Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 887–904 | Cite as

The influence of imperfect matching habitat choice on evolution in source–sink environments

  • Robert D. Holt
  • Michael Barfield
Original Paper

Abstract

Studies of evolution in source–sink environments can illuminate when to expect niche conservatism, versus niche evolution. A species can persist in habitats outside its ecological niche (sinks, where mean fitness <1), given recurrent immigration from source habitats within the niche. Persistence of this demographic asymmetry among habitats over many generations (despite recurrent exposure of a species to the sink habitat) is tantamount to niche conservatism. We have previously shown that given genetic variation in a trait determining fitness in both source and sink, “perfect” phenotype-specific habitat choice substantially speeds up adaptation to the sink. (With perfect habitat choice, individuals disperse out of the source if and only if expected fitness in the sink is greater.) However, we observed that sometimes imperfect matching habitat choice could hamper sink adaptation. We explore this observation in more detail, using individual-based simulations for evolution of a single quantitative trait. With imperfect habitat choice and one-way adult dispersal (source to sink), adaptation in the sink can be slowed, relative to phenotype-independent dispersal. This counterintuitive result reflects directional effects of emigration on the source genetic distribution, which shifts in a way that hampers sink adaptive evolution. However, with bidirectional juvenile dispersal, imperfect habitat choice caused a strong increase in sink adaptation. Thus, the likelihood of niche conservatism or evolution may depend in a sensitive way on factors such as the life history stage, directionality, and imperfection of non-random dispersal. More broadly, our results (along with other recent results) illustrate that non-random dispersal can profoundly influence evolution via how it molds the pool of genetic variation available for selection.

Keywords

Imperfect matching habitat choice Source–sink Niche conservatism Niche evolution 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the University of Florida Foundation for support, P. Edelaar, C. Garcia and J. Endler for inviting us to contribute to this special issue, and the three reviewers and P. Edelaar for many helpful suggestions.

Supplementary material

10682_2015_9789_MOESM1_ESM.docx (77 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 77 kb)

References

  1. Beltman JB, Metz JAJ (2005) Speciation: more likely through a genetic or through a learned habitat preference? Proc R Soc Lond B 272:1455–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradshaw AD (1991) Genostasis and the limits to evolution. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 333:289–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown JS, Pavlovic JB (1992) Evolution in heterogeneous environments: effects of migration on habitat specialization. Evol Ecol 6:360–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burger R, Lynch M (1995) Evolution and extinction in a changing environment: a quantitative-genetic analysis. Evolution 49:151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Darwin C (1876) On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. In: Barrett PH, Freeman RB (eds) The works of Charles Darwin, vol 16. Pickering and Chatto, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. de Meeus T, Michalakis Y, Renaud F, Olivieri I (1993) Polymorphism in heterogeneous environments, evolution of habitat selection and sympatric speciation. Evol Ecol 7:175–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Débarre F, Ronce O, Gandon S (2013) Quantifying the effects of migration and mutation on adaptation and demography in spatially heterogeneous environments. J Evol Biol 26:1185–1202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Edelaar P, Bolnick DI (2012) Non-random gene flow: an underappreciated force in evolution and ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 27:659–665CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Edelaar P, Siepielski AM, Clobert J (2008) Matching habitat choice causes directed gene flow: a neglected dimension in evolution and ecology. Evolution 62:2462–2472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Egas M, Dieckmann U, Sabelis MW (2004) Evolution restricts the coexistence of specialists and generalists: the role of trade-off structure. Am Nat 163:518–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fryxell JM (1997) Evolutionary dynamics of habitat use. Evol Ecol 11:687–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Futuyma DJ (2010) Evolutionary constraint and ecological consequences. Evolution 64:1865–1884CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Futuyma DJ, Moreno G (1988) The evolution of ecological specialization. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:207–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaston KJ (2003) The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford series in ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomulkiewicz R, Holt RD, Barfield M (1999) The effects of density dependence and immigration on local adaptation and niche evolution in a black-hole sink environment. Theor Popul Biol 55:283–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hastings A (1983) Can spatial variation alone lead to selection for dispersal? Theor Popul Biol 24:244–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hedrick PW (1990) Genotypic-specific habitat selection: a new model and its application. Heredity 65:145–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Holt RD (1985) Population dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribution. Theor Popul Biol 28:181–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holt RD (1987) Population dynamics and evolutionary processes: the manifold roles of habitat selection. Evol Ecol 1:331–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holt RD (1996a) Demographic constraints in evolution: towards unifying the evolutionary theories of senescence and niche conservatism. Evol Ecol 10:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holt RD (1996b) Adaptive evolution in source–sink environments: direct and indirect effects of density-dependence on niche evolution. Oikos 75:182–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holt RD (2009) Bringing the Hutchinsonian niche into the 21st century: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:19659–19665PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Holt RD, Barfield M (2008) Habitat selection and niche conservatism. Isr J Ecol Evol 54:295–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holt RD, Barfield M (2011) Theoretical perspectives on the statics and dynamics of species’ borders in patchy environments. Am Nat 178:S6–S25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Holt RD, Gaines M (1992) The analysis of adaptation in heterogeneous landscapes: implications for the evolution of fundamental niches. Evol Ecol 6:433–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holt RD, Gomulkiewicz R (1997) How does immigration influence local adaptation? A reexamination of a familiar paradigm. Am Nat 149:563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holt RD, Gomulkiewicz R (2004) Conservation implications of niche conservatism and evolution in heterogeneous environments. In: Ferrière R, Dieckmann U, Couvet D (eds) Evolutionary conservation biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 244–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holt RD, Gomulkiewicz R, Barfield M (2003) The phenomenology of niche evolution via quantitative traits in a ‘black-hole’ sink. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huntley B, Bartlein PJ, Prentice JC (1989) Climatic control of the distribution and abundance of beech (Fagus) in Europe and North America. J Biogeogr 16:551–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones JS (1980) Can genes choose habitats? Nature 286:757–758CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kawecki TJ (1995) Demography of source–sink populations and the evolution of ecological niches. Evol Ecol 9:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kawecki TJ (2000) Adaptation to marginal habitats: contrasting influence of the dispersal rate on the fate of alleles with small and large effects. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1315–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kawecki TJ, Holt RD (2002) Evolutionary consequences of asymmetric dispersal rates. Am Nat 160:333–347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kimura M (1965) A stochastic model concerning the maintenance of genetic variability in quantitative characters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 54:731–736PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kirkpatrick M, Barton NH (1997) Evolution of a species’ range. Am Nat 150:1–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kopp M, Matuszewski S (2013) Rapid evolution of quantitative traits: theoretical perspectives. Evol Appl 7:169–191PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Liu J, Hull V, Morzillo AT, Wiens JA (2011) Sources, sinks, and sustainability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morris DW (2003) Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia 136:1–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Peterson AT (2011) Ecological niche conservatism: a time-structured review of evidence. J Biogeogr 38:817–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pulliam HR (2000) On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol Lett 3:349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ravigné V, Olivieri I, Dieckmann U (2004) Implications of habitat choice for protected polymorphisms. Evol Ecol Res 6:125–145Google Scholar
  42. Ravigné 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–E169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Ronce O, Kirkpatrick M (2001) When sources becomes sinks: migrational meltdown in heterogeneous habitats. Evolution 8:1520–1531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosenzweig ML (1987) Habitat selection as a source of biological diversity. Evol Ecol 1:315–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schiffers K, Bourne EC, Lavergne S, Thuiller W, Travis JMJ (2013) Limited evolutionary rescue of locally adapted populations facing climate change. Philos Trans R Soc B 368:20120083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schlaepfer MA, Runge MC, Sherman PW (2002) Ecological and evolutionary traps. Trends Ecol Evol 17:474–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schluter D (2000) The ecology of adaptive radiation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Sexton JP, McIntyre PJ, Angert AL, Rice KJ (2009) Evolution and ecology of species range limits. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:415–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stamps JA, Davis JM (2006) Adaptive effects of natal experience on habitat selection by dispersers. Anim Behav 72:1279–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Via S (2009) Natural selection in action during speciation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(Supplement 1):9939–9946PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Wiens JJ, Graham CH (2005) Niche conservatism: integrating evolution, ecology, and conservation biology. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:519–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wiens JJ, Ackerly DD, Allen AP et al (2010) Niche conservatism as an emerging principle in ecology and conservation biology. Ecol Lett 13:1310–1324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Yanchukov A, Proulx SR (2014) Migration-selection balance at multiple loci and selection on dominance and recombination. PLoS ONE 9:e88651PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Yeaman S, Otto SP (2011) Establishment and maintenance of adaptive genetic divergence under migration, selection, and drift. Evolution 65:2125–2129Google Scholar
  55. Yeaman S, Whitlock MC (2011) The genetic architecture of adaptation under migration–selection balance. Evolution 65:1897–1911CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations