4.6 Article

Eco-Evolutionary Feedbacks and the Maintenance of Metacommunity Diversity in a Changing Environment

期刊

GENES
卷 11, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes11121433

关键词

eco-evolutionary dynamics; eco-evolutionary feedback; metacommunity; evolving metacommunity; coexistence; competition; adaptive dynamics; quantitative trait evolution

资金

  1. William & Mary 1693 Scholars Program
  2. Richard Lounsbery Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence and strength of resource competition can influence how organisms adaptively respond to environmental change. Selection may thus reflect a balance between two forces, adaptation to an environmental optimum and evolution to avoid strong competition. While this phenomenon has previously been explored in the context of single communities, its implications for eco-evolutionary dynamics at the metacommunity scale are largely unknown. We developed a simulation model for the evolution of a quantitative trait that influences both an organism's carrying capacity and its intra- and interspecific competitive ability. In the model, multiple species inhabit a three-patch landscape, and we investigated the effect of varying the connectivity level among patches, the presence and pace of directional environmental change, and the strength of competition between the species. Our model produced some patterns previously observed in evolving metacommunity models, such as species sorting and community monopolization. However, we found that species sorting was diminished even at low rates of dispersal and was influenced by competition strength, and that monopolization was observed only when environmental change was very rapid. We also detected an eco-evolutionary feedback loop between local phenotypic evolution at one site and competition at another site, which maintains species diversity in some conditions. The existence of a feedback loop maintained by dispersal indicates that eco-evolutionary dynamics in communities operate at a landscape scale.

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

4.6
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