Inappropriate analysis does not reveal the ecological causes of evolution of stickleback armour: a critique of Spence et al. 2013

In a recent paper in this journal, Spence et al. (2013) sought to identify the ecological causes of morphological evolution in three‐spined sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus, by examining phenotypic and environmental variation between populations on the island of North Uist, Scotland. However, by using simple qualitative assessments of phenotype and inappropriate measures of environmental variation, Spence et al. have come to a conclusion that is diametrically opposite to that which we have arrived at in studying the same populations. Our criticisms of their paper are threefold: (1) using a binomial qualitative measure of the variation in stickleback armour (“low” versus “minimal” (i.e., “normal” low‐plated freshwater sticklebacks versus spineless and/or plateless fish)) does not represent the full range of phenotypes that can be described by quantitative measures of the individual elements of armour. (2) Their use of unspecified test kits, with a probable accuracy of 4 ppm, may not be accurate in the range of water chemistry on North Uist (1 to 30 ppm calcium). (3) Their qualitative assessment of the abundance of brown trout Salmo trutta as the major predator of sticklebacks does not accurately describe the variation in brown trout abundance that is revealed by catch‐per‐unit‐effort statistics. Repeating Spence et al.'s analysis using our own measurements, we find, in direct contradiction to them, that variation in stickleback bony armour is strongly correlated with variation in trout abundance, and unrelated to variation in the concentration of calcium in the lochs in which they live. Field studies in ecology and evolution seldom address the same question in the same system at the same time, and it is salutary that in this rare instance two such studies arrived at diametrically opposite answers.