| Literature DB >> 31338113 |
Jonas Jourdan1,2, Kathrin Piro2, Alexander Weigand3, Martin Plath4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Selective landscapes in rivers are made up by an array of selective forces that vary from source to downstream regions or between seasons, and local/temporal variation in fitness maxima can result in gradual spatio-temporal variation of phenotypic traits. This study aimed at establishing freshwater amphipods as future model organisms to study adaptive phenotypic diversification (evolutionary divergence and/or adaptive plasticity) along stream gradients.Entities:
Keywords: Aquatic invertebrates; Gammarus roeselii; Global warming; Intraspecific divergence; Invasive species; Life-history evolution; Local adaptation; Rapid evolution; Thermal pollution
Year: 2019 PMID: 31338113 PMCID: PMC6624920 DOI: 10.1186/s12983-019-0327-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Zool ISSN: 1742-9994 Impact factor: 3.172
Phenotypic traits assessed in our present study and (unidirectional) predictions for trait divergence along single components of stream gradients
| Category | Phenotypic trait | Affected by components of the river gradient | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Body size and condition-related adult traits | Body length | ▼Temperature [ | Increased body size may translate into an enhanced tolerance to low temperatures. |
| ▲Resources [ | Increased resource availability may result in larger adult body size, which is often correlated with increased investment into reproduction [ | ||
| ▼Oxygen [ | Oxygen availability is coupled with temperature regimes and probably a major mechanistic determinant of growth and general development. | ||
| ▲Competition [ | Large specimens are more competitive at high conspecific densities. | ||
| ▼ (Micro)pollution [ | Reduced size below sewage treatment works can be a result of the water containing endocrine-disrupting chemicals. | ||
| ▼Predation [ | Relatively larger individuals experience higher predation risk than smaller ones. | ||
| ▲Sexual selection [ | Male pairing success is positively related to body size. | ||
Body weight (size-corrected) | ▲ Resources [ | Higher resource availability (usually after leaf fall in autumn and winter) results in increased body condition. | |
| ▼Competition [ | Intraspecific competition results in fewer resources being available per individual to invest into somatic maintenance and reproduction. | ||
| ▼ Predation [ | Predator cues can induce behavioural alterations (e.g., reduced foraging), resulting in lower body condition. | ||
| Offspring-related phenotypic traits | Fecundity (number of offspring per brood) | ▲ Resources [ | Higher resource availability allows for more investment into egg production. |
| ▲ Predation [ | Predators increase extrinsic mortality, favouring | ||
| ▼ Pollution [ | Pollution (sewage and heavy metals) derived from industrial and domestic sources reduce fecundity. | ||
| ▼ (Micro)pollution [ | Endocrine-disrupting chemicals cause intersexuality in amphipods, leading to a reduced fecundity. | ||
| Embryo size | ▼Temperature [ | Larger embryo size during winter may be driven by a higher tolerance to low water temperatures. Absence of cold temperatures in thermally-polluted streams reduces selection for large embryo size. | |
| ▼ Resources [ | Under high resource availability embryo size can be reduced, while embryo size should be increased under resource shortage. | ||
| ▼ Predation [ | The optimal egg size depends on the relationship between juvenile survival and egg size [ | ||
| Physiological traits | Gill surface area | ▼ Pollution [ | Toxic metals are taken up by aquatic crustaceans via the gills. Hence, increased gill area might be disadvantageous under elevated heavy metal concentrations. |
| ▼ Oxygen [ | High oxygen supply allows species to have smaller gill areas. | ||
| Traits used for intrasexual communication and mate defense | Antennae length | ▲Sexual selection [ | Male antennae are important for locating and evaluating potential mates. |
| ▲ Male biased sex-ratio/intraspecific density | Sex ratios affect male mating behaviour [ | ||
| ▲ (Micro)pollutants [ | Longer antennae were induced by exposure to non-ionic surfactant 4-nonylphenol [ | ||
| Gnathopod size | ▲ Sexual selection [ | Male gnathopods play a central role in holding/securing the female before and during copulation (amplexus). | |
| ▲ Male biased sex-ratio [ | Under male biased sex-ratios, male-male competition increases and males guard females longer. |
We provide a priori predictions for the direction of evolutionary and/or plastic trait divergence in G. roeselii by agents of natural and sexual selection based on a literature survey including other amphipods (marked by asterisks [*]) and freshwater invertebrates in general. ▲Predicted positive association (increasing phenotypic trait values correspond with increasing values of the respective variable); ▼predicted negative association
Fig. 1Map of our study areas. a Location of the Rhine catchment in Central Europe with the two studied tributaries: b Erft, which receives thermal pollution in the form of cooling water from several coal power plants and c Kinzig, which does not receive artificially heated cooling water. Locations and number codes of our 16 sampling sites are indicated (maps created with QGIS 3.4.2; the altitude layer was retrieved from https://lpdaac.usgs.gov)
Results of a factor reduction procedure (PCA) on 11 environmental parameters measured at our 16 sampling sites
| Env. PC 1 | Env. PC 2 | Env. PC 3 | Env. PC 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stream width [m] |
| −0.15 | − 0.01 | − 0.02 |
| Stream depth [m] |
| −0.32 | 0.22 | −0.04 |
| Water temperature [°C] | 0.39 | 0.01 |
| 0.49 |
| Oxygen content [mg L−1] | 0.23 | 0.10 |
| 0.20 |
| Flow velocity [m s−1] | 0.06 |
| 0.01 | −0.19 |
| Conductivity [μS cm−1] |
| 0.27 | −0.21 | 0.14 |
| Density (catch-per-unit effort) | 0.20 |
| 0.40 | 0.23 |
| Altitude [m] |
| −0.16 | 0.15 | 0.05 |
| Sex ratio (females/ males) | −0.06 |
| −0.24 | 0.01 |
| Thermal pollution (yes/ no) |
| 0.22 | 0.14 | 0.11 |
| Season (summer/ winter) | −0.04 | −0.10 | −0.10 |
|
Shown are PC axes (‘environmental PCs’) with eigenvalues > 1.0; axes were varimax-rotated using the Kaiser Normalization method. Variables with |axis loading| ≥ 0.5 are highlighted in bold font
Fig. 2Overview of morphological characteristics assessed in this study. a Males were identified by the presence of genital papillae (g.p.). b Intersexual individuals show female (oostegites; oo.) and male (genital papillae; g.p.) sexual characteristics. The following parameters we measured as distances or areas (marked by red lines) and used to assess population variation in c body length, d gill area (circumference of the six gills on the right body site; considered herein as a ‘physiological trait’), e lengths of the 1st antennae (a.I) and the smaller 2nd antennae (a.II), from the first pedunculus to the tip of the flagellum, and f size of the 1st gnathopod on the right body size of males (length from the tip of the dactylus to the base of the propodus). g Females carry their developing broods in an external brood pouch that is formed by (h) four pairs of oostegites (oo.)
Fig. 3Stages of embryonic development in G. roeselii. a Newly fertilized eggs (stage 1), surrounded by a membranous sac. b Detailed view of eggs at stage 1 with no visible cell cleavage. c Stage 2 is characterized by the formation of large yolk cells through holoblastic cell cleavage. d Embryos at stage 3 show a caudal groove (c.g.). e At stage 4, the embryo’s body is separated into cephalothorax (ce.) and abdomen (ab.). The dorsal organ (d.o.) is visible. Embryos show a comma-like body shape and body appendages start to develop. f Red eye pigmentation (e.p.) and fully developed body appendages are characteristic of developmental stage 5. g Fully developed juveniles with completely developed compound eyes (c.e.) that are still surrounded by the external chorion of the egg indicate developmental stage 6. h Newly hatched juveniles (stage 7) have ruptured and left the chorion
Results of generalized least squares models on body size/condition-related phenotypic and physiological traits of adult G. roeselii
| (a) Body length | (b) Dry weight | (c) Gill surface area | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| χ2 |
|
| χ 2 |
|
| χ 2 |
| |
| Body length (covariate) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sex |
|
|
|
| 0.12 | 0.73 |
|
|
|
| Environmental PC 1 |
|
|
| 1 | 1.53 | 0.22 |
|
|
|
| Sex × env. PC 1 |
| < 0.001 | 0.98 |
| 2.10 | 0.15 |
|
|
|
| Environmental PC 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | 0.84 | 0.36 |
| Sex × env. PC 2 | 1 | 1.08 | 0.30 | 1 | 1.77 | 0.18 |
|
|
|
| Environmental PC 3 | 1 | 2.47 | 0.12 | 1 | 0.01 | 0.91 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.99 |
| Sex × env. PC 3 | 1 | 1.87 | 0.17 | 1 | 0.99 | 0.32 |
|
|
|
| Environmental PC 4 | 1 | 0.71 | 0.40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sex × env. PC 4 | 1 | 0.09 | 0.77 | 1 | 1.72 | 0.19 |
|
|
|
Shown are the results of three independent models using (a) adult body size, (b) body weight, assessed after drying samples overnight (in both sexes) and (c) gill surface areas (only males) as the dependent variables. Environmental PCs (Table 2), as well as sex and body length (where applicable) were coded as independent (explanatory) variables. Significant effects are shown in bold
Results of generalized least squares models on phenotypic traits used for mate assessment and mate defence
| (a) 1st Antennae | (b) 2nd Antennae | (c) Gnathopod length | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| χ2 |
|
| χ2 |
|
| χ2 |
| |
| Body length |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | 0.66 | 0.42 |
| Sex |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Environmental PC 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | 0.01 | 0.91 |
| Sex × env. PC 1 | 1 | 0.08 | 0.78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Environmental PC 2 | 1 | 0.35 | 0.55 | 1 | 2.89 | 0.089 | 1 | 0.71 | 0.40 |
| Sex × env. PC 2 |
|
|
| 1 | 0.05 | 0.83 |
|
|
|
| Environmental PC 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | 0.33 | 0.57 |
| Sex × env. PC 3 | 1 | 0.10 | 0.76 | 1 | < 0.001 | 0.96 |
|
|
|
| Environmental PC 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | < 0.001 | 0.98 |
| Sex × env. PC 4 | 1 | 0.55 | 0.46 | 1 | 0.54 | 0.46 |
|
|
|
We assessed the following dependent variables: (a) length of the 1st and (b) 2nd antennae (which males use for mate detection and assessment) in both sexes. (c) Gnathopod size (used by males during precopulatory mate guarding, called amplexus) was assessed only in males. Environmental PCs (Table 2), body length and sex (where applicable) served as predictor variables. Significant effects are shown in bold
Results of generalized least squares models on reproductive life-history traits in females
| (a) Fecundity | (b) Egg size | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| χ2 |
|
| χ2 |
| |
| Female body length |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Developmental stage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Environmental PC 1 |
|
|
| 1 | 1.47 | 0.23 |
| Environmental PC 2 |
|
|
| 1 | 3.05 | 0.081 |
| Environmental PC 3 | 1 | 2.95 | 0.086 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.98 |
| Environmental PC 4 | 1 | 1.43 | 0.23 | 1 | 0.02 | 0.89 |
Two independent models considered (a) egg number per brood (fecundity) and (b) egg size as the dependent variables, while environmental PCs (Table 2), body length and developmental stage (where applicable) served as predictor variables. Significant effects are shown in bold.
Fig. 4Visualization of significant model terms in generalized least squares models on body size/condition-related adult phenotypic traits. Principal components (PCs) capturing variation in environmental parameters along the examined stream gradients (Table 2) served as explanatory variables. Shown are effects for a, b body length, and c, d body weight (dry weight), which are presented separately for both sexes if the models uncovered significant sex-effects (Table 3). Solid lines show linear relationships of raw data with 95% confidence intervals (shaded area), while dashed lines represent the linear relationships based on predicted values that were adjusted for other predictors in each model. For display purpose, data points were slightly shifted using the position_jitter-function in ggplot2
Fig. 5Visualization of significant model terms in generalized least squares models on gill surface areas. Shown are the relationships between male gill surface areas and a environmental principal component (PC) 1 and b PC 4 (Table 3). Solid lines show linear relationships of raw data with 95% confidence intervals (shaded area), while dashed lines represent the linear relationships based on predicted values that were adjusted for other predictors in the model (e.g., body length). For display purpose, data points were slightly shifted using the position_jitter-function in ggplot2
Fig. 6Visualization of significant model terms in generalized least squares models on phenotypic traits involved in mate finding and assessment. We depict marginal effects for gradual variation in the length of the 1st (a, c, d, f) and 2nd antennae (b, e, g) along environmental PC 1 – PC 4 (Table 4). Data are shown separately for both sexes if the models uncovered significant sex-effects. Solid lines show linear relationships of raw data with 95% confidence intervals (shaded area), while dashed lines represent the linear relationships based on predicted values that were adjusted for other predictors in each model (e.g., body length). For display purpose, data points were slightly shifted using the position_jitter-function in ggplot2
Fig. 7Visualization of significant model terms in generalized least squares models using offspring-related phenotypic traits as the dependent variable. We depict predicted marginal effects for female fecundity along principal components that contain information of environmental variation along the examined stream gradients [(a) environmental PC 1, (b) environmental PC 2; Table 5]. Solid lines show linear relationships of raw data with 95% confidence intervals (shaded area), while dashed lines represent the linear relationships based on predicted values that were adjusted for other predictors in each model. For display purpose, data points were slightly shifted using the position_jitter-function in ggplot2