Intraspecific genetic variation and competition interact to influence niche expansion

Theory and empirical evidence show that intraspecific competition can drive selection favouring the use of novel resources (i.e. niche expansion). The evolutionary response to such selection depends on genetic variation for resource use. However, while genetic variation might facilitate niche expansion, genetically diverse groups may also experience weaker competition, reducing density-dependent selection on resource use. Therefore, genetic variation for fitness on different resources could directly facilitate, or indirectly retard, niche expansion. To test these alternatives, we factorially manipulated both the degree of genetic variation and population density in flour beetles (Tribolium castaneum) exposed to both novel and familiar food resources. Using stable carbon isotope analysis, we measured temporal change and individual variation in beetle diet across eight generations. Intraspecific competition and genetic variation acted on different components of niche evolution: competition facilitated niche expansion, while genetic variation increased individual variation in niche use. In addition, genetic variation and competition together facilitated niche expansion, but all these impacts were temporally variable. Thus, we show that the interaction between genetic variation and competition can also determine niche evolution at different time scales.     

Trait plasticity alters the range of possible coexistence conditions in a competition–colonisation trade‐off

Most of the classical theory on species coexistence has been based on species‐level competitive trade‐offs. However, it is becoming apparent that plant species display high levels of trait plasticity. The implications of this plasticity are almost completely unknown for most coexistence theory. Here, we model a competition–colonisation trade‐off and incorporate trait plasticity to evaluate its effects on coexistence. Our simulations show that the classic competition–colonisation trade‐off is highly sensitive to environmental circumstances, and coexistence only occurs in narrow ranges of conditions. The inclusion of plasticity, which allows shifts in competitive hierarchies across the landscape, leads to coexistence across a much broader range of competitive and environmental conditions including disturbance levels, the magnitude of competitive differences between species, and landscape spatial patterning. Plasticity also increases the number of species that persist in simulations of multispecies assemblages. Plasticity may generally increase the robustness of coexistence mechanisms and be an important component of scaling coexistence theory to higher diversity communities.     

A physiological analogy of the niche for projecting the potential distribution of plants

Aim  To develop a physiologically based model of the plant niche for use in species distribution modelling. Location  Europe. Methods  We link the Thornley transport resistance (TTR) model with functions which describe how the TTR’s model parameters are influenced by abiotic environmental factors. The TTR model considers how carbon and nutrient uptake, and the allocation of these assimilates, influence growth. We use indirect statistical methods to estimate the model parameters from a high resolution data set on tree distribution for 22 European tree species. Results  We infer, from distribution data and abiotic forcing data, the physiological niche dimensions of 22 European tree species. We found that the model fits were reasonable (AUC: 0.79–0.964). The projected distributions were characterized by a false positive rate of 0.19 and a false negative rate 0.12. The fitted models are used to generate projections of the environmental factors that limit the range boundaries of the study species. Main conclusions  We show that physiological models can be used to derive physiological niche dimensions from species distribution data. Future work should focus on including prior information on physiological rates into the parameter estimation process. Application of the TTR model to species distribution modelling suggests new avenues for establishing explicit links between distribution and physiology, and for generating hypotheses about how ecophysiological processes influence the distribution of plants.     

Dispersal ability rather than ecological tolerance drives differences in range size between lentic and lotic water beetles (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae)

Aim In aquatic ecosystems, standing (lentic) and running (lotic) waters differ fundamentally in their stability and persistence, shaping the comparative population genetic structure, geographical range size and speciation rates of lentic versus lotic lineages. While the drivers of this pattern remain incompletely understood, the suite of traits making up the ability of a species to establish new populations is instrumental in determining such differences. Here we explore the degree to which the association between habitat type and geographical range size results from differences in dispersal ability or fundamental niche breadth in the members of the Enochrus bicolor complex, an aquatic beetle clade with species across the lentic–lotic divide. Location Western Mediterranean, with a special focus on North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and Sicily. Methods DNA sequences for four loci were obtained from species of the E. bicolor complex and analysed using phylogenetic inference. Dispersal and establishment abilities were assessed in lentic–lotic species pairs of the complex, using flight wing morphometrics and thermal tolerance ranges as surrogates, respectively. Results There were clear differences in range size between the lotic and lentic taxa of the complex, which appears to have had a lotic origin with two transitions to standing waters. Only small differences were observed in temperature tolerance and acclimation ability between the two lotic–lentic sister species studied. By contrast, wing morphometrics revealed clear, consistent differences between lotic and lentic Enochrus species pairs, the latter having a higher dispersal capacity. Main conclusions We hypothesize that there have been two habitat shifts from lotic to lentic waters, which have allowed marked expansions in geographical range size in western Mediterranean species of the E. bicolor complex. Differences in dispersal rather than in establishment ability appear to underlie differences in geographical range extent, as transitions to lentic waters were associated with changes in wing morphology, but not in thermal tolerance range. In this lineage of water beetles, selection for dispersal in geologically short‐lived lentic systems has driven the evolution of larger range sizes in lentic taxa compared with those of their lotic relatives.     

Meaning in Nature: Organic Manufacture?

The paper examines Marcello Barbieri’s (2007) Introduction to Biosemiotics. Highlighting debate within the biosemiotic community, it focuses on what the volume offers to those who explain human intellect in relation to what Turing called our ‘physical powers.’ In scrutinising the basis of world-modelling, parallels and contrasts are drawn with other work on embodied-embedded cognition. Models dominate biology. Is this a qualitative fact or does it point to biomechanisms? In evaluating the 18 contributions, it is suggested that the answers will shape the field. First, they will decide if biochemistry and explanatory reduction can be synergised by biosemantics. Second, they will show if our intellectual powers arise from biology. Does thinking use—not a language faculty—but what Marko? and colleagues call semiosis by the living? Resolution of such issues, it is suggested, can change how we view cognition. Above all, if the biomechanists win the day, cultural models can be regarded as extending natural meaning. On such a view, biomechanisms prompt us to act and perceive as we model our own natural models. This fits Craik’s vision: intellect gives us the alphanumerical ‘symbols’ that allow thoughts to have objective validity. For the biomechanist, this is explained—not by brains alone—but, rather, by acting under the constraints of historically extended sensoria.