john hawks weblog

paleoanthropology, genetics and evolution

rapid evolution

  • Rapid adaptation to captivity in salmon

    Wed, 2011-12-21 13:15 -- John Hawks

    I just want to note this study by Mark Christie and colleagues [1] because it is such a clear demonstration of powerful selection working on standing variants in association with domestication. Rachel Newer has a good description of the study in the New York Times Green blog. Here's the study's abstract:

    We used a multigenerational pedigree analysis to demonstrate that domestication selection can explain the precipitous decline in fitness observed in hatchery steelhead released into the Hood River in Oregon. After returning from the ocean, wild-born and first-generation hatchery fish were used as broodstock in the hatchery, and their offspring were released into the wild as smolts. First-generation hatchery fish had nearly double the lifetime reproductive success (measured as the number of returning adult offspring) when spawned in captivity compared with wild fish spawned under identical conditions, which is a clear demonstration of adaptation to captivity. We also documented a tradeoff among the wild-born broodstock: Those with the greatest fitness in a captive environment produced offspring that performed the worst in the wild. Specifically, captive-born individuals with five (the median) or more returning siblings (i.e., offspring of successful broodstock) averaged 0.62 returning offspring in the wild, whereas captive-born individuals with less than five siblings averaged 2.05 returning offspring in the wild. These results demonstrate that a single generation in captivity can result in a substantial response to selection on traits that are beneficial in captivity but severely maladaptive in the wild.

    We have few cases of new or recent domestication, so this kind of experiment is hard to do in other contexts. Also, in this case the selection is "natural-looking", imposed by the captive environment in some way, instead of directly applied by culling undesirable individuals. In most cases of mammal domestication, the wild relatives are either now vanishingly rare, or have been potentially influenced by introgression from the domesticated population. But I think it's reasonable to hypothesize that the additive variation in behavioral traits in wild populations is large enough to have allowed early mammalian domesticates like dogs and horses to adapt to captivity almost as fast as the salmon. Notice that the key element here is high reproduction in captivity, and in the salmon that trait covaries negatively with success in the wild.

    Domestication may not have been a "hump" that humans brought wild animal populations over; it may have been a valley that trapped once-wild animals into dependence on humans.


    References

    1. Christie MR, Marine ML, French RA, and Blouin MS. 2011. Genetic adaptation to captivity can occur in a single generation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
  • Selection incidental to laboratory life

    Wed, 2010-04-14 17:00 -- John Hawks

    Olivia Judson's column is a very useful essay on selection incidental to laboratory life for model organisms ("Laboratory Life"). She discusses fruit flies and wasps, but I'll give you a passage about mice:

    Mice show a host of changes, too. Compared to their wild relations, laboratory mice are typically bigger, more docile, reach sexual maturity earlier and die younger. Some of these changes can appear quickly: one study found that the ability to reproduce later in life declined within 10 generations of the mice being bred in the laboratory.

    Intriguingly, laboratory mice also have longer telomeres than wild mice. (Telomeres are the segments of DNA at the ends of chromosomes; they are thought to play a role in aging and cancer.) Since no one is deliberately breeding mice for extra-long telomeres, this must arise as some consequence of laboratory life. But what?

    Take away predators and foraging requirements, and select for fecundity and docility. Lots of things can happen, not all good.

  • Dude, it's called "relaxed selection"

    Thu, 2009-07-02 18:53 -- John Hawks

    This is a doofy story running on MSNBC without an author byline: "Shrinking of Scottish sheep tied to warming". Why do I say "doofy"? Take a look at the way it describes natural selection:

    The study upends the belief that natural selection is a dominant feature of evolution, noting that climate can trump that card.

    "According to classic evolutionary theory," [study author Tim] Coulson added, the sheep "should have been getting bigger, because larger sheep tend to be more likely to survive and reproduce than smaller ones, and offspring tend to resemble their parents."

    Yes, and classic evolutionary theory also says that if you stop killing the small ones, the population average is going to get smaller. Duh. A reduction will happen in a single generation as small individuals remain to become adults who would otherwise have been removed. The reduction may continue for a few generations, either by chance, or by changing the environmental component of variance in size. It can go on for many generations if there is a heritable component to size that confers a disadvantage on the largest individuals. Plausibly, larger individuals take longer to develop, there may be advantages to smaller size in females that are no longer opposed as strongly by antagonistic selection for larger size in males, or any number of other possibilities.

    Has climate "trumped natural selection"? No. Cold and consequent food scarcity in this case is one cause of selection (killing small lambs). Possibly, one or more causes of stabilizing selection remain in force (maybe longer development time, but there are other possibilities). Or maybe not. Climate change has caused a change in the pattern of selection, by relaxing selection against small individuals who would otherwise have died from food scarcity.

    The way the article describes selection is an old-time fallacy -- "survival of the fittest" is recast as "survival of the strongest", where strongest means "biggest". If the small are somehow fail to be eliminated, then natural selection is failing at its work. It's the eugenic fallacy, brought to 21st century climate change. It makes an eye-catching headline -- "Climate Change Overpowers Natural Selection". But it's false.

    A more accurate headline would be "Wee Lambs, Once Doomed to Starve, Saved by Climate Change"

    I happen to have been reading some of the earlier research on these sheep, so I know that the work is interesting because researchers actually know about the fitness outcomes for individuals across their study duration. The observed fitness outcomes indicate that larger individuals have more offspring within each generation, but the population nevertheless became smaller over time. That comes down to viability of small young individuals and the non-heritable (environmental) component of variance in size, in a fairly complicated way. I'll revisit the paper later to describe the study more fully. I just wanted to point out that this news story gets it totally wrong. Climate change is one of the big causes of the pattern of natural selection, it doesn't magically repeal it.

Subscribe to rapid evolution

Neandertals

For years, I've worked on their bones. Now I'm working on their genes. Read more about the science studying these ancient people.

Denisova

From a finger bone of an ancient human came the record of a completely unexpected population. My lab is working on the science of the Denisova genome.

Acceleration

The advent of agriculture caused natural selection to speed up greatly in humans. We're uncovering some of the ways that populations have rapidly changed during the last 10,000 years.

Malapa

Just outside Johannesburg, the Malapa site is producing some of the most exciting finds in human evolution. This site is the headquarters of the Malapa Soft Tissue Project.