Ecology and Evolution Flashcards
physiological ecology
the study of an organism’s physiological response to its environment
Life history strategy: r-strategist
R-strategists “live” near the line of exponential growth r; often live in unstable environments; evolved to develop as many offspring as possible, ensuring that at least a few will survive their harsh environment; offspring are often small in size; do not depend on parents for long, they grow and start reproducing on their own quickly
Life history strategy: k-strategist
near the carrying capacity k on the population growth curve; under stable environment conditions; focusing their energy on generating a few, healthy, complex offspring that can receive ample care so that they go on to survive till adulthood;
Life history strategy
how organisms divide their resources into survival, growth, reproduction and parental care
neutral theory
most sequence variation within and among clades is driven by genetic drift acting on selectively neutral mutations, most mutations are deleterious and therefore are rapidly removed by selection, most non-deleterious mutations are neutral rather than beneficial, and will therefore tend to drift to fixation in populations
pseudoreplication
The use of inferential statistics to test for treatment effects with data from experiments where either treatment are not replicated (though samples may be) or replicates are not statistically independent.
types of pseudoreplication
simple, sacrificial, and temporal
simple pseudoreplication
samples are grouped together in a way that creates nonrandom differences between groups that don’t include ‘treatment effects. For example, two separate plots where all experimental organisms are in one plot, and all control are in the other
sacrificial pseudoreplication
data is pooled prior to statistical analyses or 2+ samples taken from each unit treated as independent replicates
temporal pseudoreplication
samples aren’t taken from experimental units (like in simple pseudoreplication) but sequentially, creating nonrandom differences between grouped samples
why non-native species behave differently in systems they’ve invaded compared to their native systems? theories/ideas
novel weapons hypothesis, enemy release hypothesis, propagule pressure, biotic resistance
enemy release hypothesis
invasive species are less impacted by enemies (e.g., herbivores) than native species, because in the new geographical location, the invasives species are freed from the parasites, pathogens, and predators that kept their growth in check in their native environment. For example: zebra mussels in North America. Fish and especially waterbirds in their native habitat in Eurasia keep them in check, but the organisms in North America did not coevolve with zebra mussels, and do not consume them at a high enough rate to control their population growth. Argument against: not all non-native organisms become invasive.
novel weapons hypothesis
some invasive species may be successful due to “unique allelopathic, defense, or antimicrobial biochemistry to which naïve native species are not adapted” (He, et al., 2009). Callaway and Ridenour, 2004 (proposed this hypothesis) suggest that “some exotics transform from native weaklings to invasive bullies by exuding biochemicals that are highly inhibitory [allelopathic] to plants or soil microbes in invaded communities, but relatively ineffective against natural neighbors that may have adapted over time. Example: some species were outcompeted by diffuse knapweed in its non native range compared to its home range, did experiments and found some chemical in knapweed roots that inhibited species not found in home range much more than those from home range (evolved tolerance). Argument against: little evidence.
propagule pressure
composite measure of the number of individuals of a species released into a region to which they are not native. It incorporates estimates of the absolute number of individuals involved in any one release event (propagule size) and the number of discrete release events (propagule number). Propagule pressure can be defined as the quality, quantity, and frequency of invading organisms (Groom, 2006). Propagule pressure is a key element to why some introduced species persist while others do not (Lockwood, 2005). Species introduced in large quantities and consistent quantities prove more likely to survive, whereas species introduced in small numbers with only a few release events are more likely to go extinct (Lockwood, 2005). Example: cheatgrass produces a lot of seeds, and also goes to seed a lot earlier than native plants, so it has a high propagule pressure.
biotic resistance hypothesis
Charles Elton (1958) predicts that species-rich native communities limit the niche space available to other species, and thus more diverse communities have greater biotic resistance to incoming non-native species. Example: non-native plant occurrence was negatively related to native plant richness across all community types and ecoregions, although the strength of biotic resistance varied across different ecological, anthropogenic and climatic contexts (Beaury, et al. 2020).
biodiversity
Biological diversity refers to the global variety of species and ecosystems and the ecological processes of which they are part, covering three components: genetic, species and ecosystem diversity
Latitudinal diversity gradient
The gradient involves high species’ numbers near the equator (at low latitudes) and lower numbers of species at high latitudes. Lack of consensus about why, but some likely theories are: increased solar energy increases net primary productivity; more stable and tolerable climate at lower latitudes, allows organisms to use their energy for reproduction instead of thermoregulation (ecological regulation hypothesis); effective evolutionary time - habitats with a long undisturbed evolutionary history will have greater diversity than habitats exposed to disturbances in evolutionary history, tropical conservation hypothesis states that higher latitudes have the capacity to have higher diversity but are younger and thus have not had the time to build higher diversity levels such as those found in lower latitudes; diversification rate hypothesis postulates that species rich clades diversify more rapidly
drivers of biodiversity
Latitudinal diversity gradient (+), niche filling (+), climate change (-), gene flow (+)
importance of biodiversity
maintain healthy ecosystems; decrease invasive species invasions; safety net when a species is lost, others can fill its role; high genetic diversity means higher ability to adapt to new environmental conditions
drivers of genetic diversity
mutation, novel recombination, and gene flow
genetic recombination
the exchange of genetic material between different organisms which leads to production of offspring with combinations of traits that differ from those found in either parent
evolutionary significant unit
a population of organisms that is considered distinct for purposes of conservation; often a species; often include: current geographic separation, genetic differentiation at neutral markers among related ESUs caused by past restriction of gene flow, or locally adapted phenotypic traits caused by differences in selection.
Pros and cons of conserving ecological and evolutionary processes, rather than preserving of specific phenotypic variants - Moritz (1999)
Can still help individual species, but focusing more on overall eco and evo processes until extinction rates begin to decline; gene flow (via connecting fragmented habitats) helps populations, especially small ones; increase genetic diversity; certain phenotypic variants may be well suited for their current environment, but if they don’t have sufficient underlying genetic diversity, they will not be able to adapt to environmental changes; however, may lose certain species that are needed, like keystone species, if they aren’t given enough individual attention
Types of direct interactions
competition, predation, parasitism, mutualism (not all)
Two forms of indirect interactions
interaction chains and interaction modifications
interaction chains (indirect interactions)
occurs when one species affects the abundance of a second species, which has an impact on a third species. For example, if a population of wolves increases predation on a population of deer, this could lead to an increase in a clover population, because there would be a decrease in consumption by the deer
interaction modifications (indirect interactions)
when the effect is on something other than abundance, such as behavior. Using a similar example, if a population of wolves influences a population of deer to shift their herd movements to avoid contact with the wolves (a change in behavior), this could lead to an increase in the clover population where the deer previously ranged
9 types of indirect interactions
–Keystone predation (one of most important)
–Apparent competition (one of most important)
Trophic cascades (also called tri-trophic interactions)
Exploitation competition
Indirect mutualism
Indirect commensalism
Habitat facilitation
Indirect defense (newly identified by Menge, 1995)
Apparent predation (newly identified by Menge, 1995)
keystone predation
occurs when a predator removes a prey species, leading to an increase in abundance of that prey’s competitor species. For example, if a wolf population caused the local extinction of a moose population, the deer population could increase, as the deer and moose compete for resources. Most common indirect interaction, according to Menge 1995
apparent competition
an increase in one species leading to the decrease in a second species due to an increase in a shared predator species. For example, an increase in a deer population leading to an increase in a wolf population could lead to a decrease in a moose population, as the wolves consume both deer and moose. In Menge’s research (1995), apparent competition was the second most common type of indirect effect
How important are indirect interactions, compared to direct interactions?
Debatable - Schoener (1993) determined in one study system that indirect interactions were responsible for about 25% of community changes, while Menge (1995) determined in a different study system that indirect interactions were responsible for 40-50% of the community changes. In fact, Menge went far enough to say that we can predict about half of the changes in a community structure can be attributed to indirect interactions. Of course, both direct and indirect interactions can be difficult to quantify, but especially indirect interactions. It is also very likely that, as in most ecological questions, the amount of impact from indirect interactions is context dependent. However, we can be certain that indirect interactions matter a great deal, possibly just as much as direct interactions, and thus cannot be overlooked
Less important/common types of indirect interactions
Trophic cascades are an increase in plant abundance due to predators controlling herbivore populations. Exploitation competition is the reduction in one predator population due to a reduction in its’ prey species, caused by consumption by a different predator species. Indirect mutualism is the mutual positive interaction of two predators consuming the competitors of each other’s prey. Indirect commensalism is similar to indirect mutualism, except that one of the predators is more of a generalist, and also consumes the other predator’s prey in addition to consuming the competitor of its prey. Habitat facilitation occurs when one species interacting with another species improves the habitat of a third species. Indirect defense occurs when competition between two species causes a reduction in one of them, which leads to a reduction in a third species that preys on one of the competing species. Alternatively, indirect defense also includes when an increase in a prey species causes an increase in a predator species, which leads to a decrease in a species also preyed upon by that predator. Apparent predation occurs when a non-prey species has an indirect positive effect on a consumer species, or a predator species has a negative effect on a non-prey species.
ecological hypotheses about propagule pressure
The ecological hypothesis between propagule pressure and invasion is the idea that invasive species will try to enter a new environment and fill an empty niche to gain ground within this new environment (empty niche hypothesis). After it has been established, it will then disperse out and begin invading surrounding areas thus increasing the propagule pressure. To combat this, endemic species will have biotic resistances to invasive species usually stemming from low niche vacancy and high local diversity (limiting similarity hypothesis).
metapopulation
“population of populations;” a group of spatially separated populations of the same species which have gene flow, or at least the possibility of gene flow between them.
What are the factors that characterize metapopulations, and what conditions need to be satisfied in order for metapopulations to persist?
balance between local colonizations and extinctions; suitable habitat patches (even unoccupied ones); replacement condition (colonizations must be greater than extinctions); large and well-connected networks of populations; habitat patches close enough for migration to occur
Describe what data you would collect to test whether populations in a fragmented habitat were behaving as a metapopulation.
Genetic samples; Track migration events; Survey landscape to identify habitat patches; Spatial data to determine connectivity of patches; Incidence function model (IFM) to model metapopulation dynamics
Example of metapopulation
Glanville fritillary butterfly in Finland (Hanski, 2011), highly fragmented heterogeneous environment in the Åland Islands in Finland. 4,000 small, dry meadows. Small local populations with small effective population sizes because most are siblings, which are prone to local extinction, and compensated for by the establishment of new populations by dispersing butterflies, and the metapopulation has persisted in a balance between stochastic local extinctions and recolonizations. Entire metapopulation has remained relatively stable over the past 20 years.
Why are small populations more likely to go extinct?
Genetic drift; Environmental stochastic events; Inbreeding depression; deleterious alleles rising to fixation; Genetic hetero- and homozygosity; Gene flow (lack of)
Factors that limit geographic ranges of species
Environmental conditions; lack of resources; organisms unable to adapt to all conditions at once; ability to disperse/migrate; gene flow knocking off adaptive peak
Batesian mimicry (dishonest signal)
phenomenon in which members of a palatable species or a group of such species, gain protection from predation by resembling or mimicking the defensive signaling of an unpalatable or defended species or of a group of defended species.
The problem with reliability, or honest vs dishonest signals
Signals may be honest, conveying information which usefully increases the fitness of the receiver, or dishonest. An individual can cheat by giving a dishonest signal, which might briefly benefit that signaller, at the risk of undermining the signalling system for the whole population. With sexual selection, the cheater may have a slight increase in fitness by deceiving their mate and reproducing, but if they are not actually very fit and their signal is dishonest, it will decrease the fitness of their population. In a non-sexual selection situation, such as batesian mimicry, eventually the dishonest signals may swamp out the honest signals, and the signal itself will lose meaning, thus rendering them useless.
density-dependent population regulation examples
Examples: limited resources and competition (-); attract more predation (-); diseases/parasites (-); emigration (-); Allee effect = better mate finding, environmental conditioning, and group defense against predators (+). These effects tend to regulate the population around the carrying capacity.
density-independent population regulation
Example: environmental and stochastic events, such as natural disasters, severe weather, and pollution (-). Density-dependent limiting factors, density-independent limiting factors alone can’t keep a population at constant levels. That’s because their strength doesn’t depend on the size of the population, so they don’t make a “correction” when the population size gets too large. Instead, they may lead to erratic, abrupt shifts in population size. Small populations may be at risk of getting wiped out by sporadic, density-independent events
What are the factors that appear to be most important in regulating wild populations?
context-dependent. In most cases, density-dependent factors are more common/important. However, density-independent regulation can be more important in certain populations, such as coral reefs dying due to ocean acidification.
population regulation
the ecological processes (biotic and abiotic factors) by which the growth of populations is limited due to the effects on birth and death rates.
Is density-dependent population regulation a “law” of ecology?
No, according to Turchin 2001; Always fluctuations, cannot be reliably predicted always (affected by factors like abiotic); May never even reach carrying capacity - Not always due to a limited resource, can be due to competition, predation, etc. Turchin considered some other ideas in population ecology to be laws, however, such as the law of exponential growth, which is logically very similar to certain laws of physics (Newton’s law of inertia, for example, is almost a direct analogue of exponential growth).
Lotka-Volterra equations
a pair of first-order nonlinear differential equations, frequently used to describe the dynamics of biological systems in which two species interact, one as a predator and the other as prey
context-dependent species interactions
when the sign (positive or negative effect) or magnitude (weak or strong effect) of an interaction changes, depending on the biotic or abiotic context
context-dependent species interactions
when the sign (positive or negative effect) or magnitude (weak or strong effect) of an interaction changes, depending on the biotic or abiotic context
context dependence of predation
The sign of this interaction is generally positive for the predator, and negative for the prey, and is the least likely of the three interaction types to be context-dependent, which is intuitive, as predation almost always benefits the predator and hurts the prey. According to Chamberlain, context-dependence in sign can occur when predation has no effect on prey in one context, and a negative effect on prey in another context. Predation can also cause a positive effect on the prey’s competitors, so it can be a positive interaction on the species level, rather than the individual level. Magnitude is context-dependent for predation, but was not significantly different between the three interaction types (Chamberlain, 2014). Predation varied the least overall of the three interaction types.
context dependence of competition
These interactions tend to have a negative impact on both, due to a reduction in resources, but can also have a neutral impact on one organism and a negative impact on the other. Relative to predation and mutualism, competition was more likely than predation to change sign, but less likely than mutualism. Again, context-dependency in magnitude was not significantly different between the three interaction types.
context dependence of mutualism
the sign is most likely to be context-dependent in mutualism interactions. According to Chamberlain, this is likely because mutualisms have weaker interaction strengths on average, leading to greater variation. Mutualisms also have more complicated energy transfers than antagonistic interactions like predation and competition; the exchange of resources comes with both costs and benefits for each party. This leaves a lot of room for variation, especially in different contexts.
What factors drive the variable outcomes of interactions? (context dependence)
the type of interaction heavily influences how context-dependent that interaction is. Other factors include abiotic factors, spatial gradients, temporal gradients, and third-party involvement. Abiotic gradients include environmental variation, such as soil type, precipitation, and temperature. The influence of spatial gradients was measured by including studies done across different geographical sites. The influence of temporal gradients was measured by including studies with data recorded at different points across time. The influence of third-party involvement was measured by considering differences when there was a presence or absence of third-party species. Each of these factors has at least a small influence on how context-dependent interactions are. For example, abiotic gradients had the largest effect on predation relative to competition and mutualism. (Chamberlain, 2014). As another example, while still having a small influence, third-party interactions had the least effect on any of the interaction types compared to the other factors. Though not included in Chamberlain’s meta-analysis, species abundance and relative frequencies are also likely to influence context-dependence of interactions.
What are the broader consequences or implications of context-dependent outcomes in species interactions?
variation in interaction outcomes can affect population growth and community structures, such as food webs and overall stability. Furthermore, it is important to consider how context-dependent an interaction is in order to fully understand the interaction. The likelihood of an interaction to change sign or magnitude from one context to another is crucial to know. If an interaction is context-dependent, then any results about the outcomes of that interaction cannot necessarily be trusted if it is only studied in a limited context. Therefore, context-dependence must be considered when designing a research project and interpreting the results.
Origin of species-level diversity
Biological diversification is regulated through a combination of availability of niche space and developmental constraints. Rapid diversification within a lineage, also called radiation, can occur when niche space suddenly becomes available, due to emergence of new niches or extirpation of niche occupants.
Maintenance of species-level diversity
Competitive exclusion (two species cannot coexist on one limiting resource) & limiting similarity (there is a minimum niche difference between two competing species that allows them to coexist); Niche partitioning (natural selection (through competition and limited resources) drives competing species to occupy slightly different niche space); Sexual preference and pre and post-reproductive barriers (reinforce speciation and prevent hybridization); Dispersal and recruitment limitation (Some species may fail to reach or establish in all possible sites where niche conditions are favorable simply due to stochasticity in dispersal and recruitment. Thus, the perfectly adapted species may fail to inhabit niches at some sites, and competitive exclusion can be infinitely delayed)
Distribution of species-level diversity
latitudinal diversity gradient, geographic barriers, environmental gradients
island biogeography
ecological and evolutionary processes that regulate species richness in isolated areas, such as islands by balancing the gain and loss of species
island biogeography
ecological and evolutionary processes that regulate species richness in isolated areas, such as islands by balancing the gain and loss of species
How distance of the island from the mainland and the size of the island interact with colonization and extinction rates to predict species richness
when there is an addition of the number of species on an island, the island’s immigration rate of new species will decrease while the extinction rate of resident species will increase. MacArthur and Wilson thus assume that there will be an equilibrial point where the immigration rate equals the extinction rate. They further hypothesize that an increase in island size will lower extinction curves while a decrease in distance between the island and the source region will raise immigration curves. Since the intersection of immigration and extinction rate curves determines the species number, the authors predict that larger islands will have more species than smaller islands (assuming these islands are comparably isolated) and isolated islands will have fewer species than islands more proximal to source regions (assuming these islands are equally large)