| Literature DB >> 24454547 |
Robby Stoks1, Aurora N Geerts1, Luc De Meester1.
Abstract
We integrated the evidence for evolutionary and plastic trait changes in situ in response to climate change in freshwater invertebrates (aquatic insects and zooplankton). The synthesis on the trait changes in response to the expected reductions in hydroperiod and increases in salinity indicated little evidence for adaptive, plastic, and genetic trait changes and for local adaptation. With respect to responses to temperature, there are many studies on temporal trait changes in phenology and body size in the wild that are believed to be driven by temperature increases, but there is a general lack of rigorous demonstration whether these trait changes are genetically based, adaptive, and causally driven by climate change. Current proof for genetic trait changes under climate change in freshwater invertebrates stems from a limited set of common garden experiments replicated in time. Experimental thermal evolution experiments and common garden warming experiments associated with space-for-time substitutions along latitudinal gradients indicate that besides genetic changes, also phenotypic plasticity and evolution of plasticity are likely to contribute to the observed phenotypic changes under climate change in aquatic invertebrates. Apart from plastic and genetic thermal adjustments, also genetic photoperiod adjustments are widespread and may even dominate the observed phenological shifts.Entities:
Keywords: aquatic insects; experimental evolution; hydroperiod; latitudinal gradients; rapid evolution; salinity; space-for-time substitution; zooplankton
Year: 2013 PMID: 24454547 PMCID: PMC3894897 DOI: 10.1111/eva.12108
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evol Appl ISSN: 1752-4571 Impact factor: 5.183
Example studies showing typical life-history responses of freshwater invertebrates (aquatic insects and zooplankton) to changes in three abiotic conditions expected under climate change: temperature increase, salinity increase, and hydroperiod shortening
| Family | Species | Life-history trait | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature increase | |||
| Coenagrionidae | BS↓, DR↑, GR↑ | Stoks and De Block ( | |
| Culicidae | BS↓, DR↑ | Ragland and Kingsolver ( | |
| Daphniidae | GR↑ | Mitchell and Lampert ( | |
| Daphniidae | DR↑, FE↑ | Van Doorslaer et al. ( | |
| Lestidae | BS↓, DR↑, GR↑ | De Block and Stoks ( | |
| Limnephilidae | BS↓(♀), DR↑, GR↑ | Jannot ( | |
| Salinity increase | |||
| Gerridae | SV↓, FE↓ | Kishi et al. ( | |
| Chironomidae | SV↓, DR↓, BS↓(♀) | Lob and Silver ( | |
| Culicidae | GR↓, DR↓, BS↓ | Clark et al. ( | |
| Daphniidae | FE↓, GR↓, PGR↓, SV↓ | Bezirci et al. ( | |
| Daphniidae | FE↓, GR↓, PGR↓, SV↓ | Loureiro et al. ( | |
| Sididae | SV↓, FE↓ | Freitas and Rocha ( | |
| Hydroperiod shortening | |||
| Culicidae | BS↓(♀), DR↑(♀) | Juliano and Stoffregen ( | |
| Culicidae | BS↓, DR↓ | Schäfer and Lundström ( | |
| Culicidae | BS=, DR↑ | Schäfer and Lundström ( | |
| Limnephilidae | DR↓, GR↓ | Jannot et al. ( | |
| Limnephilidae | BS↓(♀), DR=, GR= | Jannot ( | |
| Lestidae | DR↓, GR↓ | De Block and Stoks ( | |
BS, body size; DR, development rate; GR, growth rate; FE, fecundity; PGR, population growth rate; SV, survival.
Only in one of the two experimental runs.
Figure 1Schematic overview of the common garden experiments across a latitudinal gradient that were replicated in time to demonstrate evolution of the critical photoperiod in two mosquito species (based on Bradshaw and Holzapfel 2001 and Urbanski et al. 2012). The critical photoperiod shows a latitudinal cline increasing with latitude. Comparing the historical pattern with the contemporary pattern indicates that global warming resulted in the evolution of shorter critical photoperiods at a given latitude.
Summary of studies on freshwater invertebrates (aquatic insects and zooplankton) designed to examine plastic and genetic responses of traits driven by climate change
| Family | Species | Trait type | Genetic | Plastic | Adapt | Cause | Time? | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Common garden experiments replicated in time | ||||||||
| Culicidae | CP | Y(2,5) | . | . | . | EX | Urbanski et al. ( | |
| Culicidae | CP | Y(2,5) | . | Y(1) | Y(1) | EX | Bradshaw and Holzapfel ( | |
| Gerridae | CP | Y(2) | . | . | Y(1) | EX | Harada et al. ( | |
| Experimental thermal evolution | ||||||||
| Daphniidae | CS | Y(2,4) | Y(2,3) | Y(1) | Y(3) | . | Van Doorslaer et al. ( | |
| Daphniidae | CS | Y(2,4) | Y(2,3) | Y(1) | Y(3) | . | Van Doorslaer et al. ( | |
| Daphniidae | BS, PL | Y(2,4) | Y(2,3) | Y(1) | Y(3) | . | Van Doorslaer et al. ( | |
| Daphniidae | AR, FE, SV | Y(2,4) | Y(2,3) | Y(1) | Y(3) | . | Van Doorslaer et al. ( | |
| Space-for-time substitutions | ||||||||
| Coenagrionidae | BT, DR, GR, PY, PT | Y(2,5) | Y(2,3) | Y(4) | Y(1) | . | Shama et al. ( | |
| Libellulidae | CP, GR | Y(2,5) | . | . | Y(1) | . | Flenner et al. ( | |
| Chironomidae | PGR, FE, PT | Y(2,5) | Y(2,3) | Y(4) | Y(1) | . | Nemec et al. ( | |
| Culicidae | TT | Y | . | Y(1) | Y(1) | . | Bradshaw et al. ( | |
| Culicidae | DR, PT | Y(2,5) | Y(2,3) | . | Y(1) | . | Ragland and Kingsolver ( | |
| Daphniidae | GR | N(2,5) | Y(2,3) | . | . | . | Mitchell and Lampert ( | |
| Daphniidae | PY | Y(2,5) | Y(2,3) | . | . | . | Chopelet et al. ( | |
| Daphniidae | TT | Y(2,5) | Y(2,3) | . | . | . | Williams et al. ( | |
Trait type (type of trait examined): AR, age at reproduction; BT, behavioral trait; CP, critical photoperiod to induce diapause; CS, competitive strength; DR, development rate; FE, fecundity; GR, growth rate; PGR, population growth rate; PL, plasticity in the traits; PY, physiological trait; SV, survival; TT, Thermal tolerance. A ‘Y’ indicates that evidence was found for genetic or plastic responses in traits or that the adaptive nature or causality was investigated; ‘N’ indicates that evidence was not found; ‘.’ indicates that it was not investigated. Numbers next to a ‘Y’ or ‘N’ denote the method of investigation invoked (numbering based on Merilä and Hendry 2013). Genetic categories: 1, animal models; 2, common garden studies; 3, comparison to model predictions; 4, experimental evolution; 5, space-for-time substitution; 6, molecular genetic approaches; Plastic categories: 1, animal models; 2, common garden studies; 3, experimental studies; 4, fine-grained population responses; 5, individual plasticity in nature; Adapt categories: 1, reciprocal transplants; 2, phenotypic selection estimates; 3, genotypic selection estimates; 4, QST-FST; Cause categories: 1, common sense; 2, phenotype by environment interactions; 3, experimental selection/evolution; For full descriptions of all categories, see Merilä and Hendry (2013). Time? (time component included in data collection): EX, common garden experiment through time.
Only in the treatment where recurrent periods of exponential growth were possible.
Only when populations were stressed to the brink of extinction or when the adverse effects of temperature could accumulate over several generations in the experiment (Bradshaw et al. 2004).
Figure 2Schematic overview of the experimental thermal evolution trials and associated follow-up experiments to demonstrate the evolutionary potential of zooplankton species to respond to global warming. These studies consisted of three steps. In the first step, animals were exposed to control and warming conditions for several generations. Two outdoor mesocosm studies were run under nonheated (ambient temperatures) conditions and under following heated conditions: IPCC scenario A2 and A2 + 50% (Van Doorslaer et al. 2007) and IPCC scenario A1FI (Van Doorslaer et al. 2009b, 2010). One indoor aquarium study was run at 20 and 24°C (Van Doorslaer et al. 2009a). In the second step, experimental animals obtained from step 1 were kept for at least two generations under common garden conditions to minimize interference from maternal effects and acclimation to allow testing the genetic basis of changes in trait means and their thermal plasticity in the next step. In the third step, the evolutionary response was tested in a series of follow-up experiments: life table experiments with treatments differing 4°C where life-history traits were studied in detail, and competition experiments where the fitness consequences of thermal evolution were tested in terms of changed competitive strength. All four studies showed signals of thermal evolution with regard to the means of life-history traits (e.g., age at first reproduction, body size, offspring number), and one study also with regard to thermal plasticity (Table 2).
Figure 3Schematic overview of the space-for-time substitution approach to simulate the effects of global warming on (A) predator–prey interactions and (B) vulnerability to contaminants (based on De Block et al. 2013 and Dinh Van et al. 2013). Damselfly larvae from replicated low-latitude (French) and high-latitude (Swedish) populations were reared in common garden experiments from the egg stage at 20 and 24°C, reflecting the mean summer water temperatures at high and low latitudes, respectively. The spatial 4°C temperature difference matches the predicted temperature increase at the high latitude by 2100 according to IPCC scenario A1FI (IPCC 2007). Therefore, the responses of the low-latitude larvae reared at 24°C are relevant proxies for the responses to be expected under gradual long-term thermal evolution in high-latitude larvae currently living at 20°C. Note that the original design of both studies also included animals from central latitudes.
Figure 4Summary of the results obtained in the common garden warming experiments illustrated in Fig. 3 (after De Block et al. 2013 and Dinh Van et al. 2013). (A–B) The relative survival of the Daphnia prey of a given latitude was higher at its latitude-specific temperature than at the other temperature, unless the Daphnia are confronted with the local damselfly predators. This indicates local thermal adaptation of both prey and predators. (C–D) While at 20°C, all damselfly larvae from both latitudes survived when exposed to zinc, at 24°C, survival was reduced in the high-latitude larvae exposed to zinc, but not in the low-latitude larvae. This indicates that thermal adaptation of the low-latitude larvae buffered against the increased toxicity of zinc at the higher temperature.