Designing eco‐evolutionary experiments for restoration projects: Opportunities and constraints revealed during stickleback introductions

Eco‐evolutionary experiments are typically conducted in semi‐unnatural controlled settings, such as mesocosms; yet inferences about how evolution and ecology interact in the real world would surely benefit from experiments in natural uncontrolled settings. Opportunities for such experiments are rare...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecology and Evolution 2024-06, Vol.14 (6), p.e11503-n/a
Hauptverfasser: Hendry, Andrew P., Barrett, Rowan D. H., Bell, Alison M., Bell, Michael A., Bolnick, Daniel I., Gotanda, Kiyoko M., Haines, Grant E., Lind, Åsa J., Paccard, Michelle, Peichel, Catherine L., Peterson, Christopher R., Poore, Hilary A., Massengill, Robert L., Milligan‐McClellan, Kathryn, Steinel, Natalie C., Sanderson, Sarah, Walsh, Matthew R., Weber, Jesse N., Derry, Alison M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Eco‐evolutionary experiments are typically conducted in semi‐unnatural controlled settings, such as mesocosms; yet inferences about how evolution and ecology interact in the real world would surely benefit from experiments in natural uncontrolled settings. Opportunities for such experiments are rare but do arise in the context of restoration ecology—where different “types” of a given species can be introduced into different “replicate” locations. Designing such experiments requires wrestling with consequential questions. (Q1) Which specific “types” of a focal species should be introduced to the restoration location? (Q2) How many sources of each type should be used—and should they be mixed together? (Q3) Which specific source populations should be used? (Q4) Which type(s) or population(s) should be introduced into which restoration sites? We recently grappled with these questions when designing an eco‐evolutionary experiment with threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) introduced into nine small lakes and ponds on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska that required restoration. After considering the options at length, we decided to use benthic versus limnetic ecotypes (Q1) to create a mixed group of colonists from four source populations of each ecotype (Q2), where ecotypes were identified based on trophic morphology (Q3), and were then introduced into nine restoration lakes scaled by lake size (Q4). We hope that outlining the alternatives and resulting choices will make the rationales clear for future studies leveraging our experiment, while also proving useful for investigators considering similar experiments in the future. Opportunities for eco‐evolutionary experiments are rare but they do arise in the context of restoration ecology. Designing such experiments requires wrestling with several consequential questions. We recently grappled with these questions when designing an eco‐evolutionary experiment with threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) introduced into nine small lakes and ponds on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska that required restoration. We ended up using benthic versus limnetic ecotypes from a mixture of four source populations per ecotype (selected based on trophic morphology) that were then introduced in various combinations into the nine restoration lakes.
ISSN:2045-7758
2045-7758
DOI:10.1002/ece3.11503