| Literature DB >> 24884492 |
Courtney L Morgans1, Georgina M Cooke, Terry J Ord.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Divergence between populations in reproductively important features is often vital for speciation. Many studies attempt to identify the cause of population differentiation in phenotype through the study of a specific selection pressure. Holistic studies that consider the interaction of several contrasting forms of selection are more rare. Most studies also fail to consider the history of connectivity among populations and the potential for genetic drift or gene flow to facilitate or limit phenotypic divergence. We examined the interacting effects of natural selection, sexual selection and the history of connectivity on phenotypic differentiation among five populations of the Pacific leaping blenny (Alticus arnoldorum), a land fish endemic to the island of Guam.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24884492 PMCID: PMC4055934 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-14-97
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Figure 1The Pacific leaping blenny () is a marine fish that spends its entire adult life on land. Adult males have a prominent head crest (A), which is absent in females. Five populations (B) at various distances from one another were studied around the island of Guam.
Principal component axes of five phenotypic characteristics of the Pacific leaping blenny
| Males, | | | | | |
| Body size* | .04 | .04 | -.18 | .11 | |
| Head crest size* | .08 | -.03 | .32 | .01 | |
| Dorsal fin, area | .09 | .00 | -.13 | -.12 | |
| Dorsal fin, proportion coloured | -.14 | . | .01 | .00 | |
| Dorsal fin, "reddness"* | -.12 | -.02 | .01 | ||
| Eigenvalue | 2.84 | 1.25 | .74 | .15 | .03 |
| Cumulative variance explained (%) | 56. 7 | 81.6 | 96.4 | 99.4 | 100.0 |
| Females, | |||||
| Body size* | -.33 | .09 | -.16 | | |
| Dorsal fin, area | -.39 | .09 | .16 | | |
| Dorsal fin, proportion coloured | .43 | .01 | | ||
| Dorsal fin, "reddness"* | .36 | .00 | | ||
| Eigenvalue | 2.54 | .83 | .58 | .05 | |
| Cumulative variance explained (%) | 63.5 | 84.3 | 98.8 | 100.0 | |
Prominent loadings (>.50) are highlighted in bold. Characteristics highlighted by an asterisk were examined in population differentiation analyses (Tables 4 and 5).
Predictors of (A) male and (B) female population differentiation in three representative phenotypic characteristics
| | | | | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | |
| Body size* | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Predator strikes | −209.81 | .00 | .32 | nil | .11 |
| Sex ratio | −209.37 | .44 | .26 | .04 | nil |
| Sex ratio + predator strikes | −209.28 | .53 | .25 | -.18 | -.01 |
| Null | −207.59 | 2.22 | .11 | | |
| Intrasexual density + predator strikes | −205.08 | 4.73 | .03 | | |
| Total density + predator strikes | −203.55 | 6.26 | .01 | | |
| Intrasexual density | −202.40 | 7.40 | .01 | | |
| Sex ratio + flight distance | −201.89 | 7.92 | .01 | | |
| Flight distance | −201.48 | 8.33 | .01 | | |
| Total density | −199.04 | 10.77 | .00 | | |
| Intrasexual density + flight distance | −196.36 | 13.44 | .00 | | |
| Total density + flight distance | −193.28 | 16.52 | .00 | | |
| Head crest, allometric exponent | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Sex ratio | −1.65 | .00 | .93 | .96 | nil |
| Null | 4.31 | 5.96 | .05 | | |
| Intrasexual density | 6.47 | 8.13 | .02 | | |
| Total density | 10.86 | 12.51 | .00 | | |
| Head crest, allometric elevation | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Null | -.45 | .00 | .89 | Nil | nil |
| Total density | 5.38 | 5.83 | .05 | | |
| Intrasexual density | 6.16 | 6.61 | .03 | | |
| Sex ratio | 6.20 | 6.65 | .03 | | |
| Dorsal fin "reddness"* | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Predator strikes | −165.82 | .00 | .44 | nil | -.10 |
| Null | −165.47 | .35 | .37 | nil | nil |
| Sex ratio + predator strikes | −161.80 | 4.03 | .06 | | |
| Intrasexual density + predator strikes | −161.58 | 4.24 | .05 | | |
| Sex ratio | −160.90 | 4.92 | .04 | | |
| Intrasexual density | −159.00 | 6.82 | .01 | | |
| Flight distance | −158.19 | 7.63 | .01 | | |
| Total density + predator strikes | −156.49 | 9.33 | .00 | | |
| Total density | −156.04 | 9.79 | .00 | | |
| Sex ratio + flight distance | −153.91 | 11.91 | .00 | | |
| Intrasexual density + flight distance | −151.88 | 13.94 | .00 | | |
| Total density + flight distance | −149.13 | 16.69 | .00 | | |
| Dorsal fin "reddness", without Talofofo* | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Predator strikes | −151.15 | .00 | .65 | nil | -.32 |
| Null | −148.08 | 3.07 | .14 | | |
| Sex ratio + predator strikes | −146.73 | 4.42 | .07 | | |
| Intrasexual density + predator strikes | −145.95 | 5.20 | .05 | | |
| Sex ratio | −145.66 | 5.50 | .04 | | |
| Intrasexual density | −145.62 | 5.54 | .04 | | |
| Total density + predator strikes | −140.60 | 10.55 | .00 | | |
| Flight distance | −140.52 | 10.63 | .00 | | |
| Total density | −138.90 | 12.25 | .00 | | |
| Sex ratio + flight distance | −137.59 | 13.56 | .00 | | |
| Intrasexual density + flight distance | −137.36 | 13.79 | .00 | | |
| Total density + flight distance | −132.15 | 19.01 | .00 | | |
| | | | | | |
| Body size* | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Predator strikes | −225.21 | .00 | .46 | nil | .03 |
| Null | −223.87 | 1.34 | .23 | nil | nil |
| Flight distance | −221.91 | 3.30 | .09 | | |
| Sex ratio + predator strikes | −221.01 | 4.20 | .06 | | |
| Intrasexual density + predator strikes | −220.98 | 4.23 | .06 | | |
| Sex ratio | −220.44 | 4.77 | .04 | | |
| Total density + predator strikes | −220.40 | 4.81 | .04 | | |
| Intrasexual density | −218.67 | 6.54 | .02 | | |
| Total density | −216.11 | 9.10 | .00 | | |
| Sex ratio + flight distance | −214.02 | 11.20 | .00 | | |
| Intrasexual density + flight distance | −212.45 | 12.76 | .00 | | |
| Total density + flight distance | −210.37 | 14.84 | .00 | | |
| Dorsal fin "reddness"* | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Null | −110.51 | .00 | .37 | nil | nil |
| Predator strikes | −110.29 | .22 | .33 | nil | .05 |
| Sex ratio | −108.97 | 1.55 | .17 | .28 | nil |
| Sex ratio + predator strikes | −107.59 | 2.92 | .09 | | |
| Flight distance | −103.88 | 6.64 | .01 | | |
| Intrasexual density + predator strikes | −102.68 | 7.84 | .01 | | |
| Intrasexual density | −102.61 | 7.91 | .01 | | |
| Sex ratio + flight distance | −102.18 | 8.34 | .01 | | |
| Total density + predator strikes | −101.29 | 9.23 | .00 | | |
| Total density | −100.87 | 9.64 | .00 | | |
| Intrasexual density + flight distance | −95.81 | 14.71 | .00 | | |
| Total density + flight distance | −94.04 | 16.47 | .00 | | |
| Dorsal fin "reddness", without Talofofo* | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Null | −97.38 | .00 | .56 | nil | nil |
| Predator strikes | −96.32 | 1.06 | .33 | nil | -.01 |
| Sex ratio | −92.40 | 4.98 | .05 | | |
| Sex ratio + predator strikes | −91.15 | 6.23 | .02 | | |
| Flight distance | −90.51 | 6.87 | .02 | | |
| Intrasexual density | −89.42 | 7.96 | .01 | | |
| Intrasexual density + predator strikes | −88.33 | 9.05 | .01 | | |
| Total density | −87.37 | 10.01 | .00 | | |
| Total density + predator strikes | −86.74 | 10.64 | .00 | | |
| Sex ratio + flight distance | −85.54 | 11.84 | .00 | | |
| Intrasexual density + flight distance | −83.78 | 13.61 | .00 | | |
| Total density + flight distance | −80.59 | 16.80 | .00 | ||
Model support was evaluated using Akaike’s Information Criterion (AICc). Effect sizes indicating the magnitude and direction of effects are reported for models receiving the most support (ΔAIC ≤ 2.0) and shown graphically in Figure 3. Models that included a random effect for population are highlighted with an asterisk.
Tests for neutral evolution
| Males, | | | | |
| Body size | -.11 | 1.57 (.93, 2.20) | −224.80 (−379.64, −69.96) | .63 |
| Dorsal fin, redness | .14 | -.22 (−1.09, .66) | 312.60 (98.18, 527.02) | .38 |
| Head crest, elevation | .26 | -.48 (−5.26, 4.30) | 1747 (576.88, 2917.12) | .27 |
| Females, | -.05 | 1.61 (−.98, 2.23) | −221.40 (−374.67, −68.13) | .56 |
| Body size | -.05 | 1.61 (−.98, 2.23) | −221.40 (−374.67, −68.13) | .56 |
| Dorsal fin, redness | .13 | -.24 (−.86, .38) | 220.30 (68.99, 289.29) | .42 |
Mantel tests were used to determine whether supported null models in Table 3 reflected instances of neutral evolution.
Allometric coefficients for head crest area, dorsal fin area and ventral fin area (a non-sexually selected control region)
| | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pago | | | | | | |
| Head crest area | 25 | 1.13 (1.05, 1.20) | 2.50 (1.96, 3.03)* | | na | na |
| Dorsal fin area | 25 | 2.70 (2.67, 2.73) | 1.82 (1.63, 2.01)* | 26 | 2.45 (2.41, 2.49) | 1.43 (1.19, 1.67) |
| Ventral fin area | 23 | 2.36 (2.33, 2.38) | 1.25 (1.07, 1.43) | 24 | 2.22 (2.18, 2.25) | 1.23 (1.04, 1.43) |
| Taga'chang | | | | | | |
| Head crest area | 54 | 1.10 (1.04, 1.15) | 2.24 (1.86, 2.62)* | | na | na |
| Dorsal fin area | 54 | 2.78 (2.76, 2.80) | 1.53 (1.39, 1.67)* | 53 | 2.41 (2.39, 2.43) | 1.32 (1.19, 1.46) |
| Ventral fin area | 41 | 2.41 (2.39, 2.43) | 1.22 (1.08, 1.36) | 36 | 2.23 (2.21, 2.25) | 1.12 (.97, 1.27) |
| Talofofo | | | | | | |
| Head crest area | 44 | 1.27 (1.22, 1.32) | 2.03 (1.50, 2.57) | | na | na |
| Dorsal fin area | 44 | 2.88 (2.86, 2.90) | 1.59 (1.37, 1.81) | 53 | 2.33 (2.31, 2.34) | 1.49 (1.38, 1.60) |
| Ventral fin area | 27 | 2.55 (2.52, 2.59) | 1.49 (1.18, 1.81) | 35 | 2.26 (2.23, 2.29) | 1.31 (1.10, 1.51) |
| Umatic | | | | | | |
| Head crest area | 24 | 1.07 (.98, 1.16) | 2.62 (2.14, 3.10)* | | na | na |
| Dorsal fin area | 24 | 2.73 (2.69, 2.77) | 1.61 (1.39, 1.84) | 28 | 2.39 (2.35, 2.43) | 1.47 (1.27, 1.68) |
| Ventral fin area | 24 | 2.40 (2.36, 2.44) | 1.25 (1.04, 1.46) | 28 | 2.30 (2.26, 2.34) | 1.22 (.99, 1.46) |
| Adelup | | | | | | |
| Head crest area | 24 | .85 (.78, .92) | 2.14 (1.74, 2.55)* | | na | na |
| Dorsal fin area | 24 | 2.61 (2.58, 2.63) | 1.71 (1.57, 1.85)* | 25 | 2.41 (2.38, 2.43) | 1.42 (1.20, 1.65) |
| Ventral fin area | 20 | 2.29 (2.26, 2.32) | 1.33 (1.16, 1.51) | 23 | 2.27 (2.24, 2.30) | 1.27 (1.02, 1.52) |
NB: females lack a headcrest. Coefficients with 95% confidence intervals that do not overlap the confidence intervals of the ventral fin are highlight with an asterisk.
Figure 2The allometry of ornamentation in the Pacific leaping blenny. Shown are natural-log data for the head crest, dorsal fin and ventral fin as a function of body length. The regression lines are the linear analogue of the allometric power function in which the allometric elevation corresponds to the intercept value, while the allometric exponent is represented by the regression slope (i.e., larger exponents result in steeper slopes and show the degree larger males invest disproportionally more in exaggerated ornamentation compared to smaller males). In order to properly estimate the allometric equation, all characteristics must be on the same scale. Crest and fin areas were therefore converted to a linear scale to match that of body length through a square-root transformation before then being natural-logged.
Pairwise comparisons among the five sampled populations
| Pago | 0 | 0.00158 | 0.00261 | 0.00654 | 0.00157 |
| Taga'chang | - | 0 | 0.00198 | 0.00088 | 0.00533 |
| Talofofo | - | - | 0 | 0.00584 | 0.00411 |
| Umatic | - | - | - | 0 | 0.00554 |
| Adelup | - | - | - | - | 0 |
Figure 3Population variation in phenotype. Shown is (A) adult body size, (B) the allometric parameters of the male head crest, and (C) the intensity of red of the dorsal fin (ΔR/G) as a function of predation (strikes to blenny models) and sex ratio. Grey, open circles are data points for individual fish, while black filled (male) and white filled (female) symbols are population means or allometric coefficients computed from RMA regressions reported in Table 2. Error bars correspond to 95% confidence intervals. Insets are predicted trends assuming predation selects against conspicuous characteristics, while sexual selection increases the conspicuousness of characteristics. For males, competition for mates was expected to increase with male biased sex ratios. For females, competition for mates was expected to decrease with male biased sex ratios. Solid trend lines are inclusive of all populations. Dashed trend lines exclude Talofofo (a population with an unusually red dorsal fin; C). Trend lines were computed based on parameter estimates from the best-supported models in Table 4 (those with ∆AIC ≤ 2.0).