2 - Evolution in source–sink environments: implications for niche conservatism  pp. 23-57

Evolution in source–sink environments: implications for niche conservatism

By Robert D. Holt

Image View Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Demographic sources and sinks arise from the interplay of spatial variations in birth and death rates, and movement between habitats. One way to view sources and sinks is that, in the former, individuals are well adapted to the local environment, whereas in the latter, individuals are poorly adapted. This raises the question of how adaptive evolution might influence the evolutionary stability of source–sink population structures. When can a species’ niche evolve, so that a habitat – now a sink – becomes a source? This chapter provides an overview of theoretical investigations into this question. The scenarios considered include the fate of single favorable mutants that improve adaptedness to a sink environment, quantitative genetic variation for single traits determining local fitness, and the influence of reciprocal dispersal from sinks to sources. The overall conclusion across models is that the harsher the sink (as assessed in terms of absolute fitness), the harder it may be for adaptive evolution to sculpt adaptation sufficiently to permit population persistence. Theoretical studies show that the rate of immigration can have a variety of impacts upon evolution in sinks, depending upon many details of genetics, life history, and demography. Such theoretical exercises are not merely academic exercises, because source–sink dynamics naturally arise in a wide range of applied evolutionary contexts (such as the control of agricultural pests, and in disease emergence across host species) where the management aim is to prevent evolution in focal species in particular habitats.

Antonovics, J. (1976). The nature of limits to natural selection. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 63: 224–247.
Antonovics, J. , T. J. Newman and B. J. Best (2001). Spatially explicit studies on the ecology and genetics of population margins. In Integrating Ecology and Evolution in a Spatial Context ( J. Silvertown and J. Antonovics , eds.). Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, UK: 91–116.
Arditi, R. , N. Perrin and H. Saiah (1991). Functional responses and heterogeneities: an experimental test with cladocerans. Oikos 60: 69–75.
Barton, N. (2001). Adaptation at the edge of a species’ range. In Integrating Ecology and Evolution in a Spatial Context ( J. Silvertown and J. Antonovics , eds.). Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, UK: 365–392.
Blows M. W. and A. A. Hoffmann (2005). A reassessment of genetic limits to evolutionary change. Ecology 86: 1371–1384.
Boulding, E. G. (2008). Genetic diversity, adaptive potential, and population viability in changing environments. In Conservation Biology: Evolution in Action ( S. P. Carroll and C. W. Fox , eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK: 199–219.
Boulding, E. G. and T. K. Hay (2001). Genetic and demographic parameters determining population persistence after a discrete change in the environment. Heredity 8: 313–324.
Bradshaw, A. D. (1991). Genostasis and the limits to evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (B) 333: 289–305.
Bridle, J. R. , J. Polechova , M. Kawata and R. K. Butlin (2010). Why is adaptation prevented at ecological margins? New insights from individual-based simulations. Ecology Letters 13: 485–494.
Caswell, H. (1989). Matrix Population Models. Sinauer Press, Sunderland, MA.
Cohen, D. (2006). Modeling the evolutionary and ecological consequences of selection and adaptation in heterogeneous environments. Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution 52: 467–485.
Courchamp F. , L. Berec and J. Gascoigne (2008). Allee Effects in Ecology and Conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Diffendorfer, J. E. (1998). Testing models of source–sink dynamics and balanced dispersal. Oikos 81: 417–433.
Doncaster, C. P. , J. Clobert , B. Doligez , L. Gustafsson and E. Danchin (1997). Balanced dispersal between spatially varying local populations: an alternative to the source–sink model. American Naturalist 150: 425–445.
Figueira, W. F. and L. B. Crowder (2006). Defining patch contribution in source–sink metapopulations: the importance of including dispersal and its relevance to marine systems. Population Ecology 48: 215–224.
Fretwell, S. D. (1972). Populations in a Seasonal Environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Futuyma, D. J. (2010). Evolutionary constraint and ecological consequences. Evolution 64: 1865–1884.
Garant, D. , S. E. Forde and A. P. Hendry (2007). The multifarious effects of dispersal and gene flow on contemporary adaptation. Functional Ecology 21: 434–443.
Gomulkiewicz, R. , R. D. Holt and M. Barfield (1999). The effects of density dependence and immigration on local adaptation and niche evolution in a black-hole sink environment. Theoretical Population Biology 55: 283–296.
Gomulkiewicz, R. and R. D. Holt (1995). When does evolution by natural selection prevent extinction? Evolution 49: 201–207.
Holt R. D. (1985). Population dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribution. Theoretical Population Biology 28: 181–208.
Holt, R. D. (1983). Immigration and the dynamics of peripheral populations. In Advances in Herpetology and Evolutionary Biology ( K. Miyata and A. Rhodin , eds.). Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA: 680–694.
Holt, R. D. (1984). Spatial heterogeneity, indirect interactions, and the coexistence of prey species. American Naturalist 124: 377–406.
Holt, R. D. (1996a). Adaptive evolution in source–sink environments: direct and indirect effects of density-dependence on niche evolution. Oikos 75: 182–192.
Holt, R. D. (1996b). Demographic constraints in evolution: towards unifying the evolutionary theories of senescence and niche conservatism. Evolutionary Ecology 10: 1–11.
Holt, R. D. (1997). On the evolutionary stability of sink populations. Evolutionary Ecology 11: 723–731.
Holt, R. D. (2003). On the evolutionary ecology of species ranges. Evolutionary Ecology Research 5: 159–178.
Holt, R. D. (2009). Bringing the Hutchinsonian niche into the 21st century: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 106: 19659–19665.
Holt, R. D. , M. Barfield and R. Gomulkiewicz (2005). Theories of niche conservatism and evolution: could exotic species be potential tests? In Species Invasions: Insights into Ecology, Evolution, and Biogeography ( D. Sax , J. Stachowicz and S. D. Gaines , eds.). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA: 259–290.
Holt, R. D. , R. Gomulkiewicz and M. Barfield (2003). The phenomenology of niche evolution via quantitative traits in a “black-hole” sink. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B) 270: 215–224.
Holt, R. D. , R. Gomulkiewicz and M. Barfield (2004a). Temporal variation can facilitate niche evolution in harsh sink environments. American Naturalist 164: 187–200.
Holt, R. D. , T. M. Knight and M. Barfield (2004b). Allee effects, immigration, and the evolution of species’ niches. American Naturalist 163: 253–262.
Holt, R. D. and M. Barfield (2008). Habitat selection and niche conservatism. Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution 54: 295–309.
Holt, R. D. and M. Barfield Holt, R. D. and M. Barfield (2011). Theoretical perspectives on the statics and dynamics of species’ ranges. American Naturalist 177: in press.
Holt, R. D. and M. S. Gaines (1992). Analysis of adaptation in heterogeneous landscapes: implications for the evolution of fundamental niches. Evolutionary Ecology 6: 433–447.
Holt, R. D. and R. Gomulkiewicz (1997a). How does immigration influence local adaptation? A reexamination of a familiar paradigm. American Naturalist 149: 563–572.
Holt, R. D. and R. Gomulkiewicz (1997b). The evolution of species’ niches: a population dynamic perspective. In Case Studies in Mathematical Modelling: Ecology, Physiology, and Cell Biology ( H. Othmer , F. Adler , M. Lewis and J. Dallon , eds.). Prentice-Hall, Englewood, NJ: 25–50.
Holt, R. D. and R. Gomulkiewicz (2004). Conservation implications of niche conservatism and evolution in heterogeneous environments. In Evolutionary Conservation Biology ( R. Ferrière , U. Dieckmann and D. Couvet , eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK: 244–264.
Hutchinson, G. E. (1957). Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 22: 415–427.
Hutchinson, G. E. (1978). An Introduction to Population Ecology. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Kawecki, T. J. (1995). Demography of source–sink populations and the evolution of ecological niches. Evolutionary Ecology 9: 38–44.
Kawecki, T. J. (2000). Adaptation to marginal habitats: contrasting influence of dispersal on the fate of rare alleles with small and large effects. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B) 267: 1315–1320.
Kawecki, T. J. (2003). Sex-biased dispersal and adaptation to marginal habitats. American Naturalist 162: 415–426.
Kawecki, T. J. (2004). Ecological and evolutionary consequences of source–sink population dynamics. In Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution of Metapopulations ( I. Hanski and O. E. Gaggiotti , eds.). Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, MA: 387–414.
Kawecki, T. J. (2008). Adaptation to marginal habitats. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39: 321–342.
Kawecki, T. J. , N. H. Barton and J. D. Fry (1997). Mutational collapse of fitness in marginal habitats and the evolution of ecological specialization. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 10: 407–429.
Kawecki, T. J. and R. D. Holt (2002). Evolutionary consequences of asymmetric dispersal rates. American Naturalist 160: 333–347.
Keddy, P. A. (1981). Experimental demography of the sand-dune annual, Cakile edentula, growing along an environmental gradient in Nova Scotia. Journal of Ecology 69: 615–630.
Keddy, P. A. (1982). Population ecology on an environmental gradient: Cakile edentula on a sand dune. Oecologia 52: 348–355.
Kierstead, H. and L. B. Slobodkin (1953). The size of water masses containing plankton blooms. Journal of Marine Research 12: 141–147.
Kirkpatrick, M. and N. H. Barton (1997). Evolution of a species’ range. American Naturalist 150: 1–23.
Lenormand, T. (2002). Gene flow and the limits to natural selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17: 183–189.
Levin, S. (1976). Spatial patterning and the structure of ecological communities. Lectures in Mathematics in the Life Sciences 8: 1–35.
LoFaro, T. and R. Gomulkiewicz (1999). Adaptation versus migration in demographically unstable populations. Journal of Mathematical Biology 38: 571–584.
Morris, D. W. and J. E. Diffendorfer (2004). Reciprocating dispersal by habitat-selecting white-footed mice. Oikos 107: 549–558.
Orr, H. A. and R. L. Unckless (2008). Population extinction and the genetics of adaptation. American Naturalist 172: 160–169.
Perron, G. G. , A. Gonzalez and A. Buckling (2007). Source–sink dynamics shape the evolution of antibiotic resistance and its pleiotropic fitness cost. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B) 274: 2351–2356.
Polechova, J. , N. Barton and G. Marion (2009). Species range: adaptation in space and time. American Naturalist 174: E186–E204.
Price, T. (2007). Speciation in Birds. Roberts & Co., Publishers, Greenwood Village, CO.
Proulx, S. R. (2002). Niche shifts and expansion due to sexual selection. Evolutionary Ecology Research 4: 351–369.
Pulliam, H. R. (1988). Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132: 652–661.
Pulliam, H. R. (2000). On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecology Letters 3: 349–361.
Ronce, O. and M. Kirkpatrick (2001). When sources become sinks: migrational meltdown in heterogeneous habitats. Evolution 55: 1520–1531.
Rousset, F. (1999). Reproductive value vs. sources and sinks. Oikos 86: 591–596.
Runge, J. P. , M. C. Runge and J. D. Nichols (2006). The role of local populations within a landscape context: defining and classifying sources and sinks. American Naturalist 167: 925–938.
Sexton, J. P. , P. J. McIntyre , A. L. Angert and K. J. Rice (2009). Evolution and ecology of species range limits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 40: 415–436.
Slatkin, M. (1985). Rare alleles as indicators of gene flow. Evolution 39: 53–65.
Tufto, J. (2001). Effects of releasing maladapted individuals: a demographic-evolutionary model. American Naturalist 158: 331–340.
Turner, J. R. G. and H. Y. Wong (2010). Why do species have a skin? Investigating mutational constraint with a fundamental population model. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 101: 213–227.
Watkinson, A. R. and W. J. Sutherland (1995). Sources, sinks and pseudo-sinks. Journal of Animal Ecology 64: 126–130.
Wiens, J. J. , D. D. Ackerly , A. P. Allen , B. L. Anacker , L. B. Buckley , H. V. Cornell , E. I. Damschen , T. J. Davies , J. A. Grytnes , S. P. Harrison , B. A. Hawkins , R. D. Holt , C. M. McCain and P. R. Stephens (2010). Niche conservatism as an emerging principle in ecology and conservation biology. Ecology Letters 13: 1310–1324.
Wiens, J. J. and C. H. Graham (2005). Niche conservatism: integrating evolution, ecology, and conservation biology. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 36: 519–539.
Willi, Y. , J. Van Buskirk and A. A. Hoffmann (2006). Limits to the adaptive potential of small populations. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37: 433–458.
Wilson J. B. and A. D. Agnew (1992). Positive-feedback switches in plant communities. Advances in Ecological Research 23: 263–336.