Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Pondering the (Near) Future: Climate Change and the Genetics of Plant Migration & Adaptation

1,641 views

Published on

Dr Julie Etterson, University of Minnesota, Duluth
Presented at the "What is Local? Genetics & Plant Selection in the Urban Context" Symposia. Tuesday, May 23, 2006, American Museum of Natural History

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Pondering the (Near) Future: Climate Change and the Genetics of Plant Migration & Adaptation

  1. 1. Julie R. Etterson Pondering the near future Climate change and the genetics of plant migration and adaptation
  2. 2. Populations differ across the species range ? ? ?
  3. 3. <ul><li>range shifts </li></ul>Response to climate change ? ? ?
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. What about plants?
  6. 6. Trees migrated north during periods of glacial retreat 1950
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. Glacier National Park 1850-2100 Hall and Fagre 2003 BioScience 53: 131-140
  9. 9. Glacier National Park 1850-2100 Hall and Fagre 2003 BioScience 53: 131-140 http:// www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_model.htm
  10. 10. <ul><li>range shifts </li></ul><ul><li>extinction </li></ul>Response to climate change ? ? ?
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. <ul><li>range shifts </li></ul><ul><li>extinction </li></ul><ul><li>adaptation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>plastic response </li></ul></ul>Response to climate change ? ? ?
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. Davis, Shaw and Etterson. 2005. Ecology 86:1704-1714 <ul><li>range shifts </li></ul><ul><li>extinction </li></ul><ul><li>adaptation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>plastic response </li></ul></ul>Response to climate change Fitness ? ? ?
  15. 15. <ul><li>range shifts </li></ul><ul><li>extinction </li></ul><ul><li>adaptation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>plastic response </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>genetic change </li></ul></ul>Response to climate change ? ? ?
  16. 16. Davis, Shaw and Etterson. 2005. Ecology 86:1704-1714 <ul><li>How important is this mismatch? </li></ul><ul><li>How long will it take populations to evolve optimal phenotype? </li></ul><ul><li>Will facilitated gene flow enhance fitness in the future? </li></ul>? ? ?
  17. 17. ? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea
  18. 18. ? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea
  19. 19. Habitat fragmentation may inhibit northern range expansion
  20. 20. Habitat fragmentation may inhibit northern range expansion
  21. 21. Habitat fragmentation may inhibit northern range expansion
  22. 22. ? ? ? 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
  23. 23. MN KS OK MN ND SD NA KS OK TX IA Thompson et al. 2000. U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1650 A-B
  24. 24. ? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea Physiological differences among populations in the greenhouse <ul><li>How important is this mismatch? </li></ul>
  25. 25. ? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea <ul><li>How important is this mismatch? </li></ul>
  26. 38. ? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea Relative fitness MN KS OK Field Sites 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 <ul><li>How important is this mismatch? </li></ul>Etterson and Shaw. 2001. Science 294:151-154 N = 9908 MN KS OK Populations
  27. 39. <ul><li>How important is this mismatch? </li></ul><ul><li>How long will it take populations to evolve optimal phenotype? </li></ul>? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea
  28. 40. <ul><li>Requirements for adaptive evolution? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>selection favors different phenotypes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>phenotypic differences are genetically based </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>genetic architecture amenable to change </li></ul></ul>? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea
  29. 41. 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
  30. 42. <ul><li>Requirements for adaptive evolution? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>selection favors different phenotypes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>phenotypic differences are genetically based </li></ul></ul><ul><li>S </li></ul>? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea
  31. 43. <ul><ul><li>Heritability </li></ul></ul>The fraction of phenotypic variance that is genetically based. h 2 = V A V P Indicates the efficiency of selection
  32. 44. <ul><ul><li>Rate of response to selection </li></ul></ul>R = h 2 S Rapid response if heritability is large, and selection is strong and directional.
  33. 46. 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
  34. 47. <ul><li>S </li></ul><ul><li>S </li></ul><ul><li>Requirements for adaptive evolution? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>selection favors different phenotypes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>phenotypic differences are genetically based </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>genetic architecture amenable to change </li></ul></ul>? ? ? Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea
  35. 48. Genetic correlations among traits Leaf number Phenology <ul><li>Genetic correlation is: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>in accord </li></ul></ul><ul><li>with selection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>antagonistic </li></ul></ul><ul><li>to selection </li></ul>
  36. 49. <ul><ul><li>Influence of antagonistic correlations on selection response: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>retard rate </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>reverse direction </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>cause evolutionary response of </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>traits not under selection </li></ul></ul></ul>
  37. 50. 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 †
  38. 51. 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
  39. 52. 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
  40. 53. Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea MN <ul><li>How important is this mismatch? </li></ul><ul><li>How long will it take populations to evolve optimal phenotype? </li></ul><ul><li>Will facilitated gene flow enhance fitness in the future? </li></ul>? ? ? OK x F1, F2, F3 ? ? ?
  41. 54. 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
  42. 55. <ul><ul><li>Local is better </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Restoration failure </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Outbreeding depression in nearby native populations </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Facilitated gene flow in the future? </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>Conclusions
  43. 56. 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
  44. 57. 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
  45. 58. 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
  46. 59. 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
  47. 60. 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
  48. 61. 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
  49. 62. <ul><ul><li>Local is better </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Restoration failure </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Outbreeding depression in nearby native populations </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Facilitated gene flow in the future? </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More experimentation is necessary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Keep good records </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Genetic variation is critical </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Preserve evolutionary potential into the future </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>Conclusions
  50. 64. Acknowledgements <ul><li>Funding </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EPA STAR </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MN Center for Community Genetics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bell Museum of Natural History </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>U of MN Graduate School </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Agencies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Nature Conservancy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Konza Prairie SNA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EPA Ground Water and Ecosystem Restoration Division </li></ul></ul><ul><li>People </li></ul><ul><ul><li>R.G. Shaw </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>M.B. Davis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>D.N Alstad </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>D.A. Andow </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>M.A. Etterson </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A. Mertyl </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>J. Larson </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>L. Kinsell </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>T. Nguyen </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>R. and D. Otterson </li></ul></ul>
  51. 65. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 This is not an extreme climate model
  52. 66. 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
  53. 67. 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
  54. 68. <ul><li>Overestimation of evolutionary rates: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>selection depletes genetic variation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>selection coefficients not constant </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>demographic consequences of </li></ul></ul><ul><li>fitness losses </li></ul>
  55. 69. Davis, Shaw and Etterson 2005 <ul><li>How important is this mismatch? </li></ul><ul><li>How long will it take populations to evolve optimal phenotype? </li></ul>? ? ?

×