| Literature DB >> 26257883 |
Ine Swillen1, Joost Vanoverbeke1, Luc De Meester1.
Abstract
Several studies have emphasized that inbreeding depression (ID) is enhanced under stressful conditions. Additionally, one might imagine a loss of adaptively plastic responses which may further contribute to a reduction in fitness under environmental stress. Here, we quantified ID in inbred families of the cyclical parthenogen Daphnia magna in the absence and presence of fish predation risk. We test whether predator stress affects the degree of ID and if inbred families have a reduced capacity to respond to predator stress by adaptive phenotypic plasticity. We obtained two inbred families through clonal selfing within clones isolated from a fish pond. After mild purging under standardized conditions, we compared life history traits and adaptive plasticity between inbred and outbred lineages (directly hatched from the natural dormant egg bank of the same pond). Initial purging of lineages under standardized conditions differed among inbred families and exceeded that in outbreds. The least purged inbred family exhibited strong ID for most life history traits. Predator-induced stress hardly affected the severity of ID, but the degree to which the capacity for adaptive phenotypic plasticity was retained varied strongly among the inbred families. The least purged family overall lacked the capacity for adaptive phenotypic plasticity, whereas the family that suffered only mild purging exhibited a potential for adaptive plasticity that was comparable to the outbred population. We thus found that inbred offspring may retain the capacity to respond to the presence of fish by adaptive phenotypic plasticity, but this strongly depends on the parental clone engaging in selfing.Entities:
Keywords: Daphnia; inbreeding; plasticity; predator stress
Year: 2015 PMID: 26257883 PMCID: PMC4523366 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1545
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Results of Tukey–Kramer post hoc LS means comparisons in the general(ized) linear models (for age at maturity, size at maturity, size of tail spine, and performance “r”) or generalized linear mixed models (for total number of juveniles and mortality). As for mortality, age at maturity and size of the tail spine the “Subpopulation × Treatment” interaction was not significant, we show P-values for post hoc LS means comparisons within the “Treatment” (upper left) and “Subpopulation” (upper right) main effects. For total number of juveniles, performance and size at maturity, our general(ized) linear mixed models indicated a significant “Subpopulation × Treatment” interaction. For these traits, P-values for all relevant pairwise LS means comparisons are shown here, testing for significant differences (1) between inbred family I2 or I3 and the outbreds, within a rearing condition (bottom left and middle column) or (2) between the no-fish and the fish condition, within a single subpopulation (bottom right column). Significant P-values are indicated in bold italics
| Fish versus no-fish | Versus outbreds (overall) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| I2 | I3 | ||
| Mortality | 0.713 | 0.980 | |
| Age at maturity | |||
| Size of tail spine | 0.562 | ||
Results of general(-ized) linear mixed models (for age at maturity, size at maturity, size of tail spine, and performance “r”) or generalized linear mixed models (for total number of juveniles and mortality) testing for the effect of subpopulation (“Subpopulation”), exposure to fish kairomones (“Treatment”), and their interaction on life history traits as quantified in a life table experiment using clonal lineages from two inbred families and a group of outbred clones. Significant P-values are indicated in bold italics
| Age at maturity | Size at maturity | Total number of juveniles | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DF | Type III SS | MS |
|
| DF | Type III SS | MS |
|
| Num DF | Den DF |
|
| ||
| Clonal line (Subpopulation) | 25 | 0.32 | 0.01 | 2.25 | 25 | 2.50 | 0.10 | 2.28 | – | – | – | – | |||
| Subpopulation | 2 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 12.43 | 2 | 0.40 | 0.20 | 4.60 | 2 | 29 | 6.77 | ||||
| Treatment | 1 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 31.67 | 1 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.34 | 0.56 | 1 | 127 | 116.25 | |||
| Subpopulation × Treatment | 2 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.27 | 0.287 | 2 | 1.24 | 0.62 | 14.16 | 2 | 127 | 18.74 | |||
| Error | 91 | 0.51 | 91 | 3.99 | |||||||||||
Figure 1Mortality (A), age at maturity (B), total number of juveniles (C), performance “r” (D), size at maturity (E), and size of the tail spine (F) of two inbred subpopulations generated as selfed offspring of clones isolated from Langerodevijver (left and middle panel in each graph) and a group of outbred clones directly hatched from Langerodevijver (LRV) (middle panel of each graph). Life history traits as quantified in a life table experiment in the absence (open symbols) and presence (closed symbols) of fish kairomones. Error bars represent 2× standard error of the mean.