Environmentally constrained mutation and adaptive evolution in Salmonella

The relationship between environment and mutation is complex [1]. Claims of Lamarkian mutation [2] have proved unfounded [3], [4] and [5]; it is apparent, however, that the external environment can influence the generation of heritable variation, through either direct effects on DNA sequence [6] or DNA maintenance and copying mechanisms [7], [8], [9] and [10], or as a consequence of evolutionary processes [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. The spectrum of mutational events subject to environmental influence is unknown [6] and precisely how environmental signals modulate mutation is unclear. Evidence from bacteria suggests that a transient recombination-dependent hypermutational state can be induced by starvation [5]. It is also apparent that chnages in the mutability of specific loci can be influenced by alterations in DNA topology [10] and [17]. Here we describe a remarkable instance of adaptive evolution in Salmonella which is caused by a mutation that occurs in intermediate-strength osmotic environments. We show that the mutation is not ‘directed’ and describe its genetic basis. We also present compelling evidence in support of the hypothesis that the mutational event is constrained by signals transmitted from the external environment via changes in the activity of DNA gyrase.     

A conceptual framework for comparing species assemblages in native and exotic habitats

Exotic (nonnative) species are known to have a wide variety of impacts on native biota. One potential set of impacts that have been poorly studied are the effects of replacing native habitat-providing species with exotic ones, e.g. when native trees that compose a woodland are replaced by an exotic tree plantation. Here we develop a graphical model that can be used to explore how multiple taxonomic components (such as birds, mammals and plants) respond to such changes. We suggest that four categorical responses are possible, with respect to changes in species richness (or other quantitative measures) of taxonomic groups within species assemblages. First, that each taxonomic group compared between habitats will be relatively unchanged, e.g. have equivalent values of species richness. Second, that a decrease (for example in species richness) of one group will be compensated for by an increase (in species richness) of another group. Third, that one or more groups will decrease without any compensated increases in other groups. Fourth, that one or more groups will increase without any compensated decreases in other groups. We provide empirical support for 3 of these 4 responses, with respect to measures of species richness, with much evidence for equivalency between habitats. These types of comparisons should provide a valuable tool for evaluating 1) the efficacy of environmental mitigation efforts that artificially create or restore habitats and 2) the types of changes that have occurred over time or across space as native habitat-producing species are replaced by exotic ones. Finally, this conceptual framework should help to broaden the range of possible changes considered by ecologists who study the impacts of exotic species.     

Does Mother Nature really prefer rare species or are log‐left‐skewed SADs a sampling artefact?

Intensively sampled species abundance distributions (SADs) show left‐skew on a log scale. That is, there are too many rare species to fit a lognormal distribution. I propose that this log‐left‐skew might be a sampling artefact. Monte Carlo simulations show that taking progressively larger samples from a log‐unskewed distribution (such as the lognormal) causes log‐skew to decrease asymptotically (move towards ?∞) until it reaches the level of the underlying distribution (zero in this case). In contrast, accumulating certain types of repeated small samples results in a log‐skew that becomes progressively more log‐left‐skewed to a level well beyond the underlying distribution. These repeated samples correspond to samples from the same site over many years or from many sites in 1 year. Data from empirical datasets show that log‐skew generally goes from positive (right‐skewed) to negative (left‐skewed) as the number of temporally or spatially replicated samples increases. This suggests caution when interpreting log‐left‐skew as a pattern that needs biological interpretation.     

Sedimentation in fluvial and lacustrine environments

Sedimentation in rivers is dominated by a complex set of physical processes, associated with the unidirectional flow of water. Variations in these processes give rise to different fluvial channel types, whose character can commonly be recognised in the ancient record. Chemical and biological processes are comparatively unimportant in fluvial sedimentation. In contrast, physical, chemical or biological processes can each dominate sedimentation in lakes. Physical (clastic) deposition dominates in high-latitude and mountain lakes (in which chemical and biological activity are low), and in lakes with high relief of the drainage basin and lake floor. Its variety reflects a range of processes influenced by river inflow, wave and current action, thermal and density effects. Economic benefits from the study of lake and river sedimentation include both resource and environmental aspects. An example is given of a mercury pollution study in a fluvial ecosystem. It shows that return to background levels can take place within a relatively short interval after cessation of pollutant input.