The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
Selection in Nature: Experimental Manipulations of Natural Populations1
1 Department of Biology, University of California, Riverside, California 92521
2 Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
Numerous studies have documented evolution by natural selection in natural populations, but few are genuine selection experiments that are designed and then executed in nature. We will focus on these few cases to illustrate what can be learned from field selection experiments alone or field and laboratory selection experiments together that cannot be learned from laboratory experiments alone. Both types of study allow us to evaluate cause and effect relationships because a planned experiment can be accompanied by a more direct evaluation of the factors that cause evolution. A unique benefit of field experiments is that they give us the opportunity to measure the rate and magnitude of selection in nature. We have found that this rate is far greater than one might imagine based on observations of the fossil record. A combination of field and laboratory selection experiments has revealed the importance of population size and structure in shaping the genetics of adaptation. For example, laboratory selection experiments on insecticide resistance tend to attain resistance though polygenic inheritance. The evolution of insecticide resistance in nature often eventually yields to single genes of large effect that are rare but, once they arise, represent a higher fitness solution to resistance and spread among populations. Finally, field studies enable us to test evolutionary theory in a context in which all of the tradeoffs associated with a trait are realized; in the laboratory, organisms may be shielded from the fitness tradeoffs associated with the evolution of a trait. For example, we have compared the patterns of senescence in guppies from high and low mortality rate environments in the laboratory and in the field. In the laboratory, guppies from high predation environments had delayed senescence relative to those from low predation environments. In the field the apparent relationship is the opposite. One hypothesis for this difference is that a tradeoff associated with the evolution of the high predation life history is a decrease in the investment in the immune system. Such a sacrifice would be evident in nature where there is exposure to disease and parasites but less so in the laboratory, which is relatively disease and parasite free.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K. A. Hughes More than one way to blanch a lizard PNAS, February 2, 2010; 107(5): 1815 - 1816. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. G. Drake and C. P. Klingenberg The pace of morphological change: historical transformation of skull shape in St Bernard dogs Proc R Soc B, January 7, 2008; 275(1630): 71 - 76. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. C. Urban Risky prey behavior evolves in risky habitats PNAS, September 4, 2007; 104(36): 14377 - 14382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. G. Swallow and T. Garland Jr. Selection Experiments as a Tool in Evolutionary and Comparative Physiology: Insights into Complex Traits--an Introduction to the Symposium Integr. Comp. Biol., June 1, 2005; 45(3): 387 - 390. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|