The Use of Behavioral Ecotypes in the Study of Evolutionary Processes
Ecotypic variation refers to differences in traits between populations that reflect adaptation to different selection pressures. The origin of the term lies in Turesson’s (1922) observation that population differences in plant growth forms often breed true in a controlled environment. From experiments, Turesson (1922) concluded that much between-population variation in phenotypic traits reflects genotypic adaptation to local conditions. He described the phenomenon as ecotypic variation and the species population exhibiting a particular variant as an ecotype. The meaning of adaptation must be examined if the phenomenon of ecotypic variation is to be understood. Readers should refer to Reeve and Sherman (1993) for an in-depth analysis of the problems surrounding various definitions of this term. Briefly, Antonovics (1987) divided evolutionary studies into two distinct classes: those that consider the influences of past events (phylogenies) and those that consider why certain traits predominate over others in an ongoing selection process. Tinbergen (1963) proposed a similar subdivision. Most definitions of adaptation incorporate these two elements in that they require a history of selective modification of a trait. For instance, Harvey and Pagel (1991) express adaptations in terms of traits derived in their phylogenetic group that have current utilitarian function. However, ecotypic variation refers to trait differences that reflect adaptations to local conditions at one point in time. Phylogenetic constraints need not be examined except in terms of how they might limit adaptation. Therefore, when I refer to adaptation in this chapter, I will be limiting it to “a phenotypic variant that results in the highest fitness among a specified set of variants in a given environment” (Reeve and Sherman 1993). This definition is history-free. It is based on extant competing phenotypes, and thus fitness is of significance only in reference to current alternatives. Although the definition I borrow from Reeve and Sherman (1993) for adaptation does not specify that there be an underlying genetic mechanism, optimization models assume that there is (Charlesworth 1977). Minimally, we wish to know whether sufficient genetic complexity (variability) exists for a predicted optimal solution to be reached.