jagomart
digital resources
picture1_Restoration Ecology Pdf 161324 | Stockwell Kinnison Hendry 2006


 117x       Filetype PDF       File size 1.65 MB       Source: www.ndsu.edu


File: Restoration Ecology Pdf 161324 | Stockwell Kinnison Hendry 2006
ch06 2 9 06 12 45 pm page 113 189686 island press falk chapter 6 evolutionary restoration ecology craig a stockwell michael t kinnison and andrew p hendry restoration ecology ...

icon picture PDF Filetype PDF | Posted on 21 Jan 2023 | 2 years ago
Partial capture of text on file.
      ch06  2/9/06  12:45 PM  Page 113
        189686 / Island Press / Falk
                                                                     Chapter 6
                                     Evolutionary Restoration Ecology
                                    Craig A. Stockwell, Michael T. Kinnison, 
                                                       and Andrew P. Hendry
               Restoration Ecology and Evolutionary Process
               Restoration activities have increased dramatically in recent years, creating evolutionary chal-
               lenges and opportunities. Though restoration has favored a strong focus on the role of habi-
               tat, concerns surrounding the evolutionary ecology of populations are increasing. In this con-
               text, previous researchers have considered the importance of preserving extant diversity and
               maintaining future evolutionary potential (Montalvo et al. 1997; Lesica and Allendorf 1999),
               but they have usually ignored the prospect of ongoing evolution in real time. However, such
               contemporary evolution (changes occurring over one to a few hundred generations) appears
               to be relatively common in nature (Stockwell and Weeks 1999; Bone and Farres 2001; Kin-
               nison and Hendry 2001; Reznick and Ghalambor 2001; Ashley et al. 2003; Stockwell et al.
               2003). Moreover, it is often associated with situations that may prevail in restoration projects,
               namely the presence of introduced populations and other anthropogenic disturbances
               (Stockwell and Weeks 1999; Bone and Farres 2001; Reznick and Ghalambor 2001) (Table
               6.1). Any restoration program may thus entail consideration of evolution in the past, present,
               and future. 
                 Restoration efforts often involve dramatic and rapid shifts in habitat that may even lead to
               different ecological states (such as altered fire regimes) (Suding et al. 2003). Genetic variants
               that evolved within historically different evolutionary contexts (the past) may thus be pitted
               against novel and mismatched current conditions (the present). The degree of this mismatch
               should then determine the pattern and strength of selection acting on trait variation in such
               populations (Box 6.1; Figure 6.1). If trait variation is heritable and selection is sufficiently
               strong, contemporary evolution is likely to occur and may have dramatic impacts on the
               adaptive dynamics of restoration scenarios. Adaptation to current conditions (the present)
               may in turn influence the ability of such populations to subsequently persist and evolve over
               short or long periods (the future). Thus, the success (or failure) of a restoration effort may of-
               ten be as much an evolutionary issue as an ecological one.
                 It is also useful to recognize that contemporary evolution may alter the interactions of
               species with their environments and each other. Restoration ecologists may thus be faced
               with a changed cast of players, even if many of the same nominal species are restored. Efforts
               that assume species and populations are evolutionarily stagnant may face frustrating and
                                                                           113
        ch06  2/9/06  12:45 PM  Page 114
           189686 / Island Press / Falk                                                                                     1
                                                          eeks                    and
                                                                                 u
                                                      ick et al. 1997;eh 2004    w 1970; W
                                                                               w 1966; Antono-iling 1995
                                References   ison et al. 2001;                       arres 2001
                                                             1999                           arres 2001
                                             2001; KinnQuinn et al. 2001 O’Steen et al. 2002Stearns 1983; Stockwell and Wlyer et al., 2005vics and BradshaKruckeberg 1985; Macnair 1987;Bone and Fand Snaydon 1976; Bone andFard et al. 2000
                                        Bell et al. 2004Hendry et al. 2000; Hendry et al.Koskinen et al. 2002Endler 1980; ReznStockwell and Mulvey 1998; Col-Rasner et al. 2004; YWilliams and Moore 1989Hargeby et al. 2004Jain and BradshaSnaydon and Davies 1972; DaviesDavison and ReWLevinton et al. 2003
                                                                               ine
                                                          , thermal
                                                          ancy                 ils (e.g., m
                                        t                                               il pH
                                        a                                                            ium
                             imals in nature.             al const             inated so
                                Evolutionary agentigratory rigor)w      ity)   am
                                              m
                                           ing environment (temperature,,ity/flo                  concentration
                                             w                                 al cont           2
                                        eshwater habitfloater temperatureenvironmentand aridwaste piles)rtilizer, altered so
                                        r                          Sexual selection     e            Removal of cadm
                                        F  Breed W    Predator regimesEnvironmentSalinEcoregional variation (temperaturePredationMetFHigh ozone concentrationCO
                                           ,
                         able 6.1                                  ail)
                         t
                                           wth, morphology, offspring size,                          ance
                                raits        ing, ovarian invest-
                                T                         , fat storage        als (e.g., copper)
                                                 ination, yolk-sac vol-                              ium resist
                                                    wth rate, survival 
                                                                          ation
                                             reproductive timmentume, groantipredator behaviornase); body shapewth rate
                             Examples of contemporary evolution in plants and anDevelopment and groge and size at maturityize at maturityigmentolerance to met
                                        Lateral plate armor Length at termPgdh (Phosphogluconate dehydroge-Morphology (amount of white in tMorphologyTpH toleranceGroSeed productionLoss of cadm
                                                          )S       )           ing 
                                           spp.)                      )
                                                      )A                         xanthum Lupinus 
                                           hus                            )P       , 
                                      Gasterosteus hymallus    Cyprinodon 
                                                 T                             ies, includAntho
                                                                   unco hyemalis ,   shianus
                                                                   J      uaticus
                                           Oncorhync      Gambusia affinis
                                                    )                              Agrostis tenuis Limnodrilus hoff-
                                        )             oecilia reticulata)          , Lotus per       )
                                                      P               Oryctolagus cuniculusAsellus aq, 
                                                          uitofish (         isturbance  xanthum odoratum
                                    izationaculeatusfic salmon (thymallustularosadMimulus guttatusodoratumbicolormeisteri
                                           ci
                                      Threespine stickleback (PaEuropean Grayling (Guppies (MosqWhite Sands pupfish (Dark-eyed juncos (Rabbits (Isopod (Numerous plant specAnthoPlantago majorArabidopsis thalianaOligochaete (
                                Context/ExampleColon                        In situ
     ch06  2/9/06  12:45 PM  Page 115
      189686 / Island Press / Falk
                         ik 1994        ad 2001
                         abashn
                               w and Holzapfel 2001
                                               lendorf et al. 2001; Grant andGrant 2002
                         Mallet 1989; TCarroll et al. 2001BradshaHairston et al. 1999Grant and Grant 2002Réale et al. 2003Haugen and VøllestOlsen et al. 2004Coltman et al. 2003Rhymer and Simberloff 1996; Al-
                         ,      wing          ies
                          ality
                         ality or sterilitying
                                                ies
                          -related mort       ization among wild spec
                          Bt   lobal warmeutrophicationtures)gear (e.g., mesh size of nets)and between wild and domestic(sub)spec
                         Selective mortIntroduced host fruit sizeGCyanobacteria  increase folloDrought effects on food resourcesGlobal change (increased tempera-Selectivity of harvest methods andHarvest of large cod Selective harvest of large males Hybrid
                         ance to
                                iet
                               apause response
                         ance (e.g., resisti
                               ic d
                         ide resist)ance to poor/toxic ding season
                         esticBt
                         P Beak lengthPhotoperiodResistBody size, beak shapeBreedAge and size at maturitySize, age at maturityMale body and horn sizeMorphology (other aspects likely)
                          )        )          -
                                           )  w
                              yeomyia )   )
                              W
                                leata         ids, sunflo
                         ies Diamonda   hymallus 
                              uitoes (Geospiza fortisT
                           adera 
                          Plutella xylostellaJ)amiasciurus Gadus morhuaOvis canadensis
                                    T)   )
                                Daphnia g     ids, salmon
                               )
                                    uirrels (
                          back moths (haematolomasmithiiater flea (hudsonicusthymallusers, etc.
                         Numerous insect specSoapberry bugs (Pitcher plant mosqWGalapágos finches (Red sqEuropean Grayling (Northern cod (Bighorn sheep (Ducks, can
                                      Selective harvestIntrogression
         ch06  2/9/06  12:45 PM  Page 116
            189686 / Island Press / Falk                                                                                                          1
                      116     ecological theory and the restoration of populations and communities
                                                                    Box 6.1 
                                              Evolutionary Change in Quantitative Traits
                         For a quantitative trait (influenced by multiple genes, often of small effect), a simple equa-
                         tion can be used to predict how adaptation should proceed, at least under a number of sim-
                         plifying assumptions (Lande and Arnold 1983). Specifically, ∆z = Gß, where ∆z is the
                         change in mean trait value from one generation to the next, G is the additive genetic vari-
                         ance for the trait and ß is the selection gradient acting on the trait (slope of the relationship
                         between the trait and fitness). When considering a single trait, this equation is analogous to
                         the traditional “breeder’s equation” (evolutionary response = heritability * selection; R =
                         h2S) because G/P= h2and S/P= ß, where Pis the phenotypic variance and S is the selection
                         differential (difference between the mean trait value before and after selection). When con-
                         sidering multiple traits, ∆z becomes a vector of changes in mean trait values, G becomes a
                         matrix of additive genetic variances/covariances, and ß becomes a vector of selection gradi-
                         ents. That is, ∆z = Gß (Lande and Arnold 1983; Schluter 2000; Arnold et al. 2001). 
                         In the case of two traits, the multivariate equation expands to
                                                            Dz        G       G      b
                                                           c   1d = c   11      12dc 1d,
                                                            Dz        G       G      b
                                                               2        21      22    2
                         where ∆z is the evolutionary response for trait i, G      and G are the additive genetic vari-
                                   i                                            11        22
                         ances for the two traits, G  and G are identical and are the additive genetic covariance be-
                                                    12       21
                         tween the two traits, and ß is the selection gradient acting on the trait. Selection gradients are
                                                    i
                         commonly estimated as partial regression coefficients from a multiple regression of both
                         traits on fitness. In this case, selection gradients represent the effect of each trait on fitness af-
                         ter controlling for the effect of the other trait (i.e., “direct” selection). This equation shows
                         how the evolutionary response for each trait will be a function of selection acting directly on
                         that trait, the additive genetic variance for that trait, selection acting on the other trait, and
                         the additive genetic covariance between the traits. That is, ∆z = G ß + G ß and ∆z =
                                                                                            1     11 1      12 2        2
                         G ß + G ß . This formulation illustrates how apparently paradoxical evolutionary changes
                           22 2     21 1
                         can be observed in some situations. For example, the first trait can evolve to be smaller even
                         if it is under selection to be larger (e.g., Grant and Grant 1995). This can occur when G ß
                                                                                                                       12 2
                         < 0 and |G ß | > G ß ; that is, when the negative indirect effect of selection on the first trait
                                    12 2     11 1
                         is stronger than the positive direct effect of selection. These negative indirect effects should
                         increase as selection on the second trait becomes stronger and as the genetic covariance be-
                         comes stronger, with one of these quantities necessarily being negative.
                            Phenotypes in an undisturbed population should be centered around an optimal value
                         (i.e., the population is well adapted). In a restoration context, however, a disturbance to the
                         environment may shift the phenotypic optimum away from the current phenotypes (Figure
                         6.1). This shift leads to a mismatch between current phenotypes and optimal phenotypes,
                         leaving the population maladapted and subject to directional selection. Under a number of
                         assumptions, the strength of this selection can be represented as:
                                                                  b = 1z  q2
                                                                          2 
                                                                         w + P
                         where z is the mean trait value, q is the optimal trait value, P is the phenotypic variance, and
                          2                                                                                             2
                         w is the strength of stabilizing selection around the optimum (for simplicity, we assume w is
The words contained in this file might help you see if this file matches what you are looking for:

...Ch pm page island press falk chapter evolutionary restoration ecology craig a stockwell michael t kinnison and andrew p hendry process activities have increased dramatically in recent years creating chal lenges opportunities though has favored strong focus on the role of habi tat concerns surrounding populations are increasing this con text previous researchers considered importance preserving extant diversity maintaining future potential montalvo et al lesica allendorf but they usually ignored prospect ongoing evolution real time however such contemporary changes occurring over one to few hundred generations appears be relatively common nature weeks bone farres kin nison reznick ghalambor ashley moreover it is often associated with situations that may prevail projects namely presence introduced other anthropogenic disturbances table any program thus entail consideration past present efforts involve dramatic rapid shifts habitat even lead different ecological states as altered re regim...

no reviews yet
Please Login to review.