4.2 Article

Natural selection drives patterns of lake-stream divergence in stickleback foraging morphology

Journal

JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 6, Pages 1653-1665

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01583.x

Keywords

determinism; divergent selection; evolutionary constraint; Gasterosteus aculeatus; limnetic-benthic differentiation; line of least resistance; parallel evolution; phenotypic covariance

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation
  2. Janggen-Pohn Foundation
  3. Roche Research Foundation
  4. Stiefel-Zangger Foundation
  5. NSF [DEB-0445768]
  6. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To what extent are patterns of biological diversification determined by natural selection? We addressed this question by exploring divergence in foraging morphology of threespine stickleback fish inhabiting lake and stream habitats within eight independent watersheds. We found that lake fish generally displayed more developed gill structures and had more streamlined bodies than did stream fish. Diet analysis revealed that these morphological differences were associated with limnetic vs. benthic foraging modes, and that the extent of morphological divergence within watersheds reflected differences in prey resources utilized by lake and stream fish. We also found that patterns of divergence were unrelated to patterns of phenotypic trait (co)variance within populations (i.e. the 'line of least resistance'). Instead, phenotypic (co)variances were more likely to have been shaped by adaptation to lake vs. stream habitats. Our study thus implicates natural selection as a strong deterministic force driving morphological diversification in lake-stream stickleback. The strength of this inference was obtained by complementing a standard analysis of parallel divergence in means between discrete habitat categories (lake vs. stream) with quantitative estimates of selective forces and information on trait (co)variances.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available