Julie R. Etterson Pondering the near future Climate change and the genetics of plant migration and adaptation

Populations differ across the species range ? ? ?

range shifts Response to climate change ? ? ?

range shifts

Evidence of range shifts in mobile organisms Species Location Documented movement 39 butterfly species N.Am, Europe up to 200 km/27 yrs 12 bird species Britain ave. 8.9 km/20 yrs Artic fox Canada southern contraction Red fox Canada northward expansion

What about plants?

Trees migrated north during periods of glacial retreat 1950

14,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 Oak species Pine species Davis, M.B. 1981. In Forest Succession: Concepts and Applications Trees migrated north during periods of glacial retreat

Glacier National Park 1850-2100 Hall and Fagre 2003 BioScience 53: 131-140

Glacier National Park 1850-2100 Hall and Fagre 2003 BioScience 53: 131-140 http:// www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_model.htm

range shifts extinction Response to climate change ? ? ?

range shifts

extinction

Species Dispersal No dispersal Mammals 2 - 46 9 - 59 Birds 2 - 32 5 - 30 Reptiles 7 - 27 33 - 45 Butterflies 1 - 16 6 - 36 Plants 3 - 27 9 - 57 Projected % extinction from climate change “ … we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15-37% of species in our sample regions and taxa will be ‘committed to extinction’ ” Thomas et al. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145-148

range shifts extinction adaptation plastic response Response to climate change ? ? ?

range shifts

extinction

adaptation

plastic response

Anomaly Phenology (days) Anomaly Temperature Spring arrival of birds Hatching date Bud break Bud break Temp (M,A) NAO Temp (M,A,M) Plastic responses to climate in Germany Walther et al. 2002. Nature 416:389

Davis, Shaw and Etterson. 2005. Ecology 86:1704-1714 range shifts extinction adaptation plastic response Response to climate change Fitness ? ? ?

range shifts

extinction

adaptation

plastic response

range shifts extinction adaptation plastic response genetic change Response to climate change ? ? ?

range shifts

extinction

adaptation

plastic response

genetic change

Davis, Shaw and Etterson. 2005. Ecology 86:1704-1714 How important is this mismatch? How long will it take populations to evolve optimal phenotype? Will facilitated gene flow enhance fitness in the future? ? ? ?

How important is this mismatch?

How long will it take populations to evolve optimal phenotype?

Will facilitated gene flow enhance fitness in the future?

? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea

? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea

Habitat fragmentation may inhibit northern range expansion

Habitat fragmentation may inhibit northern range expansion

Habitat fragmentation may inhibit northern range expansion

? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea MN KS OK MN ND SD NA KS OK TX IA Thompson et al. 2000. U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1650 A-B

MN KS OK MN ND SD NA KS OK TX IA Thompson et al. 2000. U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1650 A-B

? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea Physiological differences among populations in the greenhouse How important is this mismatch?

How important is this mismatch?

? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea How important is this mismatch?

How important is this mismatch?

? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea Relative fitness MN KS OK Field Sites 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 How important is this mismatch? Etterson and Shaw. 2001. Science 294:151-154 N = 9908 MN KS OK Populations

How important is this mismatch?

How important is this mismatch? How long will it take populations to evolve optimal phenotype? ? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea

How important is this mismatch?

How long will it take populations to evolve optimal phenotype?

Requirements for adaptive evolution? selection favors different phenotypes phenotypic differences are genetically based genetic architecture amenable to change ? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea

Requirements for adaptive evolution?

selection favors different phenotypes

phenotypic differences are genetically based

genetic architecture amenable to change

Natural selection differs clinally along the climate gradient MN SITE KS SITE OK SITE Phenology 0.74 a *** - 0.13 b *** 1.00 c *** Leaf number 0.41 a *** 0.54 b *** 0.60 b *** Leaf thickness 0.00 a - 0.13 b *** 0.23 c *** MN SITE KS SITE OK SITE Phenology - - Leaf number Leaf thickness - - Standardized direct selection gradients (  i ) Etterson. 2004. Evolution 58:1446-1458

Requirements for adaptive evolution? selection favors different phenotypes phenotypic differences are genetically based S ? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea

Requirements for adaptive evolution?

selection favors different phenotypes

phenotypic differences are genetically based

S

Heritability The fraction of phenotypic variance that is genetically based. h 2 = V A V P Indicates the efficiency of selection

Heritability

Rate of response to selection R = h 2 S Rapid response if heritability is large, and selection is strong and directional.

Rate of response to selection

Fecundity MN SITE 0.004 0.091 ** 0.272 *** KS SITE 0.087 † 0.020 † 0.082 * OK SITE 0.044 0.151 0.215 * Phenology MN SITE 0.065 0.000 0.136 *** KS SITE 0.028 † 0.000 0.381 *** OK SITE 0.215 ** 0.000 0.265 *** Leaf number MN SITE 0.053 * 0.087 ** 0.097 *** KS SITE 0.121 ** 0.074 *** 0.118 * OK SITE 0.225 ** 0.235 *** 0.205 * Leaf thickness MN SITE 0.181 * 0.088 *** 0.265 † KS SITE 0.058 ** 0.080 ** 0.240 * OK SITE 0.266 *** 0.211 *** 0.070 * Heritability MN POP h 2 KS POP h 2 OK POP h 2 Etterson. 2004. Evolution 58:1459-1471

S S Requirements for adaptive evolution? selection favors different phenotypes phenotypic differences are genetically based genetic architecture amenable to change ? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea

S

S

Requirements for adaptive evolution?

selection favors different phenotypes

phenotypic differences are genetically based

genetic architecture amenable to change

Genetic correlations among traits Leaf number Phenology Genetic correlation is: in accord with selection antagonistic to selection

Genetic correlation is:

in accord

with selection

antagonistic

to selection

Influence of antagonistic correlations on selection response: retard rate reverse direction cause evolutionary response of traits not under selection

Influence of antagonistic correlations on selection response:

retard rate

reverse direction

cause evolutionary response of

traits not under selection

MN POP KS POP OK POP MN SITE 0.5518 ** -0.1281 * KS SITE 0.0055 * -0.0072 † OK SITE 0.0077 † -0.0013 * Predicted evolution taking genetic correlations into account PH LN LT PH LN LT PH LN LT Etterson and Shaw. 2001. Science 294:151-154 -0.0082 †

log (Leaf number) log (Leaf thickness g m -2 ) r = 0.47 * log (Leaf number) Phenology r A = - 0.82 *** Antagonistic genetic correlations MN population OK site A Etterson and Shaw. Science 294:151-154 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 -0.82 -0.80 -0.78 -0.76 -0.74 -0.72 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

How long will it take populations to evolve optimal phenotype? log (Leaf number) 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 42 28 Phenology 21 log (Leaf thickness g m -2 ) 79 7 Etterson and Shaw. Science 294:151-154 Sites MN KS OK 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 MN KS OK -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 MN KS OK MN KS OK Populations

Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea MN How important is this mismatch? How long will it take populations to evolve optimal phenotype? Will facilitated gene flow enhance fitness in the future? ? ? ? OK x F1, F2, F3 ? ? ?

How important is this mismatch?

How long will it take populations to evolve optimal phenotype?

Will facilitated gene flow enhance fitness in the future?

MN site OK site Hybrids produce less seed than local plants ln Estimated Seed Count 0 2 4 6 8 MN MN OK OK F1 F1 F2 F2 F3 F3

Local is better Restoration failure Outbreeding depression in nearby native populations Facilitated gene flow in the future? Conclusions

Local is better

Restoration failure

Outbreeding depression in nearby native populations

Facilitated gene flow in the future?

Increasing temperature in MEC Ave. annual temp. (  F) 1900-2000 across 23 meteorological stations in the Metro East Coast region corrected for the effect of the urban heat island Temperature  F Climate Change and a Global City: An Assessment of the Metropolitan East Coast Region. 2000 http://metroeast_climate.ciesin.columbia.edu/reports/assessmentsynth.pdf

Hotter summers Temperature  F Ave. summer temp. (  F) 1900-2000 across 23 meteorological stations in the Metro East Coast region corrected for the effect of the urban heat island Climate Change and a Global City: An Assessment of the Metropolitan East Coast Region. 2000 http://metroeast_climate.ciesin.columbia.edu/reports/assessmentsynth.pdf

Prediction for continued increases in temperature in MEC Temperature  F Predicted temperature for the Metro East Coast region based on current trends and four different regional climate models Climate Change and a Global City: An Assessment of the Metropolitan East Coast Region. 2000 http://metroeast_climate.ciesin.columbia.edu/reports/assessmentsynth.pdf

Increasing precipitation in MEC Ave. annual temp. (  F) 1900-2000 across 23 meteorological stations in the Metro East Coast region corrected for the effect of the urban heat island Temperature  F Precipitation (inches) Ave. annual precipitation (inches) 1900-2000 across 23 meteorological stations in the Metro East Coast region Climate Change and a Global City: An Assessment of the Metropolitan East Coast Region. 2000 http://metroeast_climate.ciesin.columbia.edu/reports/assessmentsynth.pdf

But drier summers Precipitation (inches) Climate Change and a Global City: An Assessment of the Metropolitan East Coast Region. 2000 http://metroeast_climate.ciesin.columbia.edu/reports/assessmentsynth.pdf

Precipitation predictions differ Precipitation (inches) Predicted precipitation for the Metro East Coast region based on current trends and four different regional climate models Climate Change and a Global City: An Assessment of the Metropolitan East Coast Region. 2000 http://metroeast_climate.ciesin.columbia.edu/reports/assessmentsynth.pdf

Local is better Restoration failure Outbreeding depression in nearby native populations Facilitated gene flow in the future? More experimentation is necessary Keep good records Genetic variation is critical Preserve evolutionary potential into the future Conclusions

Local is better

Restoration failure

Outbreeding depression in nearby native populations

Facilitated gene flow in the future?

More experimentation is necessary

Keep good records

Genetic variation is critical

Preserve evolutionary potential into the future

Acknowledgements Funding EPA STAR MN Center for Community Genetics Bell Museum of Natural History U of MN Graduate School Agencies The Nature Conservancy Konza Prairie SNA EPA Ground Water and Ecosystem Restoration Division People R.G. Shaw M.B. Davis D.N Alstad D.A. Andow M.A. Etterson A. Mertyl J. Larson L. Kinsell T. Nguyen R. and D. Otterson

Funding

EPA STAR

MN Center for Community Genetics

Bell Museum of Natural History

U of MN Graduate School

Agencies

The Nature Conservancy

Konza Prairie SNA

EPA Ground Water and Ecosystem Restoration Division

People

R.G. Shaw

M.B. Davis

D.N Alstad

D.A. Andow

M.A. Etterson

A. Mertyl

J. Larson

L. Kinsell

T. Nguyen

R. and D. Otterson

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 This is not an extreme climate model

MN POP KS POP OK POP MN SITE -0.49 0.46 -0.91 0.28 -0.66 0.31 0.57 0.13 -0.05 KS SITE -0.51 -0.73 † 0.18 -1.02 -0.75 * 0.53 0.27 † -3.97 † -0.30 OK SITE -0.82 *** -0.59 * 0.69 -0.52 -0.63 ** 0.18 0.47 * 0.17 -0.65 Antagonistic and reinforcing genetic correlations Etterson and Shaw. Science 294:151-154 LN LT RS LN LN LT LN LT RS LN RS LN

0 1 2 3 Etterson. 2004. Evolution 58:1459-1471 MN site OK site Fitness gap How big is the fitness gap? 0 1 2 3 Populations MN KS OK 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 MN site KS site Fitness gap

Overestimation of evolutionary rates: selection depletes genetic variation selection coefficients not constant demographic consequences of fitness losses

Overestimation of evolutionary rates:

selection depletes genetic variation

selection coefficients not constant

demographic consequences of

fitness losses

Davis, Shaw and Etterson 2005 How important is this mismatch? How long will it take populations to evolve optimal phenotype? ? ? ?

How important is this mismatch?

How long will it take populations to evolve optimal phenotype?