12 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. But 60% of species displayed different lunar activity patterns in different populations, suggesting that many species exhibit behavioral plasticity in their lunar activity. We conclude that neither phylogenetic signal, tapetum lucidum as proxy for visual acuity, nor lunar illumination are able to reliably predict lunar activity patterns for all species, and natural selection may favor behavioral flexibility in nocturnal activity.

      It is fascinating that neither the Predation Risk nor the Visual Acuity Hypothesis completely explains the results. That suggests nocturnal behavior is influenced by more complex interactions than just moonlight intensity. I am curious about how human disturbance or artificial light at night might add another layer to these patterns, especially as ecosystems become more affected by human activity.

    2. To that end and in order to effectively test the visual acuity hypothesis, we incorporated estimates of low-light visual acuity based on the tapetum lucidum as a proxy for the acuity of taxon-typical “night vision”. The goal of this novel approach is to fill the knowledge gap regarding the role of lunar illumination in driving nocturnal activity patterns among elusive predator and prey species. Because Prugh and Golden (2014) also found a strong phylogenetic signal in their results, and tapetum structure is the result of independent evolution in different mammalian clades (Schwab et al., 2002), our analysis incorporated phylogenetic relatedness among the factors that might influence nocturnal activity.

      Using the tapetum lucidum as a proxy for night vision is such a creative way to make the Visual Acuity Hypothesis measurable. Still, I wonder if this structure alone fully represents visual ability across species. Other factors like eye size, neural processing, or even habitat openness might also influence how animals perceive moonlight. It would be interesting if future studies incorporated those aspects to give a more complete understanding of nocturnal vision.

  2. Sep 2025
    1. Longer-term experiments that focus on fitness-related responses are recommended.

      I like that the authors mention that longer experiments can test physical responses. I think it would be interesting to see how many multigenerational experiments on the species like copepods to measure adaptation instead of just measuring the tolerance.

    2. We next consider how past adaptation can be inferred from comparisons across space and time. We discuss the limitations of these methodologies, consider how these data will be useful for understanding the fate of marine biodiversity and the potential emergent changes in ecosystem function, and highlight the most promising paths toward that understanding.

      The paper highlights how measuring standing genetic variation as an approach. This makes me wonder about modern day conservation practices. Should marine reserves focus on protecting those diverse populations, because they are better equipped to adapt to acidification?

    3. Ocean acidification poses a global threat to biodiversity, yet species might have the capacity to adapt through evolutionary change. Here we summarize tools available to determine species’ capacity for evolutionary adaptation to future ocean change and review the progress made to date with respect to ocean acidification. We focus on two key approaches: measuring standing genetic variation within populations and experimental evolution. We highlight benefits and challenges of each approach and recommend future research directions for understanding the modulating role of evolution in a changing ocean.

      The authors mention something interesting here about how ocean acidification is a threat to overall biodiversity, yet it also mentions that species might have the ability to adapt through evolutionary change. How realistic is this for other species that live longer such as corals or sharks with a slow reproduction rate? Would this limit the adaptive capacity when compared to shellfish or plankton?

    1. In a similar fashion as the comparison QST vs FST, the comparison PST vs FST has been used in several studies in order to detect selection (reviewed by Brommer, 2011). However, the interpretation of these results should be carried out with caution, as PST could include environmental and nonadditive genetic effects (Pujol et al., 2008). The fact that our PST estimates were greater than QST corroborates that PST vs FST comparisons should be avoided as a general method to study local adaptation, as also suggested by Pujol et al. (2008). Then, the use of PST as a proxy for QST can only be justified when between and within population estimates of additive genetic variation are available or can be reliably inferred by different approaches (Brommer, 2011; Cohen and Dor, 2018; Gentili et al., 2018; Monzón-Arguëllo et al., 2014).

      This paper and system show that stronger ecological pressures such as predation, and wave exposure can also drive other divergence in low-dispersal species. This also suggests that ecological speciation could begin.

    2. In this study we carried out a natural experiment across an environmental gradient. We collected samples of L. saxatilis from the “Crab+” (extremely sheltered habitat), “Crab” (sheltered habitat) and “Wave” (exposed habitat) ecotypes from Galician shores and we analysed the shell traits.

      The ‘Crab+’ ecotype is something I found interesting as it would show morphological differences without a DNA difference. This brings up the question is this selection or plasticity that is maintaining these sheltered habitats?

    3. . The demonstration of adaptation for alternative selective pressures not only requires the elucidation of the genetic basis of phenotypic variation but also determining that fitness differences can predict the observed patterns of variation (Linnen and Hoekstra, 2009).

      I like that the authors bring up an important point here. They are explaining that the variation is not immediately proof of adaptations, and that there are other reasons such as plasticity, drift or even the population history.

  3. Aug 2025
    1. This study has found that T. hirsuta may be displaced by M. galloprovincialis in a future ocean, causing a shift in the biogenic habitat of the Australian shores. Such a shift in habitat may affect the infauna; future conditions may cause infauna to prefer specific mussel habitats (either T. hirsuta or M. galloprovincialis) and lead to an overall decline in infaunal molluscs.

      What would happen if the restoration projects were focused on planting native mussels and the invasive species still continue to take over, should the project focus shift to the invasive species, or stay on the native species? Would it be more ethical to let the new invasive species take over and form new habitats because they might survive climate change better than the native species?

    2. Polychaetes generally had a positive response to climate change scenarios. Warming and elevated pCO2 interacted to increase the number of species of polychaetes in the elevated pCO2 treatment at ambient temperature (Fig. 4; ANOVA Temp × CO2, F1,32 = 11.03, P < 0.02, Supplementary Table 4). Under warming, there were fewer polychaete species recruiting to T. hirsuta compared with that observed at ambient temperature, but there was no effect of warming on the number of polychaete species that recruited to M. galloprovincialis (Supplementary Table 4). When T. hirsuta and M. galloprovincialis were present in the same mesocosms, there were significantly more polychaetes under ambient temperature than under warming (Fig. 4; ANOVA Temp × Presence, F1,32 = 4.66, P < 0.05; Species × Presence, F1,32 = 4.66, P < 0.05, Supplementary Table 4). There were no significant effects of any treatments on the number of species, the number of individuals of Crustacea and the number of species of Mollusca (Fig. 4; Supplementary Table 4). Molluscs were negatively affected by elevated pCO2 but unaffected by warming (Fig. 4).

      These results indicate that the worms would benefit from climate change, but the mollusks would be harmed. Mollusks play a vital role in many ecosystems through filtering water, recycling nutrients, and building the strong shells that many other organisms inhabit. If this organism were to decline would the loss create more long-term issues, other than the worm population being increased. What would this due to the food web? Would this change how many reefs or shorelines are built?

    3. This study has shown that the invasive M. galloprovincialis was more tolerant of elevated pCO2 compared with the native T. hirsuta. We have also shown that the two mussel species possess unique infaunal communities, which are also altered by climate change conditions.

      The authors make an interesting point here that the invasive species of mussels are more tolerant than the native species to climate change. With that being said, from a scientific standpoint, should scientists be worried about the invasive species replacing the native ones, and if they are concerned about this what should conservationists or scientists do to stop this?

    4. Species do not exist in isolation but rather in communities where they interact. These interactions can be broadly grouped into interactions that reduce the overall abundance of species i.e. “negative interactions” (e.g. competition and predation) or interactions that increase their abundance i.e. “positive interactions” (Bertness et al., 1999).

      Here the authors are suggesting the idea that species do not live alone, instead they are part of much bigger communities. How might potential climate change affect these interactions? Would they make some of these interactions stronger or weaker than others? Would this benefit one species and impair another? And what does this mean for those invasive species compared to native species?