Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Contrasting effects of environment and genetics generate a continuum of parallel evolution

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 1, Article number: 0158 (2017) Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Parallel evolution of similar traits by independent populations in similar environments is considered strong evidence for adaptation by natural selection. Often, however, replicate populations in similar environments do not all evolve in the same way, thus deviating from any single, predominant outcome of evolution. This variation might arise from non-adaptive, population-specific effects of genetic drift, gene flow or limited genetic variation. Alternatively, these deviations from parallel evolution might also reflect predictable adaptation to cryptic environmental heterogeneity within discrete habitat categories. Here, we show that deviations from parallel evolution are the consequence of environmental variation within habitats combined with variation in gene flow. Threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) in adjoining lake and stream habitats (a lake–stream ‘pair’) diverge phenotypically, yet the direction and magnitude of this divergence is not always fully parallel among 16 replicate pairs. We found that the multivariate direction of lake–stream morphological divergence was less parallel between pairs whose environmental differences were less parallel. Thus, environmental heterogeneity among lake–stream pairs contributes to deviations from parallel evolution. Additionally, likely genomic targets of selection were more parallel between environmentally more similar pairs. In contrast, variation in the magnitude of lake–stream divergence (independent of direction) was better explained by differences in lake–stream gene flow; pairs with greater lake–stream gene flow were less morphologically diverged. Thus, both adaptive and non-adaptive processes work concurrently to generate a continuum of parallel evolution across lake–stream stickleback population pairs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Variation in the extent of parallel evolution among individual phenotypic traits, each tested separately.
Figure 2: Calculation of L, ΔL and θ.
Figure 3: Replicate lake–stream pairs exhibit variation in extent of parallel divergence.
Figure 4: Comparisons among 16 pairs reveal that deviations from parallel phenotypic divergence are correlated with both environmental (first column) and genetic (second column) deviations from parallel.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Colosimo, P. F. et al. Widespread parallel evolution in sticklebacks by repeated fixation of ectodysplasin alleles. Science 307, 1928–1933 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Losos, J. B., Jackman, T. R., Larson, A., de Queiroz, K. & Rodriguez Schettino, L. Contingency and determinism in replicated adaptive radiations of island lizards. Science 279, 2115–2118 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Langerhans, R. B. & DeWitt, T. J. Shared and unique features of evolutionary diversification. Am. Nat. 164, 335–349 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nosil, P., Crespi, B. J. & Sandoval, C. P. Host-plant adaptation drives the parallel evolution of reproductive isolation. Nature 417, 440–443 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Roda, F. et al. Genomic evidence for the parallel evolution of coastal forms in the Senecio lautus complex. Mol. Ecol. 22, 2941–2952 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schluter, D., Clifford, E. A., Nemethy, M. & McKinnon, J. S. Parallel evolution and inheritance of quantitative traits. Am. Nat. 163, 809–822 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Huss, M., Howeth, J. G., Osterman, J. I. & Post, D. M. Intraspecific phenotypic variation among alewife populations drives parallel phenotypic shifts in bluegill. Proc. Biol. Sci. 281, 20140275 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McPhail, J. D. Ecology and evolution of sympatric sticklebacks (Gasterosteus): origin of the species pairs. Can. J. Zool. 71, 515–523 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson, L. S. & Taylor, E. B. The distribution of divergent mitochondrial DNA lineages of threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) in the northeastern Pacific Basin: post-glacial dispersal and lake accessibility. J. Biogeogr. 31, 1073–1083 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Caldera, E. J. & Bolnick, D. I. Effects of colonization history and landscape structure on genetic variation within and among threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) populations in a single watershed. Evol. Ecol. Res. 10, 575–598 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Deagle, B. E. et al. Population genomics of parallel phenotypic evolution in stickleback across stream–lake ecological transitions. Proc. Biol. Sci. 279, 1277–1286 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Deagle, B. E., Jones, F. C., Absher, D. M., Kingsley, D. M. & Reimchen, T. E. Phylogeography and adaptation genetics of stickleback from the Haida Gwaii archipelago revealed using genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping. Mol. Ecol. 22, 1917–1932 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaeuffer, R., Peichel, C. L., Bolnick, D. I. & Hendry, A. P. Parallel and nonparallel aspects of ecological, phenotypic, and genetic divergence across replicate population pairs of lake and stream stickleback. Evolution 66, 402–218 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Berner, D., Adams, D. C., Grandchamp, A.-C. & Hendry, A. P. Natural selection drives patterns of lake–stream divergence in stickleback foraging morphology. J. Evol. Biol. 21, 1653–1665 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mahler, D. L., Ingram, T., Revell, L. J. & Losos, J. B. Exceptional convergence on the macroevolutionary landscape in island lizard radiations. Science 341, 292–295 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Marchinko, K. B., Matthews, B., Arnegard, M. E., Rogers, S. M. & Schluter, D. Maintenance of a genetic polymorphism with disruptive natural selection in stickleback. Curr. Biol. 24, 1289–1292 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kitano, J. et al. Reverse evolution of armor plates in the threespine stickleback. Curr. Biol. 18, 769–774 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bańbura, J. Lateral plate morph differentiation of freshwater and marine populations of the three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, in Poland. J. Fish Biol. 44, 773–783 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Leinonen, T., McCairns, R. J. S., Herczeg, G. & Merilä, J. Multiple evolutionary pathways to decreased lateral plate coverage in freshwater threespine sticklebacks. Evolution 66, 3866–3875 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gould, S. J. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (W. W. Norton & Co., 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nosil, P. & Crespi, B. J. Does gene flow constrain adaptive divergence or vice versa? A test using ecomorphology and sexual isolation in Timema cristinae walking-sticks. Evolution 58, 102–112 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kolbe, J. J., Leal, M., Schoener, T. W., Spiller, D. A. & Losos, J. B. Founder effects persist despite adaptive differentiation: a field experiment with lizards. Science 335, 1086–1089 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lucek, K., Lemoine, M. & Seehausen, O. Contemporary ecotypic divergence during a recent range expansion was facilitated by adaptive introgression. J. Evol. Biol. 27, 2233–2248 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Theis, A., Ronco, F., Indermaur, A., Salzburger, W. & Egger, B. Adaptive divergence between lake and stream populations of an East African cichlid fish. Mol. Ecol. 23, 5304–5322 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Berner, D., Grandchamp, A.-C. & Hendry, A. P. Variable progress toward ecological speciation in parapatry: stickleback across eight lake-stream transitions. Evolution 63, 1740–1753 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hanifin, C. T., Brodie, E. D. & Brodie, E. D. Phenotypic mismatches reveal escape from arms-race coevolution. PLoS Biol. 6, e60 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Heinen, J. L. et al. Environmental drivers of demographics, habitat use, and behavior during a post-Pleistocene radiation of Bahamas mosquitofish (Gambusia hubbsi). Evol. Ecol. 27, 971–991 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ravinet, M., Prodöhl, P. A. & Harrod, C. Parallel and nonparallel ecological, morphological and genetic divergence in lake-stream stickleback from a single catchment. J. Evol. Biol. 26, 186–204 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Adams, D. C. & Collyer, M. L. A general framework for the analysis of phenotypic trajectories in evolutionary studies. Evolution 63, 1143–1154 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hendry, A. P. & Taylor, E. B. How much of the variation in adaptive divergence can be explained by gene flow? An evaluation using lake-stream stickleback pairs. Evolution 58, 2319–2331 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Peterson, B. K., Weber, J. N., Kay, E. H., Fisher, H. S. & Hoekstra, H. E. Double digest RADseq: an inexpensive method for de novo SNP discovery and genotyping in model and non-model species. PLoS ONE 7, e37135 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Oke, K. B. et al. Does plasticity enhance or dampen phenotypic parallelism? A test with three lake-stream stickleback pairs. J. Evol. Biol. 29, 126–143 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zelditch, M. L ., Swiderski, D. L & Sheets, H. D. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer (Elsevier, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Adams, D. C. & Otárola-Castillo, E. Geomorph: an rpackage for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 393–399 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Albert, A. Y. K. et al. The genetics of adaptive shape shift in stickleback: pleiotropy and effect size. Evolution 62, 76–85 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schindelin, J. et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 676–682 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Snowberg, L. K., Hendrix, K. M. & Bolnick, D. I. Covarying variances: more morphologically variable populations also exhibit more diet variation. Oecologia 178, 89–101 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rohland, N. & Reich, D. Cost-effective, high-throughput DNA sequencing libraries for multiplexed target capture. Genome Res. 22, 939–946 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Catchen, J., Hohenlohe, P. A., Bassham, S., Amores, A. & Cresko, W. A. Stacks: an analysis tool set for population genomics. Mol. Ecol. 22, 3124–3140 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Lunter, G. & Goodson, M. Stampy: a statistical algorithm for sensitive and fast mapping of Illumina sequence reads. Genome Res. 21, 936–939 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Li, H. et al. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lleonart, J., Salat, J. & Torres, G. J. Removing allometric effects of body size in morphological analysis. J. Theor. Biol. 205, 85–93 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank B. Anholt, O. Banjoko, M. Dubin, L. Duncan, S. Halbrook, T. Ingram, A. Kamath, E. Delaney, C. LeBlond, J. Losos, K. Oke, S. Pakula, R. Rangel, S. Rogers, G. Rolshausen, S. Rudman, O. Schmidt, W. Shim, C. Tanner, L. Tanter, the Schluter Lab, the Bamfield Marine Sciences Centre, the Genome Sequencing and Analysis Facility at UT Austin and the Texas Advance Computing Center at UT Austin for their help, advice and comments throughout the research and writing. The British Columbia Ministry of the Environment provided essential permits. The research was supported by National Science Foundation grants DEB-1144773 (D.I.B. and A.P.H.), DEB-1144556 (C.L.P.) and IOS-1145468 (D.I.B.) and conducted in full compliance with ethical regulations according to UT Austin’s Institutional Care and Use Committee (AUP-2012-00065 and AUP-2014-00293).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Thor Veen, Jesse N. Weber & Catherine L. Peichel

    Present address: †Present addresses: Life Sciences, Quest University,Squamish,British Columbia V8B 0N8,Canada (T.V.); Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812, USA (J.N.W.); Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Bern, Bern 3012, Switzerland (C.L.P.).,

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA

    Yoel E. Stuart, Thor Veen, Jesse N. Weber, Brian K. Lohman, Cole J. Thompson, Rebecca Izen, Newaz Ahmed & Daniel I. Bolnick

  2. Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2K6, Canada

    Dieta Hanson, Rowan D. H. Barrett & Andrew P. Hendry

  3. Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo 0316, Norway

    Mark Ravinet

  4. Austin Independent School District, Austin, Texas 78703, USA

    Tania Tasneem & Andrew Doggett

  5. Divisions of Basic Sciences and Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington 98109, USA

    Catherine L. Peichel

Authors
  1. Yoel E. Stuart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thor Veen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jesse N. Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dieta Hanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mark Ravinet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Brian K. Lohman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Cole J. Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tania Tasneem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Andrew Doggett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Rebecca Izen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Newaz Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Rowan D. H. Barrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Andrew P. Hendry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Catherine L. Peichel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Daniel I. Bolnick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.P.H., C.L.P., R.D.H.B., D.H., B.K.L., Y.E.S. and D.I.B. planned the study. All authors executed the study. Y.E.S. oversaw field collections, conducted with D.I.B., C.L.P., A.P.H., R.D.H.B., D.H., B.K.L., T.T., A.D. and R.I. Y.E.S. oversaw morphological and environmental data collections by Y.E.S., D.I.B., C.J.T., T.T., N.A. and R.I. Y.E.S. collected genomic data with help from J.N.W. and D.I.B. Y.E.S., T.V. and D.I.B. analysed the data. M.R. estimated the population genetic parameters. All authors participated in the writing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoel E. Stuart.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Descriptions of approximate Bayesian computation analyses, phenotype–environment analyses, Supplementary Tables 1–8, and Supplementary Figures 1–6. (PDF 1758 kb)

Supplementary Dataset

Pair-by-trait, lake–stream t-tests. Each row represents the multidimensional lake–stream divergence vector for a given pair. Each column is the t-statistic from a t-test comparing lake versus adjoined stream for that trait. (CSV 9 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stuart, Y., Veen, T., Weber, J. et al. Contrasting effects of environment and genetics generate a continuum of parallel evolution. Nat Ecol Evol 1, 0158 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0158

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0158

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing