An official website of the United States government
Abstract Abiotic and biotic factors interact to influence phenotypic evolution; however, identifying the causal agents of selection that drive the evolution and expression of traits remains challenging. In a field common garden, we manipulated water availability and herbivore abundance across 3 years, and evaluated clinal variation in functional traits and phenology, phenotypic plasticity, local adaptation, and selection using diverse accessions of the perennial forb, Boechera stricta. Consistent with expectations, drought stress exacerbated damage from herbivores. We found significant plasticity and genetic clines in foliar and phenological traits. Water availability and herbivory interacted to exert selection, even on traits like flowering duration, which showed no clinal variation. Furthermore, the direction of selection on specific leaf area in response to water availability mirrored the genetic cline and plasticity, suggesting that variation in water levels across the landscape influences the evolution of this trait. Finally, both herbivory and water availability likely contribute to local adaptation. This work emphasizes the additive and synergistic roles of abiotic and biotic factors in shaping phenotypic variation across environmental gradients.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on January 15, 2026
Trait and plasticity evolution under competition and mutualism in evolving pairwise yeast communities
Although we have a good understanding of how phenotypic plasticity evolves in response to abiotic environments, we know comparatively less about responses to biotic interactions. We experimentally tested how competition and mutualism affected trait and plasticity evolution of pairwise communities of genetically modified brewer’s yeast. We quantified evolutionary changes in growth rate, resource use efficiency (RUE), and their plasticity in strains evolving alone, with a competitor, and with a mutualist. Compared to their ancestors, strains evolving alone had lower RUE and RUE plasticity. There was also an evolutionary tradeoff between changes in growth rate and RUE in strains evolving alone, suggesting selection for increased growth rate at the cost of efficiency. Strains evolving with a competitive partner had higher growth rates, slightly lower RUE, and a stronger tradeoff between growth rate and efficiency. In contrast, mutualism had opposite effects on trait evolution. Strains evolving with a mutualist had slightly lower growth rates, higher RUE, and a weak evolutionary tradeoff between growth rate and RUE. Despite their different effects on trait evolution, competition and mutualism had little effect on plasticity evolution for either trait, suggesting that abiotic factors could be more important than biotic factors in generating selection for plasticity.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2137554
- PAR ID:
- 10578141
- Editor(s):
- Raman, Karthik
- Publisher / Repository:
- PLOS ONE
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- PLOS ONE
- Volume:
- 20
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 1932-6203
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e0311674
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Beaulieu, Jeremy (Ed.)Abstract Due to their non-motile nature, plants rely heavily on mutualistic interactions to obtain resources and carry out services. One key mutualism is the plant–microbial mutualism in which a plant trades away carbon to a microbial partner for nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorous. Plants show much variation in the use of this partnership from the individual level to entire lineages depending upon ecological, evolutionary and environmental context. We sought to determine how this context dependency could result in the promotion, exclusion or coexistence of the microbial mutualism by asking if and when the partnership provided a competitive advantage to the plant. To that end, we created a 2 × 2 evolutionary game in which plants could either be a mutualist and pair with a microbe or be a non-mutualist and forgo the partnership. Our model includes both frequency dependence and density dependence, which gives us the eco-evolutionary dynamics of mutualism evolution. As in all models, mutualism only evolved if it could offer a competitive advantage and its net benefit was positive. However, surprisingly the model reveals the possibility of coexistence between mutualist and non-mutualist genotypes due to competition between mutualists over the microbially obtained nutrient. Specifically, frequency dependence of host strategies can make the microbial symbiont less beneficial if the microbially derived resources are shared, a phenomenon that increasingly reduces the frequency of mutualism as the density of competitors increases. In essence, ecological competition can act as a hindrance to mutualism evolution. We go on to discuss basic experiments that can be done to test and falsify our hypotheses.more » « less
-
Abstract Obligate mutualisms, reciprocally obligate beneficial interactions, are some of the most important mutualisms on the planet, providing the basis for the evolution of the eukaryotic cell, the formation and persistence of terrestrial ecosystems and the establishment and expansion of coral reefs. In addition, these mutualisms can also lead to the diversification of interacting partner species. Accompanying this diversification is a general pattern of a high degree of specificity among interacting partner species. A survey of obligate mutualisms demonstrates that greater than half of these systems have only one or two mutualist species on each side of the interaction. This is in stark contrast to facultative mutualisms that can have dozens of interacting mutualist species. We posit that the high degree of specificity in obligate mutualisms is driven by competition within obligate mutualist guilds that limits species richness. Competition may be particularly potent in these mutualisms because mutualistic partners are totally dependent on each other's fitness gains, which may fuel interspecific competition. Theory and the limited number of empirical studies testing for the role of competition in determining specificity suggest that competition may be an important force that fuels the high degree of specificity. Further empirical research is needed to dissect the relative roles of trait complementarity, mutualism regulation, and competition among mutualist guild members in determining mutualism specificity at local scales.more » « less
-
Abstract Conjugative plasmids drive genetic diversity and evolution in microbial populations. Despite their prevalence, plasmids can impose long-term fitness costs on their hosts, altering population structure, growth dynamics, and evolutionary outcomes. In addition to long-term fitness costs, acquiring a new plasmid introduces an immediate, short-term perturbation to the cell. However, due to the transient nature of this plasmid acquisition cost, a quantitative understanding of its physiological manifestations, overall magnitudes, and population-level implications, remains unclear. To address this, here we track growth of single colonies immediately following plasmid acquisition. We find that plasmid acquisition costs are primarily driven by changes in lag time, rather than growth rate, for nearly 60 conditions covering diverse plasmids, selection environments, and clinical strains/species. Surprisingly, for a costly plasmid, clones exhibiting longer lag times also achieve faster recovery growth rates, suggesting an evolutionary tradeoff. Modeling and experiments demonstrate that this tradeoff leads to counterintuitive ecological dynamics, whereby intermediate-cost plasmids outcompete both their low and high-cost counterparts. These results suggest that, unlike fitness costs, plasmid acquisition dynamics are not uniformly driven by minimizing growth disadvantages. Moreover, a lag/growth tradeoff has clear implications in predicting the ecological outcomes and intervention strategies of bacteria undergoing conjugation.more » « less
-
Multiple, simultaneous environmental changes, in climatic/abiotic factors, interacting species, and direct human influences, are impacting natural populations and thus biodiversity, ecosystem services, and evolutionary trajectories. Determining whether the magnitudes of the population impacts of abiotic, biotic, and anthropogenic drivers differ, accounting for their direct effects and effects mediated through other drivers, would allow us to better predict population fates and design mitigation strategies. We compiled 644 paired values of the population growth rate ( λ ) from high and low levels of an identified driver from demographic studies of terrestrial plants. Among abiotic drivers, natural disturbance (not climate), and among biotic drivers, interactions with neighboring plants had the strongest effects on λ . However, when drivers were combined into the 3 main types, their average effects on λ did not differ. For the subset of studies that measured both the average and variability of the driver, λ was marginally more sensitive to 1 SD of change in abiotic drivers relative to biotic drivers, but sensitivity to biotic drivers was still substantial. Similar impact magnitudes for abiotic/biotic/anthropogenic drivers hold for plants of different growth forms, for different latitudinal zones, and for biomes characterized by harsher or milder abiotic conditions, suggesting that all 3 drivers have equivalent impacts across a variety of contexts. Thus, the best available information about the integrated effects of drivers on all demographic rates provides no justification for ignoring drivers of any of these 3 types when projecting ecological and evolutionary responses of populations and of biodiversity to environmental changes.more » « less
