Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 109–122 | Cite as

Contrasting growth strategies of pond versus marine populations of nine-spined stickleback (Pungitius pungitius): a combined effect of predation and competition?

  • Gábor Herczeg
  • Abigél Gonda
  • Anna Kuparinen
  • Juha Merilä
Original Paper

Abstract

Gigantism in isolated ponds in the absence of sympatric fish species has previously been observed in nine-spined sticklebacks (Pungitius pungitius). Patterns in sexual size dimorphism suggested that fecundity selection acting on females might be responsible for the phenomenon. However, the growth strategy behind gigantism in pond sticklebacks has not been studied yet. Here, we compared von Bertalanffy growth parameters of four independent nine-spined stickleback populations reared in a common laboratory environment: two coastal marine (typical size) and two pond (giant size) populations. We found that both pond populations had larger estimated final size than marine populations, which in turn exhibited higher intrinsic growth rates than the pond populations. Female growth strategies were more divergent among marine and pond populations than those of males. Asymptotic body size and intrinsic growth rate were strongly negatively correlated. Hence, pond versus marine populations exhibited different growth strategies along a continuum. Our data suggest that quick maturation—even with the cost of being small (low fecundity)—is favoured in marine environments. On the contrary, growth to a giant final size (high fecundity)—even if it entails extended growth period—is favoured in ponds. We suggest that the absence (ponds) versus presence (marine environment) of sympatric predatory fish species, and the consequent change in the importance of intraspecific competition are responsible for the divergence in growth strategies. The sex-dependence of the patterns further emphasizes the role of females in the body size divergence in the species. Possible alternative hypotheses are also discussed.

Keywords

Adaptive divergence Body size Growth rate Life history Natural selection Predation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Victor Berger, Göran Englund, Tuomas Leinonen, Daniel Lussetti, and Pirkko Siikamäki for their help in organising and executing field sampling. Special thanks to the Oulanka Research Station (University of Oulu) and White Sea Biological Station (Russian Academy of Science) for sharing their facilities and expertise. We are highly indebted to Caitlin Dmitriew and two anonymous reviewers for their comments leading to improvements of our manuscript and Jacquelin DeFaveri for correcting the English. The authors received financial support from the Academy of Finland (GH, AK, JM) and Center of Internal Mobility (CIMO) (AG). The experiments were conducted under the licence of the Finnish National Animal Experiment Board (ELLA, # STH379A).

References

  1. Abrams PA, Rowe L (1996) The effects of predation on the age and size of maturity of prey. Evolution 50:1052–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Arendt JD (1997) Adaptive intrinsic growth rates: an integration accross taxa. Q Rev Biol 72:149–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arendt JD, Reznick DN (2005) Evolution of juvenile growth rates in female guppies (Poecilia reticulata): predator regime or resource level? Proc R Soc B 272:333–337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atchley WR (1984) Ontogeny, timing of development, and genetic variance-covariance structure. Am Nat 123:519–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bănărescu PM, Paepke H-J (2001) The freshwater fishes of Europe, vol 5/III. AULA, WiebelsheimGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrett RDH, Rogers SM, Schluter D (2008) Natural selection on a major armor gene in three spine stickleback. Science 322:255–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell MA, Ortí G, Walker JA, Koenings JP (1993) Evolution of pelvic reduction in three spine stickleback fish—a test of competing hypotheses. Evolution 47:906–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berrigan D, Charnov EL (1994) Reaction norms for age and size at maturity in response to temperature: a puzzle for life historians. Oikos 70:474–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biro PA, Abrahams MV, Post JR, Parkinson EA (2004) Predators select against high growth rates and risk-taking behaviour in domestic trout populations. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2233–2237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Biro PA, Abrahams MV, Post JR, Parkinson EA (2006) Behavioural trade-offs between growth and mortality explain evolution of submaximal growth rates. J Anim Ecol 75:1165–1171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blanckenhorn WU (2000) The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small? Q Rev Biol 75:385–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blanckenhorn WU, Demont M (2004) Bergmann and converse Bergmann latitudinal clines in arthropods: two ends of a continuum? Integr Comp Biol 44:413–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calow P (1982) Homeostasis and fitness. Am Nat 120:416–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conover DO, Present TMC (1990) Countergradient variation in growth rate: compensation for length of the growing season among Atlantic silversides from different latitudes. Oecologia 83:316–324Google Scholar
  16. Day T, Rowe L (2002) Developmental thresholds and the evolution of reaction norms for age and size at maturity. Am Nat 159:338–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dmitriew CM (2011) The evolution of growth trajectories: what limits growth rate? Biol Rev 86:97–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fairbairn DJ (1997) Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: patterns and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 28:659–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forsman A (1991) Variation in sexual size dimorphism and maximum body size among adder populations: effects of prey size. J Anim Ecol 60:253–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giles N (1983) The possible role of environmental calcium levels during the evolution of phenotypic diversity in Outer-Hebridean populations of the three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. J Zool 199:535–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gonda A, Herczeg G, Merilä J (2009) Habitat-dependent and–independent plastic responses to social environment in the nine-spined stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) brain. Proc Roy Soc B 276:2085–2092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Green BS (2008) Maternal effects in fish populations. Adv Mar Biol 54:1–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heino M, Kaitala V (1999) Evolution of resource allocation between growth and reproduction in animals with indeterminate growth. J Evol Biol 12:423–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herczeg G, Gonda A, Merilä J (2009a) Evolution of gigantism in nine-spined sticklebacks. Evolution 63:3190–3200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herczeg G, Gonda A, Merilä J (2009b) The social cost of shoaling covaries with predation risk in nine-spined stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) populations. Anim Behav 77:575–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herczeg G, Gonda A, Merilä J (2009c) Predation mediated population divergence in complex behaviour of nine-spined stickleback (Pungitius pungitius). J Evol Biol 22:544–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herczeg G, Gonda A, Merilä J (2010a) Rensch’s rule inverted—female-driven gigantism in nine-spined stickleback (Pungitius pungitius). J Anim Ecol 79:581–588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Herczeg G, Turtiainen M, Merilä J (2010b) Morphological divergence of North-European nine-spined sticklebacks (Pungitius pungitius): signatures of parallel evolution. Biol J Linn Soc 101:413–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoogland R, Morris D, Tinbergen N (1957) The spines of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus and Pygosteus) as means of defence against predators (Perca and Esox). Behaviour 10:205–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones JW, Hynes HBN (1950) The age and growth of Gasterosteus aculeatus, Pygosteus pungitius and Spinachia vulgaris as shown by their otoliths. J Anim Ecol 19:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kahilainen K, Malinen T, Tuomaala A, Lehtonen H (2004) Diel and seasonal habitat and food segregation of three sympatric Coregonus lavaretus forms in a subarctic lake. J Fish Biol 64:418–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Katsanevakis S (2006) Modelling fish growth: model selection, multi-model inference and model selection uncertainty. Fish Res 81:229–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kratochvíl L, Frynta D (2002) Body size, male combat and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in Eublepharid geckos (Squamata: Eublepharidae). Biol J Linn Soc 76:303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuparinen A, Cano Arias JM, Loehr J, Herczeg G, Gonda A, Merilä J (2011) Fish age at maturation is influenced by temperature independently of growth. Oecologia. doi:  10.1007/s00442-011-1989-x
  35. Lachance S, Magnan P, FitzGerald GJ (1987) Temperature preferences of three sympatric sticklebacks (Gasterosteidae). Can J Zool 65:1573–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laugen AT, Laurila A, Räsänen K, Merilä J (2003) Latitudinal countergradient variation in the common frog (Rana temporaria) development rates—evidence for local adaptation. J Evol Biol 16:996–1005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioural decisions made under the risk of predation- a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lindgren B, Laurila A (2005) Proximate causes of adaptive growth rates: growth efficiency variation among latitudinal populations of Rana temporaria. J Evol Biol 18:820–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lindgren B, Laurila A (2009) Physiological variation along a geographical gradient: is growth rate correlated with routine metabolic rate in Rana temporaria tadpoles? Biol J Linn Soc 98:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lomolino MV (1985) Body size of mammals on islands: the island rule re-examined. Am Nat 125:310–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marchinko KB, Schluter D (2007) Parallel evolution by correlated response: lateral plate reduction in three spine stickleback. Evolution 61:1084–1090PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moodie GEE (1972a) Predation, natural selection and adaptation in an unusual three spine stickleback. Heredity 28:155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moodie GEE (1972b) Morphology, life history and ecology of an unusual stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) in the Queen Charlotte Islands. Can J Zool 50:721–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moodie GEE, Reimchen TE (1976) Phenetic variation and habitat differences in Gasterosteus populations of the Queen Charlotte Islands. Syst Zool 25:49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Östlund-Nilsson S, Mayer I, Huntingford FA (2007) Biology of the three-spined stickleback. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  46. Peters RH (1983) The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. R Development Core Team (2009) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. URL http://www.R-project.org
  48. Reimchen TE (1983) Structural relationships between spines and lateral plates in threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Evolution 37:931–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reimchen TE (1988) Inefficient predators and prey injuries in a population of giant stickleback. Can J Zool 66:2036–2044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reimchen TE (1991) Trout foraging failure and the evolution of body size in stickleback. Copeia 1991:1098–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rensch B (1950) Die Abhängigkeit der relativen Sexualdifferenz von der Körpergrösse. Bonn Zool Beitr 1:58–69Google Scholar
  52. Rensch B (1959) Evolution above species level. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Roff DA (1992) The evolution of life histories. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Rohlf FJ (2006) TPS software series. Distributed by the author. Department of ecology and evolution, State University of New York, Stony BrookGoogle Scholar
  55. Shikano T, Shimada Y, Herczeg G, Merilä J (2010) History versus habitat type: explaining the genetic structure of European nine-spined stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) populations. Mol Ecol 19:1147–1161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shine R (1989) Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual size dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Q Rev Biol 64:419–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sibly R, Calow P (1986) Why breeding earlier is always worthwhile. J Theor Biol 124:311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Simberloff D, Dayan T, Jones C, Ogura G (2000) Character displacement and release in the small Indian mongoose, Herpestes javanicus. Ecology 81:2086–2099Google Scholar
  59. Stamps JA, Andrews RM (1992) Estimating asymptotic size using the largest individual per sample. Oecologia 92:503–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  61. Urban MC (2008) Salamander evolution across a latitudinal cline in gape-limited predation risk. Oikos 117:1037–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. von Bertalanffy L (1938) A quantitative theory of organic growth (inquiries on growth laws II). Human Biol 10:181–213Google Scholar
  63. Waser W, Sahoo TP, Herczeg G, Merilä J, Nikinmaa M (2010) Physiological differentiation among nine-spined stickleback populations: effects of copper exposure. Aquat Toxicol 98:188–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Werner EE, Gilliam JF (1984) The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size structured populations. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 15:393–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilson DS (1975) The adequacy of body size as a niche difference. Am Nat 109:769–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gábor Herczeg
    • 1
  • Abigél Gonda
    • 1
  • Anna Kuparinen
    • 1
  • Juha Merilä
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecological Genetics Research Unit, Department of BiosciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations