| Literature DB >> 28428852 |
Miguel Costa Leal1, Rebecca J Best1,2, Dan Durston3, Rana W El-Sabaawi3, Blake Matthews2.
Abstract
Phenotypes can both evolve in response to, and affect, ecosystem change, but few examples of diverging ecosystem-effect traits have been investigated. Bony armor traits of fish are good candidates for this because they evolve rapidly in some freshwater fish populations, and bone is phosphorus rich and likely to affect nutrient recycling in aquatic ecosystems. Here, we explore how ontogeny, rearing environment, and bone allocation among body parts affect the stoichiometric phenotype (i.e., stoichiometric composition of bodies and excretion) of threespine stickleback. We use two populations from distinct freshwater lineages with contrasting lateral plating phenotypes (full vs. low plating) and their hybrids, which are mostly fully plated. We found that ontogeny, rearing environment, and body condition were the most important predictors of organismal stoichiometry. Although elemental composition was similar between both populations and their hybrids, we found significant divergence in phosphorus allocation among body parts and in phosphorus excretion rates. Overall, body armor differences did not explain variation in whole body phosphorus, phosphorus allocation, or phosphorus excretion. Evolutionary divergence between these lineages in both allocation and excretion is likely to have important direct consequences for ecosystems, but may be mediated by evolution of multiple morphological or physiological traits beyond plating phenotype.Entities:
Keywords: allocation; condition; ecological stoichiometry; fish; phosphorus
Year: 2017 PMID: 28428852 PMCID: PMC5395448 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2802
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Relationship between elemental phenotype (a, b – %P, c, d – N:P) and fish standard length of juvenile (a, c) and adult fish (b, d) fish. The fitted lines represent the linear model to indicate the slope and intercept of the relationships across all fish types and environmental contexts. Note that no hybrid wild adults are present. Details of the LMs are shown in Table 1
Ontogeny‐specific general linear model (LM) analysis for stickleback elemental composition (%P) and N:P stoichiometry with fish length as covariate and fish type (Constance, Geneva, hybrid) and environment (laboratory vs. mesocosms or wild) as main effects together with two‐way and three‐way interactions. Note that adult hybrids were not considered for the adult LM, as they were only available for the laboratory environment. A total of 60 laboratory juveniles (20 per type), 72 mesocosms juveniles (24 per type), 66 laboratory adults (22 per type), and 36 wild adults (18 per type) were analyzed. Bold values denote significant differences
| Ontogeny | Predictor | ndf,ddf | Response: %P | Response: N:P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Juveniles | Length | 1,131 | 28.04 |
| 10.51 |
|
| Type | 2,131 | 0.48 | .62 | 0.39 | .68 | |
| Environment | 1,131 | 223.22 |
| 878.85 |
| |
| Length × type | 2,131 | 0.21 | .81 | 1.55 | .22 | |
| Length × environment | 1,131 | 1.73 | .19 | 0.27 | .87 | |
| Type × environment | 2,131 | 2.43 | .09 | 2.52 | .08 | |
| Length × type × environment | 2,131 | 4.18 |
| 0.26 | .78 | |
| Adults | Length | 1,101 | 0.31 | .58 | 2.64 | .11 |
| Type | 1,101 | 1.07 | .31 | 23.30 |
| |
| Environment | 1,101 | 137.58 |
| 174.66 |
| |
| Length × type | 1,101 | 4.33 |
| 0.02 | .90 | |
| Length × environment | 1,101 | 0.66 | .42 | 2.19 | .14 | |
| Type × environment | 1,101 | 4.06 |
| 2.47 | .12 | |
| Length × type × environment | 1,101 | 1.41 | .24 | 0.68 | .68 | |
Figure 2Relationship between elemental phenotype (a, b – %P, c,d – N:P) and fish condition of juvenile (a, c) and adult fish (b, d) fish. The fitted lines represent the linear model to indicate the slope and intercept of the relationships across all fish types and environmental contexts. Note that condition of juvenile and adult fish was estimated using the residuals of different length–weight regressions and that no hybrid wild adults are present. Details of the LMs are shown in the Supporting Information
Ontogeny‐specific general linear model (LM) analysis for stickleback elemental composition (%P) and N:P stoichiometry with fish condition as covariate and fish type (Constance, Geneva, hybrid) and environment (juvenile and mesocosms or wild) as main effects together with two‐way and three‐way interactions. Note that adult hybrids were not considered for the adult LM, as they were only available for the laboratory environment. A total of 60 laboratory juveniles (20 per type), 72 mesocosms juveniles (24 per type), 66 laboratory adults (22 per type), and 36 wild adults (18 per type) were analyzed. Bold values denote significant differences
| Ontogeny | Predictor | ddf,ndf | Response: %P | Response: N:P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Juveniles | Condition | 131,1 | 0.08 | .77 | 8.20 |
|
| Type | 131,2 | 1.72 | .18 | 0.16 | .85 | |
| Environment | 131,1 | 92.06 |
| 306.93 |
| |
| Condition × type | 131,2 | 2.58 |
| 1.03 | .36 | |
| Condition × environment | 131,1 | 1.89 | .17 | 14.25 |
| |
| Type × environment | 131,2 | 3.81 |
| 1.47 | .24 | |
| Condition × type × environment | 131,2 | 3.82 |
| 0.60 | .55 | |
| Adults | Condition | 101,1 | 27.80 |
| 1.64 | .21 |
| Type | 101,1 | 0.01 | .95 | 19.26 |
| |
| Environment | 101,1 | 159.00 |
| 240.24 |
| |
| Condition × type | 101,1 | 0.38 | .54 | 0.91 | .34 | |
| Condition × environment | 101,1 | 0.18 | .67 | 2.71 | .10 | |
| Type × environment | 101,1 | 0.10 | .76 | 0.65 | .42 | |
| Condition × type × environment | 101,1 | 0.22 | .65 | 2.48 | .12 | |
Figure 3Average (± standard deviation) phosphorus content (%) of each body part and total body (expressed as P content of each body part relative to total body dry weight) for laboratory‐reared fish from Constance (C), Geneva (G), and hybrid (H) types (a). Significant differences among types (p < .05) are noted with different letters, and the average proportion (%) of each body part (expressed as dry weight of each body part relative to total body dry weight) for each fish type is also shown at the top of each panel. The relationship between phosphorus excretion and plate number is also shown (b), together with average (± standard deviation) plate number and phosphorus excretion for each type