Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 489–516 | Cite as

Contrasting post-settlement selection results in many-to-one mapping of high performance phenotypes in the Hawaiian waterfall-climbing goby Sicyopterus stimpsoni

  • Kristine N. Moody
  • Sandy M. Kawano
  • William C. Bridges
  • Richard W. Blob
  • Heiko L. Schoenfuss
  • Margaret B. Ptacek
Original Paper

Abstract

Natural selection drives adaptive evolution, but contrasting environmental pressures may lead to trade-offs between phenotypes that confer different performances. Such trade-offs may weaken the strength of selection and/or generate complex fitness surfaces with multiple local optima that correspond to different selection regimes. We evaluated how differences in patterns of phenotypic selection might promote morphological differences between subpopulations of the amphidromous Hawaiian waterfall-climbing goby, Sicyopterus stimpsoni. We conducted laboratory experiments on fish from the islands of Kaua‘i and Hawai‘i (the “Big Island”) to compare patterns of linear and nonlinear selection, and the opportunity for selection, that result from two contrasting pressures, predator evasion and waterfall climbing, which vary in intensity between islands. We found directional and nonlinear selection were strongest when individuals were exposed to their primary selective pressures (predator evasion on Kaua‘i, waterfall climbing on the Big Island). However, the opportunity for selection was greater for the non-primary pressure: climbing on Kaua‘i, predator evasion on the Big Island. Canonical rotation of the nonlinear gamma matrix demonstrated that individuals from Kaua‘i and the Big Island occupy regions near their local fitness peaks for some traits. Therefore, selection for predator evasion on Kaua‘i and climbing on the Big Island may be less effective in promoting morphological changes in this species, because variation of functionally important traits in their respective environments may have been reduced by directional or stabilizing selection. These results demonstrate that despite constraints on the opportunities for selection, population differences in phenotypic traits can arise due to differences in selective regimes. For S. stimpsoni, sufficient variation exists in other locomotor traits, allowing for necessary levels of performance in the contrasting selective regime (i.e., climbing on Kaua‘i and predator evasion on the Big Island) through many-to-one-mapping, which may be essential for the survival of local populations in an evanescent island environment.

Keywords

Morphology Fish Linear selection Nonlinear selection Fitness surface 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources, especially Bob Nishimoto, Kim Peyton, Lance Nishiura, Wade Ishikawa, Troy Sakihara, Troy Shimoda, Tim Shindo, Darrel Kuamo’o, and Alysha Cabral for logistical support during field experiments. We thank Takashi Maie for assistance with collection and field experiments. We also thank Rose Curry and Caitlin McPherson for assistance with collecting fish morphometrics.

Funding

Primary funding was provided through National Science Foundation Grants (IOS-0817911 and IOS-0817794). Additional funding was provided by the Women’s National Farm and Garden Association Tyson Memorial Fellowship to S.K. A portion of this work was conducted while S. K. was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, an Institute sponsored by the National Science Foundation through NSF Award #DBI-1300426, with additional support from The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Compliance with ethical standards

Clemson University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) approval (ARC2007-090 and AUP2008-071) and St. Cloud State University IACUC approval (#1207 and #0113).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10682_2017_9889_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 24 kb)

References

  1. Abràmoff MD, Magalhães PJ, Ram SJ (2004) Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics Int 11:36–42Google Scholar
  2. Alfaro ME, Bolnick DI, Wainwright PC (2005) Evolutionary consequences of many-to-one mapping of jaw morphology to mechanics in labrid fishes. Am Nat 165:E140–E154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold SJ (1983) Morphology, performance and fitness. Am Zool 23:347–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnold SJ, Wade MJ (1984) On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: applications. Evolution 38:720–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Benkman CW (2003) Divergent selection drives the adaptive radiation of crossbills. Evolution 57:1176–1181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben-Tzvi O, Abelson A, Gaines SD, Bernardi G, Beldade R, Sheehy MS, Paradis GL, Kiflawi M (2012) Evidence for cohesive dispersal in the sea. PLoS ONE 7:e42672. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042672 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Blob RW, Bridges WC, Ptacek MB, Maie T, Cediel RA, Bertolas MM, Julius ML, Schoenfuss HL (2008) Morphological selection in and extreme flow environment: body shape and waterfall-climbing success in the Hawaiian stream fish Sicyopterus stimpsoni. Int Comp Biol 48:734–749; (Erratum) 49:732–734 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. Blob RW, Kawano SM, Moody KN, Bridges WC, Maie T, Ptacek MB, Julius ML, Schoenfuss HL (2010) Morphological selection and the evaluation of potential tradeoffs between escape from predators and the climbing of waterfalls in the Hawaiian stream goby Sicyopterus stimpsoni. Int Comp Biol 50:1185–1199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blows MW (2007) A tale of two matrices: multivariate approaches in evolutionary biology. J Evol Biol 20:1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Blows MW, Brooks R (2003) Measuring nonlinear selection. Am Nat 162:815–820CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Blows MW, Brooks R, Kraft PG (2003) Exploring complex fitness surfaces: multiple ornamentation and polymorphism in male guppies. Evolution 57:1622–1630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Brodie ED (1989) Genetic correlations between morphology and antipredator behavior in natural populations of the garter snake Thamnophis ordinoides. Nature 342:542–543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brodie ED III (1992) Correlational selection for color pattern and antipredator behavior in the garter snake Thamnophis ordinoides. Evolution 46:1284–1298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Brodie ED III, Moore AJ, Janzen FJ (1995) Visualizing and quantifying natural selection. Trends Ecol Evol 10:313–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Calsbeek R, Irschick DJ (2007) The quick and the dead: correlational selection on morphology, performance, and habitat use in island lizards. Evolution 61:2493–2503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Calsbeek R, Smith TB (2008) Experimentally replicated disruptive selection on performance traits in a Caribbean lizard. Evolution 62:478–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Carlson SM, Rich HB Jr, Quinn TP (2009) Does variation in selection imposed by bears drive divergence among populations in the size and shape of sockeye salmon? Evolution 63:1244–1261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Chenoweth SF, Blows MW (2005) Contrasting mutual sexual selection on homologous signal traits in Drosophila serrata. Am Nat 165:281–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Clague DA, Dalrymple GB (1987) Tectonics, geochronology and origin of the Hawaiian-Emperor volcanic chain. In: Decker RW, Wright TL, Stauffer PH (eds) Volcanism in Hawaii. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1350. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp 1–54Google Scholar
  20. Diamond KM, Schoenfuss HL, Walker JA, Blob RW (2016) Flowing water affects fish fast-starts: escape performance of the Hawaiian stream goby, Sicyopterus stimpsoni. J Exp Biol 219:3100–3105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Doherty PJ, Dufour V, Galzin R, Hixon MA, Meekan MG, Planes S (2004) High mortality during settlement is a population bottleneck for a tropical surgeonfish. Ecology 85:242–2428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Domenici P (2003) Habitat, body design, and the swimming performance of fish. In: Bels VL, Gasc J-P, Casinos A (eds) Vertebrate biomechanics and evolution. BIOS Scientific Publishers, Oxford, pp 137–160Google Scholar
  23. Domenici P, Turesson H, Brodersen J, Brnmark C (2008) Predator-induced morphology enhances escape locomotion in crucian carp. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol 275:195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dumont ER, Samadevam K, Grosse I, Warsi OM, Baird B, Davalos LM (2014) Selection for mechanical advantage underlies multiple cranial optima in new world leaf-nosed bats. Evolution 68:1436–1449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Efron B, Gong G (1983) A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation. Am Stat 37:36–48Google Scholar
  26. Endler JA (1986) Natural selection in the wild. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  27. Fields Development Team (2006) Fields: tools for spatial data. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO. http://www.image.ucar.edu/Software/Fields
  28. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fitzsimons JM, Zink RM, Nishimoto RT (1990) Genetic variation in the Hawaiian stream goby, Lentipes concolor. Biochem Syst Ecol 18:81–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fitzsimons JM, Nishimoto RT, Yuen AR (1993) Courtship and territorial behavior in the native Hawaiian stream goby, Sicyopterus stimpsoni. Ichthyol Explor Freshw 4:1–10Google Scholar
  31. Gaines SD, Bertness MD (1992) Dispersal of juveniles and variable recruitment in sessile marine species. Nature 360:579–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grant PR, Grant BR (2002) Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin’s Finches. Science 296:707–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Hendry AP, Kinnison MT (2001) An introduction to microevolution: rate, pattern, process. Genetica 112:1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hendry AP, Huber SK, De Leon LF, Herrel A, Podos J (2009) Disruptive selection in a bimodal population of Darwin’s finches. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol 276:753–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hereford J, Hansen TF, Houle D (2004) Comparing strengths of directional selection: How strong is strong? Evolution 58:479–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoekstra HE, Hoekstra JM, Berriga D, Vignieri SN, Hoang A, Hill CE, Beerlii P, Kingsolver JG (2001) Strength and tempo of directional selection in the wild. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:9157–9160CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Hogan JD, Thiessen RJ, Heath DD (2010) Variability in connectivity indicated by chaotic genetic patchiness within and among population of a marine fish. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 417:263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Irschick DJ, Meyers JJ, Husak JF, Le Galliard JF (2008) How does selection operate on whole-organism functional performance capacities? A review and synthesis. Evol Ecol Res 10:177–196Google Scholar
  39. Janzen FJ, Stern HS (1998) Logistic regression for empirical studies of multivariate selection. Evolution 52:1564–1571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Johannesson K, Johannesson B, Lundgren U (1995) Strong natural selection causes microscale allozyme variation in a marine snail. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:2602–2606CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Kawano SM, Bridges WC, Schoenfuss HL, Maie T, Blob RW (2013) Differences in locomotor behavior correspond to different patterns of morphological selection in two species of waterfall-climbing gobiid fishes. Evol Ecol 27:949–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kingsolver JG, Pfennig DW (2007) Patterns and power of phenotypic selection in nature. Bioscience 57:561–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kingsolver JG, Hoekstra HE, Hoekstra JM, Berrigan D, Vignieri SN, Hill CH, Hoang A, Gibert P, Beerli P (2001) The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. Am Nat 157:245–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Lande R, Arnold SJ (1983) The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210–1226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Larson RJ, Julian RM (1999) Spatial and temporal genetic patchiness in marine populations and their implications for fisheries management. Calif Cooper Ocean Fish 40:94–99Google Scholar
  46. LeBras NR, Hockham LR, Ritchie MG (2003) Nonlinear and correlational sexual selection on ‘honest’ female ornamentation. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol 270:2159–2165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lenormand T (2002) Gene flow and the limits to natural selection. Trends Ecol Evol 17:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lenth RV (2009) Response-surface methods in R, using rsm. J Stat Softw 32:2–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Leonard G, Maie T, Moody KN, Schrank G, Blob RW, Schoenfuss HL (2012) Finding paradise: cues directing the migration of the waterfall climbing Hawaiian gobioid fish Sicyopterus stimpsoni. J Fish Biol 81:903–920CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Losos JB (1990) The evolution of form and function: morphology and locomotor performance in West Indian Anolis lizards. Evolution 1990:1189–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Maie T, Schoenfuss HL, Blob RW (2012) Performance and scaling of a novel locomotor structure: adhesive capacity of climbing gobiid fishes. J Exp Biol 215:3925–3936CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Maie T, Schoenfuss HL, Blob RW (2013) Musculoskeletal determinants of pelvic sucker function in Hawaiian stream gobiid fishes: interspecific comparisons and allometric scaling. J Morphol 274:733–742CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Maie T, Furtek S, Schoenfuss HL, Blob RW (2014) Feeding performance and functional modulation of the Hawaiian sleeper, Eleotris sandwicensis (Gobiodei: Eleotridae): implications for selection pressures on prey. Biol J Linn Soc 111:359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Martin CH (2012) Weak disruptive selection and incomplete phenotypic divergence in two classic examples of sympatric speciation: Cameroon Crater Lake cichlids. Am Nat 180:E90–E109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Martin CH, Wainwright PC (2013) Multiple fitness peaks on the adaptive landscape drive adaptive radiation in the wild. Science 339:208–2011CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. McDowall RM (2003) Hawaiian biogeography and the islands’ freshwater fish fauna. J Biogeogr 30:703–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McRae MG (2007) The potential for source-sink population dynamics in Hawaii’s amphidromous fishes. Bishop Mus Bull Cult Environ Stud 3:87–98Google Scholar
  58. Moody KN, Hunter SN, Childress MJ, Blob RW, Schoenfuss HL, Blum MJ, Ptacek MB (2015) Local adaptation despite high gene flow in the waterfall-climbing Hawaiian goby, Sicyopterus stimpsoni. Mol Ecol 24:545–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Morrissey MB, Hadfield JD (2011) Directional selection in temporally replicated studies is remarkably consistent. Evolution 66:435–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Mosimann JE, James FC (1979) New statistical methods for allometry with application to Florida red-winged blackbirds. Evolution 1979:444–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nishimoto RT, Fitzsimons JM (1999) Behavioral determinants of the instream distribution of native Hawaiian stream fishes. In: Séret B, Sire J-Y (eds) Proceeding from the fifth Indo-Pacific fish conferences, Nouméa. Societe Francaise d’Ichthyologie, Paris, pp 813–818Google Scholar
  62. Norton SF, Luczkovich JJ, Motta PJ (1995) The roles of ecomorphological studies in comparative biology of fishes. Environ Biol Fish 44:287–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nosil P, Crespi BJ, Sandoval CP (2002) Host-plant adaptation drives the parallel evolution of reproductive isolation. Nature 417:440–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Palumbi SR (2004) Marine reserves and ocean neighbourhoods: the spatial scale of marine populations and their management. Annu Rev Environ Resour 29:31–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Phillips PC, Arnold SJ (1989) Visualizing multivariate selection. Evolution 43:1209–1222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Pujolar JM, Maes GE, Volckaert FAM (2006) Genetic patchiness among recruits in the European eel Anguilla anguilla. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 307:209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Radtke RL, Kinzie RA III (1996) Evidence of a marine larval stage in endemic Hawaiian stream gobies from isolated high-elevation locations. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:613–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Radtke RL, Kinzie RA III, Shafer DJ (2001) Temporal and spatial variation in the length of larval life and size at settlement of the Hawaiian amphidromous goby Lentipes concolor. J Fish Biol 59:928–938Google Scholar
  69. Reimchen TE, Nosil P (2002) Temporal variation in divergent selection on spine number in threespine stickleback. Evolution 56:2472–2483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Rundle HD, Nosil P (2005) Ecological speciation. Ecol Lett 8:336–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sambatti JB, Rice KJ (2006) Local adaptation, patterns of selection, and gene flow in the Californian serpentine sunflower (Helianthus exilis). Evolution 60:696–710CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Scharnow J, Tinnefeld K, Wegener I (2002) Fitness landscapes based on sorting and shortest paths problems. Springer, Berlin, pp 54–63Google Scholar
  73. Schluter D (1995) Adaptive radiation in sticklebacks: trade-offs in feeding performance and growth. Ecology 1995:82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schluter D (2000) The ecology of adaptive radiation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  75. Schoenfuss HL, Blob RW (2003) Kinematics of waterfall climbing in Hawaiian freshwater fishes (Gobiidae): vertical propulsion at the water-terrestrial interface. J Zool 261:191–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schoenfuss HL, Blob RW (2007) The importance of functional morphology for fishery conservation and management: applications to Hawaiian amphidromous fishes. Bishop Mus Bull Cult Environ Stud 3:125–141Google Scholar
  77. Siepielski AM, DiBattista JD, Carlso SM (2009) It’s about time: the temporal dynamics of phenotypic selection in the wild. Ecol Lett 12:1261–1276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Smith RJF, Smith J (1998) Rapid acquisition of directional preferences by migratory juveniles of two amphidromous Hawaiian gobies, Awaous guamensis and Sicyopterus stimpsoni. Environ Biol Fish 53:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stinchcombe JR, Agrawal AF, Hohenlohe PA, Arnold SJ, Blows MW (2008) Estimating nonlinear selection gradients using quadratic regression coefficients: double or nothing? Evolution 62:2435–2440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Stobbe F, McPeek MA, De Block M, De Meester L, Stoks R (2009) Survival selection on escape performance and its underlying phenotypic traits: a case of many-to-one-mapping. J Evol Biol 22:1172–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Svensson EI, Calsbeek R (2012) The adaptive landscape in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  82. Swain DP (1992) Selective predation for vertebral phenotype in Gasterosteous aculateus: reversal in the direction of selection at different larva sizes. Evolution 46:998–1013PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Toro E, Herrel A, Irschick D (2004) The evolution of jumping performance in Caribbean Anolis lizards: solutions to biomechanical trade-offs. Am Nat 163:844–856CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Van Valen L (1973) A new evolutionary law. Evol Theor 1:1–30Google Scholar
  85. Wainwright PC (2015) Why are marine adaptive radiations rare in Hawai’i? Mol Ecol 24:523–524CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Wainwright PC, Alfaro ME, Bolnick DI, Hulsey CD (2005) Many-to-one mapping of form to function: a general principle in organismal design? Int Comp Biol 45:256–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Walker JA (1997) Ecological morphology of lacustrine threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus (Gasterosteidae) body shape. Biol J Linn Soc 61:3–50Google Scholar
  88. Walker JA (2014) The effect of unmeasured confounders on the ability to estimate a true performance or selection gradient (and other partial regression coefficients). Evolution 68:2128–2136Google Scholar
  89. Walter RP, Hogan JD, Blum MJ, Gagne RB, Hain EF, Gilliam JF, McIntyre PB (2012) Climate change and conservation of endemic amphidromous fishes in Hawaiian streams. Endanger Species Res 16:261–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristine N. Moody
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sandy M. Kawano
    • 2
    • 3
  • William C. Bridges
    • 4
  • Richard W. Blob
    • 2
  • Heiko L. Schoenfuss
    • 5
  • Margaret B. Ptacek
    • 2
  1. 1.The ByWater InstituteTulane UniversityNew OrleansUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesClemson UniversityClemsonUSA
  3. 3.National Institute for Mathematical and Biological SynthesisUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Mathematical SciencesClemson UniversityClemsonUSA
  5. 5.Aquatic Toxicology LaboratorySt. Cloud State UniversitySt. CloudUSA

Personalised recommendations