You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
A Quantitative Survey of Local Adaptation and Fitness Trade‐Offs
The American Naturalist
Vol. 173, No. 5 (May 2009), pp. 579-588
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/597611
Page Count: 10
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Abstract: The long history of reciprocal transplant studies testing the hypothesis of local adaptation has shown that populations are often adapted to their local environments. Yet many studies have not demonstrated local adaptation, suggesting that sometimes native populations are no better adapted than are genotypes from foreign environments. Local adaptation may also lead to trade‐offs, in which adaptation to one environment comes at a cost of adaptation to another environment. I conducted a survey of published studies of local adaptation to quantify its frequency and magnitude and the costs associated with local adaptation. I also quantified the relationship between local adaptation and environmental differences and the relationship between local adaptation and phenotypic divergence. The overall frequency of local adaptation was 0.71, and the magnitude of the native population advantage in relative fitness was 45%. Divergence between home site environments was positively associated with the magnitude of local adaptation, but phenotypic divergence was not. I found a small negative correlation between a population’s relative fitness in its native environment and its fitness in a foreign environment, indicating weak trade‐offs associated with local adaptation. These results suggest that populations are often locally adapted but stochastic processes such as genetic drift may limit the efficacy of divergent selection.
© 2009 by The University of Chicago.