Constraints on the evolution of adaptive plasticity: costs of plasticity to density are expressed in segregating progenies

Phenotypic plasticity, the ability of a genotype to express different phenotypes across environments, is an adaptive strategy expected to evolve in heterogeneous environments. One widely held hypothesis is that the evolutionary benefits of plasticity are reduced by its costs, but when compared with the number of traits tested, the evidence for costs is limited. Selection gradients were calculated for traits and trait plasticities to test for costs of plasticity to density in a field study using recombinant inbred lines (RILs) of Brassica rapa. Significant costs of putatively adaptive plasticity were found in three out of six measured traits. For one trait, petiole length, a cost of plasticity was detected in both environments tested; such global costs are expected to more strongly constrain the evolution of plasticity than local costs expressed in a single environment. These results, in combination with evidence from studies in segregating progenies of Arabidopsis thaliana, suggest that the potential for genetic costs of plasticity exists in natural populations. Detection of costs in previous studies may have been limited because historical selection has purged genotypes with costly plasticity, and experimental conditions often lack environmental stresses.     

Constraints on the evolution of adaptive phenotypic plasticity in plants

The high potential fitness benefit of phenotypic plasticity tempts us to expect phenotypic plasticity as a frequent adaptation to environmental heterogeneity. Examples of proven adaptive plasticity in plants, however, are scarce and most plastic responses actually may be 'passive' rather than adaptive. This suggests that frequently requirements for the evolution of adaptive plasticity are not met or that such evolution is impeded by constraints. Here we outline requirements and potential constraints for the evolution of adaptive phenotypic plasticity, identify open questions, and propose new research approaches. Important open questions concern the genetic background of plasticity, genetic variation in plasticity, selection for plasticity in natural habitats, and the nature and occurrence of costs and limits of plasticity. Especially promising tools to address these questions are selection gradient analysis, meta-analysis of studies on genotype-by-environment interactions, QTL analysis, cDNA-microarray scanning and quantitative PCR to quantify gene expression, and two-dimensional gel electrophoresis to quantify protein expression. Studying plasticity along the pathway from gene expression to the phenotype and its relationship with fitness will help us to better understand why adaptive plasticity is not more universal, and to more realistically predict the evolution of plastic responses to environmental change.     

Pre-adaptation or genetic shift after introduction in the invasive species Impatiens glandulifera?

Invasive exotic plants often grow fast, reproduce rapidly and display considerable phenotypic plasticity in their invasive range, which may be essential characteristics for successful invasion. However, it remains unclear whether these characteristics are already present in native populations (pre-adaptation hypothesis) or evolve after introduction (genetic shift hypothesis).To test these hypotheses we compared means and phenotypic plasticity of vegetative and reproductive traits between populations of Impatiens glandulifera collected from either the invasive (Norway) or native range (India). Seeds were sown and the resulting plants were exposed to different experimental environments in a glasshouse. We also tested whether trait means and reaction norms harbored genetic variation, as this may promote fitness in the novel environment.We did not find evidence that invasive populations of I. glandulifera grew more vigorously or produced more seeds than native populations. Phenotypic plasticity did not differ between the native and invasive range, except for the number of nodes which was more plastic in the invasive range. Genetic variation in the slope of reaction norms was absent, suggesting that the lack of change in phenotypic plasticity between native and invasive populations resulted from low genetic variation in phenotypic plasticity initially harbored by this species. Post-introduction evolution of traits thus probably did not boost the invasiveness of I. glandulifera. Instead, the species seems to be pre-adapted for invasion.We suggest that differences in habitat between the native and invasive range, more specifically the higher nutrient availability observed in the new environment, are the main factor driving the invasion of this species. Indeed, plants in the more nutrient-rich invasive range had greater seed mass, likely conferring a competitive advantage, while seed mass also responded strongly to nutrients in the glasshouse. Interactions between habitat productivity and herbivore defense may explain the lack of more vigorous growth in the new range.     

The fitness costs of developmental canalization and plasticity

Organisms are capable of an astonishing repertoire of phenotypic responses to the environment, and these often define important adaptive solutions to heterogeneous and unpredictable conditions. The terms ‘phenotypic plasticity’ and ‘canalization’ indicate whether environmental variation has a large or small effect on the phenotype. The evolution of canalization and plasticity is influenced by optimizing selection‐targeting traits within environments, but inherent fitness costs of plasticity may also be important. We present a meta‐analysis of 27 studies (of 16 species of plant and 7 animals) that have measured selection on the degree of plasticity independent of the characters expressed within environments. Costs of plasticity and canalization were equally frequent and usually mild; large costs were observed only in studies with low sample size. We tested the importance of several covariates, but only the degree of environmental stress was marginally positively related to the cost of plasticity. These findings suggest that costs of plasticity are often weak, and may influence phenotypic evolution only under stressful conditions.     

Plasticity to light cues and resources in Arabidopsis thaliana: testing for adaptive value and costs

Plants shaded by neighbors or overhead foliage experience both a reduction in the ratio of red to far red light (R:FR), a specific cue perceived by phytochrome, and reduced photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), an essential resource. We tested the adaptive value of plasticity to crowding and to the cue and resource components of foliage shade in the annual plant Arabidopsis thaliana by exposing 36 inbred families from four natural populations to four experimental treatments: (1) high density, full sun; (2) low density, full sun; (3) low density, neutral shade; and (4) low density, low R:FR-simulated foliage shade. Genotypic selection analysis within each treatment revealed strong environmental differences in selection on plastic life-history traits. We used specific contrasts to measure plasticity to density and foliage shade, to partition responses to foliage shade into phytochrome-mediated responses to the R:FR cue and responses to PAR, and to test whether plasticity was adaptive (i.e., in the same direction as selection in each environment). Contrary to expectation, we found no evidence for adaptive plasticity to density. However, we observed both adaptive and maladaptive responses to foliage shade. In general, phytochrome-mediated plasticity to the R:FR cue of foliage shade was adaptive and counteracted maladaptive growth responses to reduced PAR. These results support the prediction that active developmental responses to environmental cues are more likely to be adaptive than are passive resource-mediated responses. Multiple regression analysis detected a few costs of adaptive plasticity and adaptive homeostasis, but such costs were infrequent and their expression depended on the environment. Thus, costs of plasticity may occasionally constrain the evolution of adaptive responses to foliage shade in Arabidopsis, but this constraint may differ among environments and is far from ubiquitous.     

Evidence of adaptive divergence in plasticity: density- and site-dependent selection on shade-avoidance responses in Impatiens capensis

We investigated the conditions under which plastic responses to density are adaptive in natural populations of Impatiens capensis and determined whether plasticity has evolved differently in different selective environments. Previous studies showed that a population that evolved in a sunny site exhibited greater plasticity in response to density than did a population that evolved in a woodland site. Using replicate inbred lines in a reciprocal transplant that included a density manipulation, we asked whether such population differentiation was consistent with the hypothesis of adaptive divergence. We hypothesized that plasticity would be more strongly favored in the sunny site than in the woodland site; consequently, we predicted that selection would be more strongly density dependent in the sunny site, favoring the phenotype that was expressed at each density. Selection on internode length and flowering date was consistent with the hypothesis of adaptive divergence in plasticity. Few costs or benefits of plasticity were detected independently from the expressed phenotype, so plasticity was selected primarily through selection on the phenotype. Correlations between phenotypes and their plasticity varied with the environment and would cause indirect selection on plasticity to be environment dependent. We showed that an appropriate plastic response even to a rare environment can greatly increase genotypic fitness when that environment is favorable. Selection on the measured characters contributed to local adaptation and fully accounted for fitness differences between populations in all treatments except the woodland site at natural density.     

COSTS AND LIMITS OF PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY IN ISLAND POPULATIONS OF THE COMMON FROG RANA TEMPORARIA UNDER DIVERGENT SELECTION PRESSURES

Costs and limits are assumed to be the major constraints on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. However, despite their expected importance, they have been surprisingly hard to find in natural populations. It has therefore been argued that natural selection might have removed high-cost genotypes in all populations. However, if costs of plasticity are linked to the degree of plasticity expressed, then high costs of plasticity would only be present in populations where increased plasticity is under selection. We tested this hypothesis by investigating costs and limits of adaptive phenotypic plasticity in development time in a common garden study of island populations of the common frog Rana temporaria , which have varying levels of development time and phenotypic plasticity. Costs of plasticity were only found in populations with high-plastic genotypes, whereas the populations with the most canalized genotypes instead had a cost of canalization. Moreover, individuals displaying the most extreme phenotypes also were the most plastic ones, which mean we found no limits of plasticity. This suggests that costs of plasticity increase with increased level of plasticity in the populations, and therefore costs of plasticity might be more commonly found in high-plastic populations.     

Environmental stress and the costs of whole-organism phenotypic plasticity in tadpoles

Costs of phenotypic plasticity are important for the evolution of plasticity because they prevent organisms from shaping themselves at will to match heterogeneous environments. These costs occur when plastic genotypes have relatively low fitness regardless of the trait value expressed. We report two experiments in which we measured selection on predator-induced plasticity in the behaviour and external morphology of frog tadpoles (Rana temporaria). We assessed costs under stressful and benign conditions, measured fitness as larval growth rate or competitive ability and focused analysis on aggregate measures of whole-organism plasticity. There was little convincing evidence for a cost of phenotypic plasticity in our experiments, and costs of canalization were nearly as frequent as costs of plasticity. Neither the magnitude of the cost nor the variation around the estimate (detectability) was sensitive to environmental stress.     

Plasticity of physiology in Lobelia: testing for adaptation and constraint

Phenotypic plasticity is thought to be a major mechanism allowing sessile organisms such as plants to adapt to environmental heterogeneity. However, the adaptive value of many common plastic responses has not been tested by linking these responses to fitness. Even when plasticity is adaptive, costs of plasticity, such as the energy necessary to maintain regulatory pathways for plastic responses, may constrain its evolution. We used a greenhouse experiment to test whether plastic physiological responses to soil water availability (wet vs. dry conditions) were adaptive and/or costly in the congeneric wildflowers Lobelia cardinalis and L. siphilitica. Eight physiological traits related to carbon and water uptake were measured. Specific leaf area (SLA), photosynthetic rate (A), stomatal conductance (gs), and photosynthetic capacity (Amax) responded plastically to soil water availability in L. cardinalis. Plasticity in Amax was maladaptive, plasticity in A and g(s) was adaptive, and plasticity in SLA was adaptively neutral. The nature of adaptive plasticity in L. cardinalis, however, differed from previous studies. Lobelia cardinalis plants with more conservative water use, characterized by lower g(s), did not have higher fitness under drought conditions. Instead, well-watered L. cardinalis that had higher g(s) had higher fitness. Only Amax responded plastically to drought in L. siphilitica, and this response was adaptively neutral. We detected no costs of plasticity for any physiological trait in either L. cardinalis or L. siphilitica, suggesting that the evolution of plasticity in these traits would not be constrained by costs. Physiological responses to drought in plants are presumed to be adaptive, but our data suggest that much of this plasticity can be adaptively neutral or maladaptive.     

Bet-hedging via dispersal aids the evolution of plastic responses to unreliable cues

Adaptive plasticity is expected to evolve when informative cues predict environmental variation. However, plastic responses can be maladaptive even when those cues are informative, if prediction mistakes are shared across members of a generation. These fitness costs can constrain the evolution of plasticity when initial plastic mutants use of cues of only moderate reliability. Here, we model the barriers to the evolution of plasticity produced by these constraints and show that dispersal across a metapopulation can overcome them. Constraints are also lessened, though not eliminated, when plastic responses are free to evolve gradually and in concert with increased reliability. Each of these factors be viewed as a form of bet-hedging: by lessening correlations in the fates of relatives, dispersal acts as diversifying bet-hedging, while producing submaximal responses to a cue can be understood as a conservative bet-hedging strategy. While poor information may constrain the evolution of plasticity, the opportunity for bet-hedging may predict when that constraint can be overcome.     

Gene expression plasticity evolves in response to colonization of freshwater lakes in threespine stickleback

Phenotypic plasticity is predicted to facilitate individual survival and/or evolve in response to novel environments. Plasticity that facilitates survival should both permit colonization and act as a buffer against further evolution, with contemporary and derived forms predicted to be similarly plastic for a suite of traits. On the other hand, given the importance of plasticity in maintaining internal homeostasis, derived populations that encounter greater environmental heterogeneity should evolve greater plasticity. We tested the evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in coastal British Columbian postglacial populations of threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) that evolved under greater seasonal extremes in temperature after invading freshwater lakes from the sea. Two ancestral (contemporary marine) and two derived (contemporary freshwater) populations of stickleback were raised near their thermal tolerance extremes, 7 and 22 °C. Gene expression plasticity was estimated for more than 14 000 genes. Over five thousand genes were similarly plastic in marine and freshwater stickleback, but freshwater populations exhibited significantly more genes with plastic expression than marine populations. Furthermore, several of the loci shown to exhibit gene expression plasticity have been previously implicated in the adaptive evolution of freshwater populations, including a gene involved in mitochondrial regulation (PPARAa). Collectively, these data provide molecular evidence that highlights the importance of plasticity in colonization and adaptation to new environments.     

When mother knows best: A population genetic model of transgenerational versus intragenerational plasticity

Many organisms exhibit phenotypic plasticity; producing alternate phenotypes depending on the environment. Individuals can be plastic (intragenerational or direct plasticity), wherein individuals of the same genotype produce different phenotypes in response to the environments they experience. Alternatively, an individual's phenotype may be under the control of its parents, usually the mother (transgenerational or indirect plasticity), so that mother's genotype determines the phenotype produced by a given genotype of her offspring. Under what conditions does plasticity evolve to have intragenerational as opposed to transgenerational genetic control? To explore this question, we present a population genetic model for the evolution of transgenerational and intragenerational plasticity. We hypothesize that the capacity for plasticity incurs a fitness cost, which is borne either by the individual developing the plastic phenotype or by its mother. We also hypothesize that individuals are imperfect predictors of future environments and their capacity for plasticity can lead them occasionally to make a low‐fitness phenotype for a particular environment. When the cost, benefit and error parameters are equal, we show that there is no evolutionary advantage to intragenerational over transgenerational plasticity, although the rate of evolution of transgenerational plasticity is half the rate for intragenerational plasticity, as predicted by theory on indirect genetic effects. We find that transgenerational plasticity evolves when mothers are better predictors of future environments than offspring or when the fitness cost of the capacity for plasticity is more readily borne by a mother than by her developing offspring. We discuss different natural systems with either direct intragenerational plasticity or indirect transgenerational plasticity and find a pattern qualitatively in accord with the predictions of our model.     

Plasticity is a locally adapted trait with consequences for ecological dynamics in novel environments

Phenotypic plasticity is predicted to evolve in more variable environments, conferring an advantage on individual lifetime fitness. It is less clear what the potential consequences of that plasticity will have on ecological population dynamics. Here, we use an invertebrate model system to examine the effects of environmental variation (resource availability) on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity in two life history traits—age and size at maturation—in long‐running, experimental density‐dependent environments. Specifically, we then explore the feedback from evolution of life history plasticity to subsequent ecological dynamics in novel conditions. Plasticity in both traits initially declined in all microcosm environments, but then evolved increased plasticity for age‐at‐maturation, significantly so in more environmentally variable environments. We also demonstrate how plasticity affects ecological dynamics by creating founder populations of different plastic phenotypes into new microcosms that had either familiar or novel environments. Populations originating from periodically variable environments that had evolved greatest plasticity had lowest variability in population size when introduced to novel environments than those from constant or random environments. This suggests that while plasticity may be costly it can confer benefits by reducing the likelihood that offspring will experience low survival through competitive bottlenecks in variable environments. In this study, we demonstrate how plasticity evolves in response to environmental variation and can alter population dynamics—demonstrating an eco‐evolutionary feedback loop in a complex animal moderated by plasticity in growth.     

MODELING PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY IN GROWTH TRAJECTORIES: A STATISTICAL FRAMEWORK

Phenotypic plasticity, that is multiple phenotypes produced by a single genotype in response to environmental change, has been thought to play an important role in evolution and speciation. Historically, knowledge about phenotypic plasticity has resulted from the analysis of static traits measured at a single time point. New insight into the adaptive nature of plasticity can be gained by an understanding of how organisms alter their developmental processes in a range of environments. Recent advances in statistical modeling of functional data and developmental genetics allow us to construct a dynamic framework of plastic response in developmental form and pattern. Under this framework, development, genetics, and evolution can be synthesized through statistical bridges to better address how evolution results from phenotypic variation in the process of development via genetic alterations.     

Shedding light on the evolution of plasticity in natural populations

Plasticity allows for changes in phenotype in response to environmental cues, often facilitating local adaptation to seasonal environments. Phenotypic plasticity alone, however, may not always be sufficient to ensure adaptation to new localities. In particular, changing cues associated with shifting seasonal regimes may no longer induce appropriate phenotypic responses in new environments ( Nicotra et al. 2010 ). Plastic responses must thus evolve to avoid being maladaptive. To date, the extent to which plastic responses can change and the genetic mechanisms by which this can happen have remained elusive. In this issue of Molecular Ecology, Blackman et al. (2011a) harness natural variation in flowering time among populations of the wild sunflower, Helianthus annuus, to demonstrate that plasticity has indeed evolved in this species. Remarkably, they are able to detect changes in gene expression that are associated with both a loss of plasticity and a reversal of the plastic response. These changes occur in two separate, but integrated, regulatory pathways controlling the transition to flowering, suggesting that complex regulatory networks that incorporate multiple environmental and developmental cues may facilitate the evolution of plastic responses. This study leverages knowledge from plant genetic models to provide a surprising level of insight into the evolution of an adaptive trait in a non‐model species. Through discoveries of the roles of gene duplication and network modularity in the evolution of plastic responses, the study raises questions about the degree to which species‐specific network architectures may act as a constraint to the potential of adaptation.     

A heuristic model on the role of plasticity in adaptive evolution: plasticity increases adaptation,population viability and genetic variation

An ongoing new synthesis in evolutionary theory is expanding our view of the sources of heritable variation beyond point mutations of fixed phenotypic effects to include environmentally sensitive changes in gene regulation. This expansion of the paradigm is necessary given ample evidence for a heritable ability to alter gene expression in response to environmental cues. In consequence, single genotypes are often capable of adaptively expressing different phenotypes in different environments, i.e. are adaptively plastic. We present an individual-based heuristic model to compare the adaptive dynamics of populations composed of plastic or non-plastic genotypes under a wide range of scenarios where we modify environmental variation, mutation rate and costs of plasticity. The model shows that adaptive plasticity contributes to the maintenance of genetic variation within populations, reduces bottlenecks when facing rapid environmental changes and confers an overall faster rate of adaptation. In fluctuating environments, plasticity is favoured by selection and maintained in the population. However, if the environment stabilizes and costs of plasticity are high, plasticity is reduced by selection, leading to genetic assimilation, which could result in species diversification. More broadly, our model shows that adaptive plasticity is a common consequence of selection under environmental heterogeneity, and hence a potentially common phenomenon in nature. Thus, taking adaptive plasticity into account substantially extends our view of adaptive evolution.     

Developmental plasticity of HPA and fear responses in rats: a critical review of the maternal mediation hypothesis

Developmental plasticity of HPA and fear responses in rats has been proposed to be mediated by environment-dependent variation in active maternal care. Here, we review this maternal mediation hypothesis based on the postnatal manipulation literature and on our own recent research in rats. We show that developmental plasticity of HPA and fear responses in rats cannot be explained by a linear single-factor model based on environment-dependent variation in active maternal care. However, by adding environmental stress as a second factor to the model, we were able to explain the variation in HPA and fear responses induced by postnatal manipulations. In this two-factor model, active maternal care and environmental stress (as induced, e.g., by long maternal separations or maternal food restriction) exert independent, yet opposing, effects on HPA reactivity and fearfulness in the offspring. This accounts well for the finding that completely safe and stable, as well as, highly stressful maternal environments result in high HPA reactivity and fearfulness compared to moderately challenging maternal environments. Furthermore, it suggests that the downregulation of the HPA system in response to stressful maternal environments could reflect adaptive developmental plasticity based on the increasing costs of high stress reactivity with increasingly stressful conditions. By contrast, high levels of environmental stress induced by environmental adversity might constrain such adaptive plasticity, resulting in non-adaptive or even pathological outcomes. Alternatively, however, developmental plasticity of HPA and fear responses in rats might be a function of maternal HPA activation (e.g., levels of circulating maternal glucocorticoid hormones). Thus, implying a U-shaped relationship between maternal HPA activation and HPA reactivity and fearfulness in the offspring, increasing maternal HPA activation with increasing environmental adversity would explain the effects of postnatal manipulations equally well. This raises the possibility that variation in active maternal care is an epiphenomenon, rather than a causal factor in developmental plasticity of HPA and fear responses in rats. Developmental plasticity of HPA and fear responses in rats and other animals has important implications for the design of animal experiments and for the well-being of experimental animals, both of which depend on the exact underlying mechanism(s). Importantly, however, more naturalistic approaches are needed to elucidate the adaptive significance of environment-dependent variation of HPA reactivity and fearfulness in view of discriminating between effects reflecting adaptive plasticity, phenotypic mismatch and pathological outcomes, respectively.     

Constraints on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity: limits and costs of phenotype and plasticity

Phenotypic plasticity is ubiquitous and generally regarded as a key mechanism for enabling organisms to survive in the face of environmental change. Because no organism is infinitely or ideally plastic, theory suggests that there must be limits (for example, the lack of ability to produce an optimal trait) to the evolution of phenotypic plasticity, or that plasticity may have inherent significant costs. Yet numerous experimental studies have not detected widespread costs. Explicitly differentiating plasticity costs from phenotype costs, we re-evaluate fundamental questions of the limits to the evolution of plasticity and of generalists vs specialists. We advocate for the view that relaxed selection and variable selection intensities are likely more important constraints to the evolution of plasticity than the costs of plasticity. Some forms of plasticity, such as learning, may be inherently costly. In addition, we examine opportunities to offset costs of phenotypes through ontogeny, amelioration of phenotypic costs across environments, and the condition-dependent hypothesis. We propose avenues of further inquiry in the limits of plasticity using new and classic methods of ecological parameterization, phylogenetics and omics in the context of answering questions on the constraints of plasticity. Given plasticity''s key role in coping with environmental change, approaches spanning the spectrum from applied to basic will greatly enrich our understanding of the evolution of plasticity and resolve our understanding of limits.     

Ecological limits to plant phenotypic plasticity

Phenotypic plasticity is considered the major means by which plants cope with environmental heterogeneity. Although ubiquitous in nature, actual phenotypic plasticity is far from being maximal. This has been explained by the existence of internal limits to its expression. However, phenotypic plasticity takes place within an ecological context and plants are generally exposed to multifactor environments and to simultaneous interactions with many species. These external, ecological factors may limit phenotypic plasticity or curtail its adaptive value, but seldom have they been considered because limits to plasticity have typically addressed factors internal to the plant. We show that plastic responses to abiotic factors are reduced under situations of conservative resource use in stressful and unpredictable habitats, and that extreme levels in a given abiotic factor can negatively influence plastic responses to another factor. We illustrate how herbivory may limit plant phenotypic plasticity because damaged plants can only rarely attain the optimal phenotype in the challenging environment. Finally, it is examined how phenotypic changes involved in trait-mediated interactions can entail costs for the plant in further interactions with other species in the community. Ecological limits to plasticity must be included in any realistic approach to understand the evolution of plasticity in complex environments and to predict plant responses to global change.     

Importance of plasticity and decision-making strategies for plant resource acquisition in spatio-temporally variable environments

* Plants must cope with environmental variation in space and time. Phenotypic plasticity allows them to adjust their form and function to small-scale variations in habitat quality. Empirical studies have shown that stoloniferous plants can exploit heterogeneous habitats through plastic ramet specialization and internal resource exchange (division of labour). * Here we present a spatially explicit simulation model to explore costs and benefits of plasticity in spatio-temporally heterogeneous environments. We investigated the performance of three plant strategies in pairwise competition. The nonplastic strategy was unable to specialize. The autonomous plastic strategy displayed localized responses to external resource signals. In the coordinated plastic strategy, localized responses could be modified by internal demand signals from connected modules. * Plasticity in resource uptake proved beneficial in a broad range of environments. Modular coordination was beneficial under virtually all realistic conditions, especially if resource supplies did not closely match resource needs. * The benefits of division of labour extend considerably beyond the parameter combination covered by empirical studies. Our model provides a general framework for evaluating the benefits, costs and limits of plasticity in spatio-temporally heterogeneous habitats.