Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 863–878 | Cite as

Evolution of the G-matrix in life history traits in the common frog during a recent colonisation of an island system

  • Frank Johansson
  • Martin I. Lind
  • Pär K. Ingvarsson
  • Folmer Bokma
Original Paper

Abstract

Studies of genetic correlations between traits that ostensibly channel the path of evolution away from the direction of natural selection require information on key aspects such as ancestral phenotypes, the duration of adaptive evolution, the direction of natural selection, and genetic covariances. In this study we provide such information in a frog population system. We studied adaptation in life history traits to pool drying in frog populations on islands of known age, which have been colonized from a mainland population. The island populations show strong local adaptation in development time and size. We found that the first eigenvector of the variance–covariance matrix (gmax) had changed between ancestral mainland populations and newly established island populations. Interestingly, there was no divergence in gmax among island populations that differed in their local adaptation in development time and size. Thus, a major change in the genetic covariance of life-history traits occurred in the colonization of the island system, but subsequent local adaptation in development time took place despite the constraints imposed by the genetic covariance structure.

Keywords

G-matrix gmax Pool drying Genetic covariance Life history evolution Rana temporaria 

References

  1. Altwegg R, Reyer HU (2003) Patterns of natural selection on size at metamorphosis in water frogs. Evolution 57:872–882PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold SJ, Phillips PC (1999) Hierarchical comparison of genetic variance-covariance matrices. II. Coastal-inland divergence in the garter snake, Thamnophis elegans. Evolution 53:1516–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold SJ, Burger R, Holenhole PA, Beverley CA, Jones AG (2008) Understanding the evolution and stability of the G-matrix. Evolution 62:2451–2461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball SL, Baker RL (1996) Predator-induced life history changes: antipredatore behavior costs or facultative life history shifts? Ecology 77:1116–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bégin M, Roff DA (2003) The constancy of the G matrix through species divergence and the effects of quantitative genetic constraints on phenotypic evolution: a case study in crickets. Evolution 57:1107–1120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Berner D, Adams DC, Grandchamp A-C, Hendry AP (2008) Natural selection drives patterns of lake –stream divergence in stickleback foraging morphology. J Evol Biol 21:1653–1665Google Scholar
  7. Berner D, Stutz WE, Bolnick DI (2010) Foarging trait (co)variances in stickleback evolve deterministically and do not predict trajectories of adaptive diversification. Evolution 64:2265–2277PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Berven KA (1990) Factors affecting population fluctuations in larval and adult stages of the wood frog (R. sylvatica). Ecology 71:1599–1608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blows MW, Higgie M (2003) Genetic constraints on the evolution of mate recognition under Natural Selection. Am Nat 161:240–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blows MW, Hoffmann AA (2005) A reassessment of genetic limits to evolutionary change. Ecology 86:1371–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cano JM, Laurila A, Palo J, Merilä J (2004) Population differentiation in G matrix structure due to natural selection in R. temporaria. Evolution 58:2013–2020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chenoweth SF, Rundle HD, Blows MW (2010) The contribution of selection and genetic constraints to phenotypic divergence. Am Nat 175:186–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doroszuk A, Wojewodzic MW, Gort G, Kammenga JE (2008) Rapid divergence of genetic variance-covariance matrix within a natural population. Am Nat 171:291–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elmberg J (1991a) Factors affecting male yearly mating success in the common frog, R. temporaria. Beh Ecol Sociobiol 28:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elmberg J (1991b) Ovarian cyclicity and fecundity in boreal common frogs R. temporaria L. along a climatic gradient. Funct Ecol 5:340–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eroukhmanoff F (2009) Just how much is the G-matrix actually constraining adaptation? Evol Biol 36:323–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eroukhmanoff F, Svensson EI (2008) Phenotypic integration and conserved covariance structure in calopterygid damselflies. J Evol Biol 21:514–526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eroukhmanoff F, Svensson EI (2011) Evolution and stability of the G-matrix during colonization of a novel envirnonment. J Evol Biol 24:1363–1373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eroukhmanoff F, Outomuro D, Ochoran FJ, Svensson EI (2009) Patterns of phenotypic divergence in wing covariance structure of calopterygid damselflies. Evol Biol 36:214–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gasc J et al (1997) Atlas of amphibians and reptiles in Europe, Societas Europea Herpetologica & Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, ParisGoogle Scholar
  21. Goudet J (1995) FSTAT (Version 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statistics. J Heredity 86:485–486Google Scholar
  22. Hadfield JD (2010) MCMC Methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Softw 33:1–22Google Scholar
  23. Hansen TF, Houle D (2008) Measuring and comparing evolvability and constraints in multivariate characters. J Evol Biol 21:1201–1219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hine E, Chenoweth S, Rundle HD, Blows MW (2009) Characterizing the evolution of genetic covariance tensors. Phil Trans R Soc B 364:1567–1578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johansson F, Hjelm J, Giles BE (2005) Life history and morphology of R. temporaria in response to pool permanence. Evol Ecol Res 7:1025–1038Google Scholar
  26. Jones AG, Arnold SJ, Burger R (2003) Stability of the G-matrix in a population experiencing pleitropic mutation, stabilizing selection and genetic drift. Evolution 57:1747–1760PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Lande R (1979) Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain-body size allometry. Evolution 33:402–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lande R, Arnold SJ (1983) The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laurila A, Kujasalo J (1999) Habitat duration, predation risk and phenotypic plasticity in common frog (R. temporaria) tadpoles. J Anim Ecol 68:1123–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Laurila A, Seppä P (1998) Multiple paternity in the common frog (R. temporaria): genetic evidence from tadpole kin groups. Biol J Linn Soc 63:221–232Google Scholar
  31. Lind MI (2009) Phenotypic plasticity and local adaptation in island populations of R. temporaria. PhD Thesis, Umeå UniversityGoogle Scholar
  32. Lind MI, Johansson F (2007) The degree of adaptive phenotypic plasticity is correlated with the spatial environmental heterogeneity experienced by island populations of R. temporaria. J Evol Biol 20:1288–1297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lind MI, Johansson F (2011) Testing the role of phenotypic plasticity for local adaptation: growth and development in time-constrained R. temporaria populations. J Evol Biol Online Early. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02393.x
  34. Lind MI, Persbo F, Johansson F (2008) Pool desiccation and developmental thresholds in the common frog, R. temporaria. Proc R Soc B 275:1071–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lind MI, Ingvarsson PK, Johansson H, Hall D, Johansson F (2011) Gene flow and selection on phenotypic plasticity in an island system. Evolution 65:684–697PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates Inc, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  37. Marroig G, Cheverud JM (2005) Size as a line of least evolutionary resistance: diet and adaptive morphological radiation in new world monkeys. Evolution 59:1128–1142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. McGuigan K (2006) Studying evolution using multivariate quantitative genetics. Mol Ecol 15:883–896PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McGuigan K, Chenoweth SF, Blows MW (2005) Phenotypic divergence along lines of genetic variance. Am Nat 165:32–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Merilä J, Björklund M (1999) Population divergence and morphometric integration in the greenfinch (Carduelis chloris)—evolution against the lines of least resistance. J Evol Biol 12:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Merilä J, Sheldon BC (1999) Genetic architecture of fitness and nonfitness traits: empirical patterns and development of ideas. Heredity 83:103–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Phillips PC, Arnold SJ (1999) Hierarchical comparison of genetic variance–covariance matrices. I. Using the Flury hierarchy. Evolution 53:1506–1515Google Scholar
  43. Pigliucci M (2003) Phenotypic integration: studying the ecology and evolution of complex phenotypes. Ecol Lett 6:265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Plummer M, Best N, Cowles K, Vines K (2006) CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News 6:7–11Google Scholar
  45. Roff DA (1992) The evolution of life histories: theory and analysis. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Roff D (2002) Comparing G matrices: a MANOVA approach. Evolution 56:1286–1291PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Roff DA, Mousseau T, Møller AP, deLope F, Saino N (2004) Geographic variation in the G matrices of wild populations of the barn swallow. Heredity 93:8–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rowe L, Ludwig D (1991) Size and timing of metamorphosis in complex life cycles: time constraints and variation. Ecology 72:413–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schluter D (1996) Adaptive radiation along genetic lines of least resistance. Evolution 50:1766–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sgro CM, Blows MW (2004) The genetic covariance among clinal environments after adaptation to an environmental gradient in Drosophila serrate. Genetics 167:1281–1291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  52. Steppan SJ, Phillips PC, Houle D (2002) Comparative quantitative genetics: evolution of the G matrix. Trends Ecol Evol 17:320–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wilson AJ et al (2009) An ecologist guide to the animal model. J Anim Ecol 79:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Johansson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Martin I. Lind
    • 1
    • 3
  • Pär K. Ingvarsson
    • 1
    • 4
  • Folmer Bokma
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Environmental ScienceUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Genetics, Evolutionary Biology CentreUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.Department of Animal and Plant SciencesUniversity of SheffieldWestern Bank, SheffieldUK
  4. 4.Umeå Plant Science CentreUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations