Patterns of Evolution and the Effects of Toxic Metals

  • A. D. Bradshaw
Chapter

Abstract

We have often thought that evolution is a slow and gentle process. Yet natural conditions are always severe; as a result natural selection is likely also to be severe. Simple models show that severe selection can have profound effects on the genetic characteristics of a population. This is born out by many evolutionary studies on plant species growing in normal habitats. Species occurring in metal contaminated habitats provide particularly good evidence. The metal tolerance that evolves allows species to occupy habitats from which they would otherwise be excluded. The evolutionary change can be very rapid, taking only a few generations. It can also be highly localised; a patch of ground only a few metres across can maintain a genetically distinct population, despite gene flow.

But all this can happen only if the appropriate variation is present. Many species never evolve metal tolerance. This is because they do not possess the necessary variation, a condition of genostasis. We should respect the power of evolution, but not expect that it can always achieve adaptation.

Keywords

Metal Tolerance Heavy Metal Tolerance Copper Tolerance Powerful Natural Selection Normal Habitat 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Al-Hiyaly, S.A., McNeilly, T. and Bradshaw, A.D. (1988) The effects of zinc contamination from electricity pylons — evolution in a replicated situation. New Phytologist 110, 571–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Hiyaly, S.A.K., McNeilly, T., Bradshaw, A.D. and Mortimer, A.M. (1990) The effects of zinc contamination from electricity pylons. Genetic constraints to the evolution of zinc tolerance. Heredity, London 70,22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antonovics, J. & Bradshaw, A.D. (1970) Evolution in closely adjacent plant populations. VIII Clinal patterns at a mine boundary. Heredity, London 25, 349–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aston, J. L. & Bradshaw, A.D. (1966) Evolution in closely adjacent plant populations. II Agrostis stohnifera in maritime habitats. Heredity, London 21,649–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradshaw, A.D. (1952) Populations of Agrostis tenuis resistant to lead and zinc poisoning. Nature, London 169,1098.Google Scholar
  6. Bradshaw, A.D. (1959) Population differentiation in Agrostis tenuis Sibth. I Morphological differentiation. New Phytologist 58,208–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradshaw, A.D. (1984) The importance of evolutionary ideas in ecology — and vice versa, in B. Shorrocks (ed), Evolutionary Ecology, Blackwell, Oxford, pp 1–25.Google Scholar
  8. Bradshaw, A.D. (1993) Genostasis and the limits to evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, B333, 289–305.Google Scholar
  9. Cain, A.J. (1977) The efficacy of natural selection in wild populations. In The Changing scenes in Natural Sciences 1776–1976. Academy of Natural Sciences, Special Publication 12, pp. 111–133.Google Scholar
  10. Davies, M.S. & Snaydon, R.L. (1976) Rapid population differentiation in a mosaic environment. III Coefficients of selection. Heredity London 36, 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gartside, D.W. and McNeilly, T. ( 1974) The potential for evolution of heavy metal tolerance in plants II Copper tolerance in normal populations of different plant species. Heredity, London 33, 303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haidane, J.B.S. (1932) The Causes of Evolution. Harper, London.Google Scholar
  13. Jain, S.K. & Bradshaw, A.D. (1966) Evolutionary divergence among adjacent plant populations. I The evidence and its theoretical analysis. Heredity, London 21, 407–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jowett, D. (1958) Populations of Agrostis spp. tolerant of heavy metals. Nature, London 182, 816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Prat, S. ( 1934) Die Erblichkeit der Resistenz gegen Kupfer. Bering Deutches Botanisches Gesellschaft 102, 65–67.Google Scholar
  16. Shaw, A.J. ed. (1989) Heavy Metal Tolerance in Plants: Evolutionary Aspects. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  17. Shorrocks, B. ( 1978) The Genesis of Diversity. Hodder and Stoughton, London.Google Scholar
  18. Snaydon, R.W. (1970) Rapid population differentiation in a mosaic environment I The response of Anthoxanthum odoratum populations to soils. Evolution 24, 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Snaydon, R.W. & Davies, M.S. (1976) Rapid population differentiation in a mosaic environment IV Populations of Anthoxanthum odoratum at sharp boundaries. Heredity, London 37, 9–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Symeonidis, L., McNeilly, T. and Bradshaw, A.D. (1985) Interpopulation variation in tolerance to cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc in nine populations of Agrostis capillaris L. New Phytologist 101, 317–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Walley, K.A., Khan, M.S.I. and Bradshaw, A.D. (1974) The potential for evolution of heavy metal tolerance in plants I Copper and zinc tolerance in Agrostis tenuis. Heredity, London 32, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wilkins, D.A. (1957) A technique for the measurement of lead tolerance in plants. Nature, London 130, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wong, M.H. (1982) Metal cotolerance to copper, lead, and zinc in Festuca rubra. Environmental Research 29, 42–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wu, L., Bradshaw, A.D. and Thurman, D.A. (1975) The potential for evolution of heavy metal tolerance in plants III The rapid evolution of copper tolerance in Agrostis stolonifera. Heredity, London 34, 165–187.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. D. Bradshaw
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations