Eco-evolutionary feedbacks in community and ecosystem ecology: interactions between the ecological theatre and the evolutionary play

Abstract

Interactions between natural selection and environmental change are well recognized and sit at the core of ecology and evolutionary biology. Reciprocal interactions between ecology and evolution, eco-evolutionary feedbacks, are less well studied, even though they may be critical for understanding the evolution of biological diversity, the structure of communities and the function of ecosystems. Eco-evolutionary feedbacks require that populations alter their environment (niche construction) and that those changes in the environment feed back to influence the subsequent evolution of the population. There is strong evidence that organisms influence their environment through predation, nutrient excretion and habitat modification, and that populations evolve in response to changes in their environment at time-scales congruent with ecological change (contemporary evolution). Here, we outline how the niche construction and contemporary evolution interact to alter the direction of evolution and the structure and function of communities and ecosystems. We then present five empirical systems that highlight important characteristics of eco-evolutionary feedbacks: rotifer-algae chemostats; alewife-zooplankton interactions in lakes; guppy life-history evolution and nutrient cycling in streams; avian seed predators and plants; and tree leaf chemistry and soil processes. The alewife-zooplankton system provides the most complete evidence for eco-evolutionary feedbacks, but other systems highlight the potential for eco-evolutionary feedbacks in a wide variety of natural systems.

Figure 1

Mean crustacean (a) biomass and (b) length in spring (late March to April) and summer (July and August) in lakes with anadromous alewives (unfilled diamonds) and landlocked alewives (filled diamonds). Error bars are 1 s.e. Data modified from Post et al. (2008).

Figure 2

Mean (±1 s.e.) size-standardized gape width (mm) and gill raker spacing (mm) for anadromous (unfilled diamond) and landlocked alewives (filled diamond). Data are from three landlocked alewife populations (Pattagansett, Quonnipaug and Rogers) and three anadromous populations (Bride, Dodge and Gorton) in Connecticut, USA. Data modified from Palkovacs & Post (2008) and Post et al. (2008).