4.2 Article

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

期刊

JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
卷 21, 期 6, 页码 1653-1665

出版社

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

关键词

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

资金

  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)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据