites Functional morphology Temporal niche stability Salvelinus alpinus 

Supplementary material

10682_2010_9451_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (92 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 93 kb)


  1. Abrams PA (2006) The effects of switching behaviour on the evolutionary diversification of generalist consumers. Am Nat 168:645–659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams CE, Huntingford FA (2002a) Inherited differences in head allometry in polymorphic charr from Loch Rannoch, Scotland. J Fish Biol 60:515–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams CE, Huntingford FA (2002b) The functional significance of inherited differences in feeding morphology in sympatric polymorphic population of Arctic charr. Evol Ecol 16:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adams CE, Huntingford FA (2004) Incipient speciation driven by phenotypic plasticity? Evidence from sympatric populations of Arctic charr. Biol J Linn Soc 81:611–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Adams CE, Fraser D, Huntingford FA, Greer RB, Askew CM, Walker AF (1998) Trophic polymorphism amongst Arctic charr from Loch Rannoch, Scotland. J Fish Biol 52:1259–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Adams CE, Woltering C, Alexander G (2003) Epigenetic regulation of trophic morphology through feeding behaviour in Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus. J Fish Biol 78:43–49Google Scholar
  7. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE (2004) Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the ‘revolution’. Ital. J. Zool. 71:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Albertson RC, Streelman JT, Kocher TD, Yelick PC (2005) Integration and evolution of the cichlid mandible: The molecular basis of alternate feeding strategies. PNAS 102:16287–16292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Alexander GD, Adams CE (2004) Exposure to a common environments erodes between-strain trophic morphology differences in Arctic charr. J Fish Biol 64:254–258Google Scholar
  10. Amundsen P-A, Gabler H-M, Staldvik FJ (1996) A new approach to graphical analysis of feeding strategy from stomach contents data–modification of the Costello (1990) method. J Fish Biol 48:607–614Google Scholar
  11. Amundsen P-A, Knudsen R, Kuris AM, Kristoffersen R (2003) Seasonal and ontogenetic dynamics in trophic transmission of parasites. Oikos 102:285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Amundsen P-A, Knudsen R, Klemetsen A (2008) Seasonal and ontogenetic variation in resource use by two sympatric Arctic charr populations. Environ Biol Fish 83:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Behm JE, Ives AR, Boughman JW (2010) Breakdown in postmating isolation and the collapse of a species pair through hybridization. Am Nat 175:11–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blanchet S, Rey O, Berthier P, Lek S, Loot G (2009) Evidence of parasite-mediated disruptive selection on genetic diversity in a wild fish population. Mol Ecol 18:1112–1123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bolnick DI (2006) Multi-species outcomes in a common model of sympatric speciation. J Theor Biol 241:734–744PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bolnick DI, Yang LH, Fordyce JA, Davis JM, Svanbäck R (2002) Measuring individual-level resource specialization. Ecology 83:2936–2941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bolnick DI, Svanbäck R, Fordyce JA, Yang LH, Davis JM, Hulsey CD, Forister ML (2003) The ecology of individuals: incidence and implications of individual specialisation. Am Nat 161:1–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bush AO, Lafferty KD, Lotz JM, Shostak AW (1997) Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. J Parasitol 83:575–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Curtis MA (1984) Diphyllobothrium spp. and the Arctic charr: parasite acquisition and its effects on a lake resident population. In: Johnson L, Burns BI (eds) Biology of the Arctic charr. Proceedings of the International Symposium on a Arctic charr, Winnipeg, Mannitoba, May 1981. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg, pp 395–411Google Scholar
  20. Day T, McPhail JD (1996) The effect of behavioural and morphological plasticity on foraging efficiency in the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus sp.). Oecologia 108:380–388Google Scholar
  21. Dieckmann U, Doebeli M (1999) On the origin of species by sympatric speciation. Nature 400:354–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Doebeli M, Block HJ, Leimar O, Dieckmann U (2007) Multimodal pattern formation in phenotype distributions of sexual populations. Proc R Soc B 274:347–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duckworth RA (2009) The role of behaviour in evolution: a search for mechanisms. Evol Ecol 23:513–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fraser D, Huntingford FA, Adams CE (2008) Foraging specialisms, prey size and life-history patterns: a test of predictions using sympatric polymorphic Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Ecol Freshw Fish 17:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Funk DJ (2010) Does strong selection promote host specialisation and ecological speciation in insect herbivores? Evidence from Neochlamisus leaf beetles. Ecol Entomol 35:41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garduño-Paz MV, Adams CE (2010) Discrete prey availability promotes foraging segregation and early divergence in Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus. Hydrobiologia 650:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Garduño-Paz MV, Couderc S, Adams CE (2010) Habitat modulates phenotypic expression through developmental plasticity in the three-spined stickleback. Biol J Linn Soc 100:407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gavrilets S (2004) Fitness landscapes and the origin of species. Princeton University Press, NJ, p 432Google Scholar
  29. Head ML, Price EA, Boughman JW (2009) Body size differences do not arise from divergent mate preferences in a species pair of threespine stickleback. Biol Lett 5:517–520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hendry AP (2009) Ecological speciation! Or the lack thereof? Can J Fish Aquat Sci 66:1383–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herrel A, Huyghe K, Vanhooydonck B, Backeljau T, Breugelmans K, Grbac I, Van Damme R, Irschick DJ (2008) Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:4792–4795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kahilainen KK, Østbye K (2006) Morphological differentiation and resource polymorphism in three sympatric whitefish Coregonus lavaretus (L.) forms in a subarctic lake. J Fish Biol 68:63–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Klemetsen A (2010) The charr problem revisited: exceptional phenotypic plasticity promotes ecological speciation in postglacial lakes. Freshw Rev 3:49–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klemetsen A, Amundsen P-A, Knudsen R, Hermansen B (1997) A profundal, winter-spawning morph of Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (L.) in lake Fjellfrøsvatn, northern Norway. Nord J Freshw Res 73:13–23Google Scholar
  35. Klemetsen A, Elliot JM, Knudsen R, Sørensen P (2002) Evidence for genetic differences in the offspring of two sympatric morphs of Arctic charr. J Fish Biol 60:933–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klemetsen A, Knudsen R, Primicerio R, Amundsen P-A (2006) Divergent natural selection on the feeding behaviour of two sympatric Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) morphs. Ecol Freshw Fish 15:350–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Klingenberg CP (2008) MorphoJ. Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, UK. Available at http://www.flywings.org.uk/MorphoJ_page.htm
  38. Knudsen R, Amundsen P-A, Klemetsen A (2003) Inter-and intra-morph patterns in helminth communities of sympatric whitefish morphs. J Fish Biol 62:847–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Knudsen R, Curtis MA, Kristoffersen R (2004) Aggregation of helminths: the role of feeding behaviour of fish hosts. J Parasitol 90:1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Knudsen R, Klemetsen A, Amundsen P-A, Hermansen B (2006) Incipient speciation through niche expansion: an example from the Arctic charr in a subarctic lake. Proc R Soc B 273:2291–2298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knudsen R, Amundsen P-A, Primicerio R, Klemetsen A, Sørensen P (2007) Contrasting niche-based variation on trophic morphology within Arctic charr populations. Evol Ecol Res 9:1005–1021Google Scholar
  42. Knudsen R, Jobling M, Amundsen P-A, Klemetsen A (2008) Differences in pyloric caeca morphology between Arctic charr ecotypes: adaptation to trophic specialisation or parasite-induced phenotypic modifications? J Fish Biol 73:275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Knudsen R, Primicerio R, Amundsen P-A, Klemetsen A (2010) Temporal stability of individual feeding specialization may promote speciation. J Anim Ecol 79:161–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kristjansson B, Skúlason S, Noakes DL (2002) Morphological segregation of Icelandic threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L). J Fish Biol 76:247–257Google Scholar
  45. Lafferty KD, Thomas F, Skorping A (2000) Evolution of host phenotype manipulation by parasites and its consequences. Develop Anim Vet Sci 32:117–127Google Scholar
  46. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  47. Losos JB (2010) Adaptive radiation, ecological opportunity, and evolutionary determinism. Am Nat 175:623–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maan ME, Van Rooijen AMC, Van Alphen JJM, Seehausen O (2008) Parasite-mediated sexual selection and species divergence in Lake Victoria cichlid fish. Biol J Linn Soc 94:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. MacColl ADC (2009) Parasite may contribute to ‘magic trait’ evolution in the adaptive radiation of three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus (Gasterosteiformes: Gasterosteidae). Biol J Linn Soc 96:425–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Matthews B, Harmon LJ, M'Gonigle L, Marchinko KB, Schaschol H (2010) Sympatric and allopatric divergence of MHC genes in threespined stickleback. Plos One 5:e10948PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moret Y, Schmid-Hempel P (2000) Survival for immunity: the price of immune system for activation of bumblebee workers. Science 290:1166–1168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nosil P, Harmon JL, Seehausen O (2009) Ecological explanations for (incomplete) speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 24:145–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Parnell AC, Inger R, Bearhop S, Jackson AL (2010) Source partitioning using stable isotopes: coping with too much variation. Plos One 5:e9672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Perga ME, Gerdeaux D (2005) ‘Are fish what they eat’ all year round? Oecologia 144:598–606PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pfennig DW, Wund MA, Snell-Rodd EC, Cruickshank T, Schlicthing CD, Moczek AP (2010) Phenotypic plasticity’s impacts on diversification and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 25:459–467PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pinnegar JK, Polunin NVC (1999) Differential fractionation of δ13C and δ15N among fish tissues: implications for the study of trophic interactions. Func Ecol 13:225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Post DM (2002) Using stable isotopes to estimate trophic position: models, methods, and assumptions. Ecology 83:703–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  59. Ravigne V, Dieckmann U, Olivieri I (2009) Live where you thrive: joint evolution of habitat choice and local adaptation facilitates specialization and promotes diversity. Am Nat 174:E141–E169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Robinson BW, Parsons KJ (2002) Changing times, spaces, and faces: tests and implications of adaptive morphological plasticity in the fishes of northern postglacial lakes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:1819–1833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roger SM, Bernatchez L (2007) The genetic architecture of ecological speciation and the association with signatures of selection in natural lake whitefish (Coregonus sp. Salmonidae) species pairs. Mol Biol Evol 24:1423–1438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rohlf FJ (2006) TPS Dig version 2.10. Deptartment of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook. Available at http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph
  63. Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF (1993) A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol Evol 8:129–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rohlf FJ, Slice DE (1990) Extensions of the procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 39:40–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rueffler C, Van Dooren TJM, Metz AJ (2007) The interplay between behaviour and morphology in the evolutionary dynamics of resource specialisation. Am Nat 169:E34–E52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sandlund OT, Gunnarsson K, Jonasson PM, Jonsson B, Lindem T, Magnusson KP, Malmquist HJ, Sigurjonsdottir H, Skúlason S, Snorrason SS (1992) The Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus in Thingvallavatn. Oikos 64:305–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sargeant BL (2007) Individual foraging specialization: niche width versus niche overlap. Oikos 116:1431–1437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schluter D (1996) Ecological speciation in postglacial fishes. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 351:807–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schluter D (2000) The ecology of adaptive radiation. Oxford University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  70. Schluter D (2001) The ecology and origin of species. Trends Ecol Evol 16:372–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schluter D, Conte GL (2009) Genetics and ecological speciation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:9955–9962PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Skarstein F, Folstad I (1996) Sexual dicromatism and the immunocompetence handicap: an observational approach using Arctic charr. Oikos 76:359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Skúlason S, Smith TB (1995) Resource polymorphism in vertebrates. Trends Ecol Evol 10:366–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Skúlason S, Snorrason SS, Jonsson B (1999) Sympatric morphs, populations and speciation in freshwater fish with emphasis on Arctic charr. In: Magurran AE, May RM (eds) Evolution of biological diversity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 70–92Google Scholar
  75. Snorrason SS, Skúlason S, Jonsson B, Malmquist HJ, Jónasson PM, Sandlund OT, Lindem T (1994) Trophic specialization in Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (Pisces; Salmonidae): morphological divergence and ontogenetic niche shifts. Biol J Linn Soc 52:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Snowberg LK, Bolnick DI (2008) Assortative mating by diet in a phenotypically unimodal but ecological variable population of stickleback. Am Nat 172:733–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stelkens RB, Seehausen O (2009) Phenotypic divergence but not genetic distance predicts assortative mating among species of a cichlid fish radiation. J Evol Biol 22:1679–1694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tripathi N, Hoffmann M, Willing E-M, Lanz C, Weigel D, Dreyer C (2009) Genetic linkage map of the guppy, Poecilia reticulata, and quantitative trait loci analysis of male size and colour variation. Proc R Soc B 276:2195–2208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. West-Eberhard MJ (1989) Phenotypic plasticity and the origins of diversity. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 20:249–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. West-Eberhardt MJ (2005) Developmental plasticity and the origins of species differences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:6543–6549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Westgaard JI, Klemetsen A, Knudsen R (2004) Genetic differences between two sympatric morphs of Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (L.) confirmed by microsatellite DNA. J Fish Biol 65:1185–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Woo KJ, Elliot KH, Davidson M, Gaston AJ, Davoren GK (2008) Individual specialization in diet by a generalistic marine predator reflects specialisation in foraging behaviour. J Anim Ecol 77:1082–1091PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL (2004) Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rune Knudsen
    • 1
  • Anna Siwertsson
    • 1
  • Colin E. Adams
    • 1
    • 2
  • Monica Garduño-Paz
    • 3
  • Jason Newton
    • 4
  • Per-Arne Amundsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Arctic and Marine BiologyUniversity of TromsøTromsøNorway
  2. 2.Scottish Centre for Ecology and the Natural EnvironmentUniversity of GlasgowRowardennan, GlasgowScotland, UK
  3. 3.Facultad de CienciasUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de MéxicoToluca, Estado de MéxicoMexico
  4. 4.NERC Life Sciences Mass Spectrometry FacilitySUERCEast Kilbride, GlasgowScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations