It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Species in a common landscape often face similar selective environments. The capacity of organisms to adapt to these environments may be largely species specific. Quantifying shared and unique adaptive responses across species within landscapes may thus improve our understanding of landscape-moderated biodiversity patterns. Here we test to what extent populations of two coexisting and phylogenetically related fishes—three-spined and nine-spined stickleback—differ in the strength and nature of neutral and adaptive divergence along a salinity gradient. Phenotypic differentiation, neutral genetic differentiation and genomic signatures of adaptation are stronger in the three-spined stickleback. Yet, both species show substantial phenotypic parallelism. In contrast, genomic signatures of adaptation involve different genomic regions, and are thus non-parallel. The relative contribution of spatial and environmental drivers of population divergence in each species reflects different strategies for persistence in the same landscape. These results provide insight in the mechanisms underlying variation in evolutionary versatility and ecological success among species within landscapes.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details



1 Laboratory of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Genomics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Centre for Biodiversity Dynamics, Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; Faculty of Biosciences and Aquaculture, Nord University, Bodø, Norway
2 Laboratory of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Genomics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Laboratory of Aquatic Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
3 Laboratory of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Genomics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Flanders Marine Institute, Oostende, Belgium
4 Laboratory of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Genomics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
5 Laboratory of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Genomics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Genomics Core, Center for Human Genetics, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, Comparative Genomics Centre, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia
6 Laboratory of Aquatic Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium