Literature DB >> 25891044

Contemporary evolution during invasion: evidence for differentiation, natural selection, and local adaptation.

Robert I Colautti1, Jennifer A Lau.   

Abstract

Biological invasions are 'natural' experiments that can improve our understanding of contemporary evolution. We evaluate evidence for population differentiation, natural selection and adaptive evolution of invading plants and animals at two nested spatial scales: (i) among introduced populations (ii) between native and introduced genotypes. Evolution during invasion is frequently inferred, but rarely confirmed as adaptive. In common garden studies, quantitative trait differentiation is only marginally lower (~3.5%) among introduced relative to native populations, despite genetic bottlenecks and shorter timescales (i.e. millennia vs. decades). However, differentiation between genotypes from the native vs. introduced range is less clear and confounded by nonrandom geographic sampling; simulations suggest this causes a high false-positive discovery rate (>50%) in geographically structured populations. Selection differentials (¦s¦) are stronger in introduced than in native species, although selection gradients (¦β¦) are not, consistent with introduced species experiencing weaker genetic constraints. This could facilitate rapid adaptation, but evidence is limited. For example, rapid phenotypic evolution often manifests as geographical clines, but simulations demonstrate that nonadaptive trait clines can evolve frequently during colonization (~two-thirds of simulations). Additionally, QST-FST studies may often misrepresent the strength and form of natural selection acting during invasion. Instead, classic approaches in evolutionary ecology (e.g. selection analysis, reciprocal transplant, artificial selection) are necessary to determine the frequency of adaptive evolution during invasion and its influence on establishment, spread and impact of invasive species. These studies are rare but crucial for managing biological invasions in the context of global change.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords:  QST vs. FST; colonization; common garden; invasive species; latitudinal clines; meta-analysis; quantitative traits; rapid evolution; selection differentials; selection gradients

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25891044     DOI: 10.1111/mec.13162

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol        ISSN: 0962-1083            Impact factor:   6.185


  74 in total

1.  Rapid adaptive evolution in novel environments acts as an architect of population range expansion.

Authors:  M Szűcs; M L Vahsen; B A Melbourne; C Hoover; C Weiss-Lehman; R A Hufbauer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Natural selection and outbreeding depression suggest adaptive differentiation in the invasive range of a clonal plant.

Authors:  Pauline O Pantoja; C E Timothy Paine; Mario Vallejo-Marín
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-07-11       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Invasion waves and pinning in the Kirkpatrick-Barton model of evolutionary range dynamics.

Authors:  Judith R Miller
Journal:  J Math Biol       Date:  2018-07-27       Impact factor: 2.259

Review 4.  Phenological shifts of native and invasive species under climate change: insights from the Boechera-Lythrum model.

Authors:  Robert I Colautti; Jon Ågren; Jill T Anderson
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-01-19       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Recurrent bridgehead effects accelerate global alien ant spread.

Authors:  Cleo Bertelsmeier; Sébastien Ollier; Andrew M Liebhold; Eckehard G Brockerhoff; Darren Ward; Laurent Keller
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Earlier phenology of a nonnative plant increases impacts on native competitors.

Authors:  Jake M Alexander; Jonathan M Levine
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Beyond propagule pressure: importance of selection during the transport stage of biological invasions.

Authors:  Elizabeta Briski; Farrah T Chan; John A Darling; Velda Lauringson; Hugh J MacIsaac; Aibin Zhan; Sarah A Bailey
Journal:  Front Ecol Environ       Date:  2018       Impact factor: 11.123

8.  Behavioral variation post-invasion: Resemblance in some, but not all, behavioral patterns among invasive and native praying mantids.

Authors:  Cameron Jones; Nicolas DiRienzo
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2018-05-23       Impact factor: 1.777

9.  Genetic variation facilitates seedling establishment but not population growth rate of a perennial invader.

Authors:  Shou-Li Li; Anti Vasemägi; Satu Ramula
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 4.357

10.  Potential limits to the benefits of admixture during biological invasion.

Authors:  Brittany S Barker; Janelle E Cocio; Samantha R Anderson; Joseph E Braasch; Feng A Cang; Heather D Gillette; Katrina M Dlugosch
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2018-12-21       Impact factor: 6.185

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.