Cargando…

Urban versus forest ecotypes are not explained by divergent reproductive selection

Increasing urbanization offers a unique opportunity to study adaptive responses to rapid environmental change. Numerous studies have demonstrated phenotypic divergence between urban and rural organisms. However, comparing the direction and magnitude of natural selection between these environments ha...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Caizergues, Aude E., Grégoire, Arnaud, Charmantier, Anne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Royal Society 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6053928/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30051819
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0261
_version_ 1783340920677072896
author Caizergues, Aude E.
Grégoire, Arnaud
Charmantier, Anne
author_facet Caizergues, Aude E.
Grégoire, Arnaud
Charmantier, Anne
author_sort Caizergues, Aude E.
collection PubMed
description Increasing urbanization offers a unique opportunity to study adaptive responses to rapid environmental change. Numerous studies have demonstrated phenotypic divergence between urban and rural organisms. However, comparing the direction and magnitude of natural selection between these environments has rarely been attempted. Using seven years of monitoring of great tits (Parus major) breeding in nest-boxes across the city of Montpellier and in a nearby oak forest, we find phenotypic divergence in four morphological and two life-history traits between urban and forest birds. We then measure reproductive selection on these traits, and compare selection between the habitats. Urban birds had significantly smaller morphological features than their rural counterparts, with a shorter tarsus, lower body mass, and smaller wing and tail lengths relative to their overall body size. While urban female tarsus length was under stabilizing selection, and forest males show positive selection for tarsus length and negative selection for body mass, selection gradients were significantly divergent between habitats only for body mass. Urban great tits also had earlier laying dates and smaller clutches. Surprisingly, we found selection for earlier laying date in the forest but not in the city. Conversely, we detected no linear selection on clutch size in the forest, but positive selection on clutch size in the urban habitat. Overall, these results do not support the hypothesis that contemporary reproductive selection explains differences in morphology and life history between urban- and forest-breeding great tits. We discuss how further experimental approaches will help confirm whether the observed divergence is maladaptive while identifying the environmental drivers behind it.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6053928
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher The Royal Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60539282018-07-23 Urban versus forest ecotypes are not explained by divergent reproductive selection Caizergues, Aude E. Grégoire, Arnaud Charmantier, Anne Proc Biol Sci Special Feature Increasing urbanization offers a unique opportunity to study adaptive responses to rapid environmental change. Numerous studies have demonstrated phenotypic divergence between urban and rural organisms. However, comparing the direction and magnitude of natural selection between these environments has rarely been attempted. Using seven years of monitoring of great tits (Parus major) breeding in nest-boxes across the city of Montpellier and in a nearby oak forest, we find phenotypic divergence in four morphological and two life-history traits between urban and forest birds. We then measure reproductive selection on these traits, and compare selection between the habitats. Urban birds had significantly smaller morphological features than their rural counterparts, with a shorter tarsus, lower body mass, and smaller wing and tail lengths relative to their overall body size. While urban female tarsus length was under stabilizing selection, and forest males show positive selection for tarsus length and negative selection for body mass, selection gradients were significantly divergent between habitats only for body mass. Urban great tits also had earlier laying dates and smaller clutches. Surprisingly, we found selection for earlier laying date in the forest but not in the city. Conversely, we detected no linear selection on clutch size in the forest, but positive selection on clutch size in the urban habitat. Overall, these results do not support the hypothesis that contemporary reproductive selection explains differences in morphology and life history between urban- and forest-breeding great tits. We discuss how further experimental approaches will help confirm whether the observed divergence is maladaptive while identifying the environmental drivers behind it. The Royal Society 2018-07-11 2018-07-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6053928/ /pubmed/30051819 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0261 Text en © 2018 The Authors. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Special Feature
Caizergues, Aude E.
Grégoire, Arnaud
Charmantier, Anne
Urban versus forest ecotypes are not explained by divergent reproductive selection
title Urban versus forest ecotypes are not explained by divergent reproductive selection
title_full Urban versus forest ecotypes are not explained by divergent reproductive selection
title_fullStr Urban versus forest ecotypes are not explained by divergent reproductive selection
title_full_unstemmed Urban versus forest ecotypes are not explained by divergent reproductive selection
title_short Urban versus forest ecotypes are not explained by divergent reproductive selection
title_sort urban versus forest ecotypes are not explained by divergent reproductive selection
topic Special Feature
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6053928/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30051819
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0261
work_keys_str_mv AT caizerguesaudee urbanversusforestecotypesarenotexplainedbydivergentreproductiveselection
AT gregoirearnaud urbanversusforestecotypesarenotexplainedbydivergentreproductiveselection
AT charmantieranne urbanversusforestecotypesarenotexplainedbydivergentreproductiveselection