Environmental and not maternal effects determine variation in offspring phenotypes in a passerine bird

Maternal and environmental effects can profoundly influence offspring phenotypes, independent of genetic effects. Within avian broods, both the asymmetric post‐hatching environment created by hatching asynchrony and the differential maternal investment through the laying sequence have important consequences for individual nestlings in terms of the allocation of resources to body structures with different contributions to fitness. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative importance of post‐hatching environmental and maternal effects in generating variation in offspring phenotypes. First, an observational study showed that within blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus, broods, late‐hatched nestlings allocated resources to tarsus development, maintained mass gain and head‐bill growth and directed resources away from the development of fourth primary feathers. Second, a hatching order manipulation experiment resulted in nestlings from first‐laid eggs hatching last, thereby allowing comparison with both late and early‐hatched nestlings. Experimental nestlings had growth patterns which were closer to late‐hatched nestlings, suggesting that within‐brood growth patterns are determined by post‐hatching environmental effects. Therefore, we conclude that post‐hatching environmental effects play an important role in generating variation in offspring phenotypes.     

Why does the magnitude of genotype‐by‐environment interaction vary?

Genotype‐by‐environment interaction (G × E), that is, genetic variation in phenotypic plasticity, is a central concept in ecology and evolutionary biology. G×E has wide‐ranging implications for trait development and for understanding how organisms will respond to environmental change. Although G × E has been extensively documented, its presence and magnitude vary dramatically across populations and traits. Despite this, we still know little about why G × E is so evident in some traits and populations, but minimal or absent in others. To encourage synthetic research in this area, we review diverse hypotheses for the underlying biological causes of variation in G × E. We extract common themes from these hypotheses to develop a more synthetic understanding of variation in G × E and suggest some important next steps.     

Variation in the degree and costs of adaptive phenotypic plasticity among Rana temporaria populations

Adaptive phenotypic plasticity in the form of capacity to accelerate development as a response to pond drying risk is known from many amphibian species. However, very little is known about factors that might constrain the evolution of this type of plasticity, and few studies have explored to what degree plasticity might be constrained by trade-offs dictated by adaptation to different environmental conditions. We compared the ability of southern and northern Scandinavian common frog (Rana temporaria) larvae originating from 10 different populations to accelerate their development in response to simulated pond drying risk and the resulting costs in metamorphic size in a factorial laboratory experiment. We found that (i) northern larvae developed faster than the southern larvae in all treatments, (ii) a capacity to accelerate the response was present in all five southern and all five northern populations tested, but that the magnitude of the response was much larger (and less variable) in the southern than in the northern populations, and that (iii) significant plasticity costs in metamorphic size were present in the southern populations, the plastic genotypes having smaller metamorphic size in the absence of desiccation risk, but no evidence for plasticity costs was found in the northern populations. We suggest that the weaker response to pond drying risk in the northern populations is due to stronger selection on large metamorphic size as compared with southern populations. In other words, seasonal time constraints that have selected the northern larvae to be fast growing and developing, may also constrain their innate ability for adaptive phenotypic plasticity.     

Phenotypic variation in colour pattern and seasonal plasticity in Eristalis hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae)

Abstract.

• 1 An examination of phenotypic variation in colour pattern was carried out on four Eristalis hoverfly species using museum material.
• 2 The amount of phenotypic variation varied substantially among the species with E.arbustorum being the most variable. The other species showed a wide colour pattern range but less variation within that range (E.abusivus and E.nemorum), or a narrow range of colour variation (E.horticola).
• 3 Sexual colour dimorphism was apparent in all four species, but most pronounced in E.abusivus and E.nemorum.
• 4 There were good phenotype-season relationships shown by both sexes in all species, except for female E.abusivus and E.nemorum, with paler insects being more abundant during the warmer summer months.
• 5 Female, but not male, E.arbustorum collected at inland sites were on average paler than those collected at coastal sites. This observation is considered with respect to temperature during the developmental stages.
• 6 The function of colour plasticity in hoverflies is discussed with reference to the need to maintain optimal thermal conditions for activity.

     

Evolution in stressful environments II: adaptive value and costs of plasticity in response to low light in Sinapis arvensis

Plants possess a remarkable capacity to alter their phenotype in response to the highly heterogeneous light conditions they commonly encounter in natural environments. In the present study with the weedy annual plant Sinapis arvensis, we (a) tested for the adaptive value of phenotypic plasticity in morphological and life history traits in response to low light and (b) explored possible fitness costs of plasticity. Replicates of 31 half-sib families were grown individually in the greenhouse under full light and under low light (40% of ambient) imposed by neutral shade cloth. Low light resulted in a large increase in hypocotyl length and specific leaf area (SLA), a reduction in juvenile biomass and a delayed onset of flowering. Phenotypic selection analysis within each light environment revealed that selection favoured large SLA under low light, but not under high light, suggesting that the observed increase in SLA was adaptive. In contrast, plasticity in the other traits measured was maladaptive (i.e. in the opposite direction to that favoured by selection in the low light environment). We detected significant additive genetic variance in plasticity in most phenotypic traits and in fitness (number of seeds). Using genotypic selection gradient analysis, we found that families with high plasticity in SLA had a lower fitness than families with low plasticity, when the effect of SLA on fitness was statistically kept constant. This indicates that plasticity in SLA incurred a direct fitness cost. However, a cost of plasticity was only expressed under low light, but not under high light. Thus, models on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity will need to incorporate plasticity costs that vary in magnitude depending on environmental conditions.     

Genetic and environmental components of growth in nestling blue tits (Parus caeruleus)

We investigated the effect of brood‐size mediated food availability on the genetic and environmental components of nestling growth in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus), using a cross‐fostering technique. We found genetic variation for body size at most nestling ages, and for duration of mass increase, but not of tarsus growth. Hence, nestling growth in our study population seems to have the potential to evolve further. Furthermore, significant genotype–environment interactions indicated heritable variation in reaction norms of growth rates and growth periods, i.e. that our study population had a heritable plasticity in the growth response to environmental conditions. The decreasing phenotypic variance with nestling age indicated compensatory growth in all body traits. Furthermore, the period of weight increase was longer for nestlings growing up in enlarged broods, while there was no difference to reduced broods in the period of tarsus growth. At fledging, birds in enlarged broods had shorter tarsi and lower weights than birds in reduced broods, but there was no difference in wing length or body condition between the two experimental groups. The observed flexibility in nestling growth suggests that growing nestlings are able to respond adaptively to food constraint by protecting the growth of ecologically important traits.     

Evolution and molecular mechanisms of adaptive developmental plasticity

Aside from its selective role in filtering inter-individual variation during evolution by natural selection, the environment also plays an instructive role in producing variation during development. External environmental cues can influence developmental rates and/or trajectories and lead to the production of distinct phenotypes from the same genotype. This can result in a better match between adult phenotype and selective environment and thus represents a potential solution to problems posed by environmental fluctuation. The phenomenon is called adaptive developmental plasticity. The study of developmental plasticity integrates different disciplines (notably ecology and developmental biology) and analyses at all levels of biological organization, from the molecular regulation of changes in organismal development to variation in phenotypes and fitness in natural populations. Here, we focus on recent advances and examples from morphological traits in animals to provide a broad overview covering (i) the evolution of developmental plasticity, as well as its relevance to adaptive evolution, (ii) the ecological significance of alternative environmentally induced phenotypes, and the way the external environment can affect development to produce them, (iii) the molecular mechanisms underlying developmental plasticity, with emphasis on the contribution of genetic, physiological and epigenetic factors, and (iv) current challenges and trends, including the relevance of the environmental sensitivity of development to studies in ecological developmental biology, biomedicine and conservation biology.