The contribution of developmental palaeontology to extensions of evolutionary theory

Evo‐devo is featuring prominently in current discussion to extend evolutionary theory. Developmental palaeontology, the study of life history evolution and ontogeny in fossils, remains an area of investigation that could benefit from, but also illuminate, the discourse and research agenda of evo‐devo. Understanding how and why evolution proceeds in phenotypic space is an important goal of evo‐devo and one that can be significantly enriched through the examination of development in the fossil record (Palaeo‐evo‐devo). Such an approach permits developmental pathways to be extended into the past, constraining hypotheses of developmental evolution in ways that cannot be predicted by patterns observed from extant taxa alone. The comparison of developmental dynamics among extant and extinct taxa yields a more complete understanding of the temporal persistence of factors that shape evolution in phenotypic space. As more data are compiled that document ‘fossilized ontogenies’, a stage will emerge from which insights into the evolution of development can begin to appraise those phenotypes that are inaccessible to evo‐devo.     

Does resource availability help determine the evolutionary route to multicellularity?

Genetic heterogeneity and homogeneity are associated with distinct sets of adaptive advantages and bottlenecks, both in developmental biology and population genetics. Whereas populations of individuals are usually genetically heterogeneous, most multicellular metazoans are genetically homogeneous. Observing that resource scarcity fuels genetic heterogeneity in populations, we propose that monoclonal development is compatible with the resource‐rich and stable internal environments that complex multicellular bodies offer. In turn, polyclonal development persists in tumors and in certain metazoans, both exhibiting a closer dependence on external resources. This eco‐evo‐devo approach also suggests that multicellularity may originally have emerged through polyclonal development in early metazoans, because of their reduced shielding from environmental fluctuations.     

Palaeontology and Evolutionary Developmental Biology: A Science of the Nineteenth and Twenty–first Centuries

A wind of change has swept through palaeontology in the past few decades. Contrast Sir Peter Medawar’s dismissive: ‘palaeontology is a particularly undemanding branch of science’ (as recalled by John Maynard Smith in Sabbagh 1999, p. 158) with ‘Palaeontology: grasping the opportunities in the science of the twenty–first century’, the title of a contribution to a special issue of Geobios by the Cambridge palaeontologist, Simon Conway Morris (1998a). The winds of change have come partly from palaeontologists seeking to broaden the impact of their studies and partly from biologists (neontologists) realizing the contributions that palaeontology can make to their disciplines. Consequently, impressions of past life preserved in stone are coming alive. Fossils are being described and analyzed using new tools and languages as the static fossil record becomes a record of transitions in patterns that can be explained and related to biological, ecological, climatic and tectonic changes. The latest addition is evolutionary developmental biology, or ‘evo–devo’, whose language provides a new basis upon which to interpret anatomical change, both materially and mechanistically. In this review I examine the major contributions made by palaeontology, how palaeontology has been linked to evolution and to embryology in the past, and how links with evo–devo have enlivened and will continue to enliven both palaeontology and evo–devo. Closer links between the two fields should illuminate important unresolved issues related to the origin of the metazoans (e.g. Why is there a conflict between molecular clocks and the fossil record in timing the metazoan radiation; were Precambrian metazoan ancestors similar to extant larvae or to miniature adults?) and to diversification of the metazoans (e.g. How do developmental constraints bias the direction of evolution; how do microevolutionary developmental processes relate to macroevolutionary changes?).     

Foraging environment determines the genetic architecture and evolutionary potential of trophic morphology in cichlid fishes

Phenotypic plasticity allows organisms to change their phenotype in response to shifts in the environment. While a central topic in current discussions of evolutionary potential, a comprehensive understanding of the genetic underpinnings of plasticity is lacking in systems undergoing adaptive diversification. Here, we investigate the genetic basis of phenotypic plasticity in a textbook adaptive radiation, Lake Malawi cichlid fishes. Specifically, we crossed two divergent species to generate an F₃ hybrid mapping population. At early juvenile stages, hybrid families were split and reared in alternate foraging environments that mimicked benthic/scraping or limnetic/sucking modes of feeding. These alternate treatments produced a variation in morphology that was broadly similar to the major axis of divergence among Malawi cichlids, providing support for the flexible stem theory of adaptive radiation. Next, we found that the genetic architecture of several morphological traits was highly sensitive to the environment. In particular, of 22 significant quantitative trait loci (QTL), only one was shared between the environments. In addition, we identified QTL acting across environments with alternate alleles being differentially sensitive to the environment. Thus, our data suggest that while plasticity is largely determined by loci specific to a given environment, it may also be influenced by loci operating across environments. Finally, our mapping data provide evidence for the evolution of plasticity via genetic assimilation at an important regulatory locus, ptch1. In all, our data address long‐standing discussions about the genetic basis and evolution of plasticity. They also underscore the importance of the environment in affecting developmental outcomes, genetic architectures, morphological diversity and evolutionary potential.     

Why the short face? Developmental disintegration of the neurocranium drives convergent evolution in neotropical electric fishes

Convergent evolution is widely viewed as strong evidence for the influence of natural selection on the origin of phenotypic design. However, the emerging evo‐devo synthesis has highlighted other processes that may bias and direct phenotypic evolution in the presence of environmental and genetic variation. Developmental biases on the production of phenotypic variation may channel the evolution of convergent forms by limiting the range of phenotypes produced during ontogeny. Here, we study the evolution and convergence of brachycephalic and dolichocephalic skull shapes among 133 species of Neotropical electric fishes (Gymnotiformes: Teleostei) and identify potential developmental biases on phenotypic evolution. We plot the ontogenetic trajectories of neurocranial phenotypes in 17 species and document developmental modularity between the face and braincase regions of the skull. We recover a significant relationship between developmental covariation and relative skull length and a significant relationship between developmental covariation and ontogenetic disparity. We demonstrate that modularity and integration bias the production of phenotypes along the brachycephalic and dolichocephalic skull axis and contribute to multiple, independent evolutionary transformations to highly brachycephalic and dolichocephalic skull morphologies.     

Parallelism in adaptive radiations of experimental Escherichia coli populations

Adaptive radiations are major contributors to species diversity. Although the underlying mechanisms of adaptive radiations, specialization and trade‐offs, are relatively well understood, the tempo and repeatability of adaptive radiations remain elusive. Ecological specialization can occur through the expansion into novel niches or through partitioning of an existing niche. To test how the mode of resource specialization affects the tempo and repeatability of adaptive radiations, we selected replicate bacterial populations in environments that promoted the evolution of diversity either through niche expansion or through niche partitioning, and in a third low‐quality single‐resource environment, in which diversity was not expected to evolve. Colony size diversity evolved equally fast in environments that provided ecological opportunities regardless of the mode of resource specialization. In the low‐quality environments, diversity did not consistently evolve. We observed the largest fitness improvement in the low‐quality environment and the smallest the glucose‐limited environment. We did not observe a change in the rate of evolutionary change in either trait or environment, suggesting that the pool of beneficial mutations was not exhausted. Overall, the mode of resource specialization did not affect the tempo or repeatability of adaptive radiations. These results demonstrate the limitations of eco‐evolutionary feedbacks to affect evolutionary outcomes.     

Genetic and developmental basis for parallel evolution and its significance for hominoid evolution

Greater understanding of ape comparative anatomy and evolutionary history has brought a general appreciation that the hominoid radiation is characterized by substantial homoplasy.^1–4 However, little consensus has been reached regarding which features result from repeated evolution. This has important implications for reconstructing ancestral states throughout hominoid evolution, including the nature of the Pan‐Homo last common ancestor (LCA). Advances from evolutionary developmental biology (evo‐devo) have expanded the diversity of model organisms available for uncovering the morphogenetic mechanisms underlying instances of repeated phenotypic change. Of particular relevance to hominoids are data from adaptive radiations of birds, fish, and even flies demonstrating that parallel phenotypic changes often use similar genetic and developmental mechanisms. The frequent reuse of a limited set of genes and pathways underlying phenotypic homoplasy suggests that the conserved nature of the genetic and developmental architecture of animals can influence evolutionary outcomes. Such biases are particularly likely to be shared by closely related taxa that reside in similar ecological niches and face common selective pressures. Consideration of these developmental and ecological factors provides a strong theoretical justification for the substantial homoplasy observed in the evolution of complex characters and the remarkable parallel similarities that can occur in closely related taxa. Thus, as in other branches of the hominoid radiation, repeated phenotypic evolution within African apes is also a distinct possibility. If so, the availability of complete genomes for each of the hominoid genera makes them another model to explore the genetic basis of repeated evolution.     

How a growing organismal perspective is adding new depth to integrative studies of morphological evolution

Over the past half century, the field of Evolutionary Developmental Biology, or Evo‐devo, has integrated diverse fields of biology into a more synthetic understanding of morphological diversity. This has resulted in numerous insights into how development can evolve and reciprocally influence morphological evolution, as well as generated several novel theoretical areas. Although comparative by default, there remains a great gap in our understanding of adaptive morphological diversification and how developmental mechanisms influence the shape and pattern of phenotypic variation. Herein we highlight areas of research that are in the process of filling this void, and areas, if investigated more fully, that will add new insights into the diversification of morphology. At the centre of our discussion is an explicit awareness of organismal biology. Here we discuss an organismal framework that is supported by three distinct pillars. First, there is a need for Evo‐devo to adopt a high‐resolution phylogenetic approach in the study of morphological variation and its developmental underpinnings. Secondly, we propose that to understand the dynamic nature of morphological evolution, investigators need to give more explicit attention to the processes that generate evolutionarily relevant variation at the population level. Finally, we emphasize the need to address more thoroughly the processes that structure variation at micro‐ and macroevolutionary scales including modularity, morphological integration, constraint, and plasticity. We illustrate the power of these three pillars using numerous examples from both invertebrates and vertebrates to emphasize that many of these approaches are already present within the field, but have yet to be formally integrated into many research programs. We feel that the most exciting new insights will come where the traditional experimental approaches to Evo‐devo are integrated more thoroughly with the principles of this organismal framework.     

Functional evolutionary developmental biology (evo‐devo) of morphological novelties in plants

Abstract The origin of morphological and ecological novelties is a long‐standing problem in evolutionary biology. Understanding these processes requires investigation from both the development and evolution standpoints, which promotes a new research field called “evolutionary developmental biology” (evo‐devo). The fundamental mechanism for the origin of a novel structure may involve heterotopy, heterochrony, ectopic expression, or loss of an existing regulatory factor. Accordingly, the morphological and ecological traits controlled by the regulatory genes may be gained, lost, or regained during evolution. Floral morphological novelties, for example, include homeotic alterations (related to organ identity), symmetric diversity, and changes in the size and morphology of the floral organs. These gains and losses can potentially arise through modification of the existing regulatory networks. Here, we review current knowledge concerning the origin of novel floral structures, such as “evolutionary homeotic mutated flowers”, floral symmetry in various plant species, and inflated calyx syndrome (ICS) within Solanaceae. Functional evo‐devo of the morphological novelties is a central theme of plant evolutionary biology. In addition, the discussion is extended to consider agronomic or domestication‐related traits, including the type, size, and morphology of fruits (berries), within Solanaceae.     

Evolutionary processes and its environmental correlates in the cranial morphology of western chipmunks (Tamias)

The importance of the environment in shaping phenotypic evolution lies at the core of evolutionary biology. Chipmunks of the genus Tamias (subgenus Neotamias) are part of a very recent radiation, occupying a wide range of environments with marked niche partitioning among species. One open question is if and how those differences in environments affected phenotypic evolution in this lineage. Herein we examine the relative importance of genetic drift versus natural selection in the origin of cranial diversity exhibited by clade members. We also explore the degree to which variation in potential selective agents (environmental variables) are correlated with the patterns of morphological variation presented. We found that genetic drift cannot explain morphological diversification in the group, thus supporting the potential role of natural selection as the predominant evolutionary force during Neotamias cranial diversification, although the strength of selection varied greatly among species. This morphological diversification, in turn, was correlated with environmental conditions, suggesting a possible causal relationship. These results underscore that extant Neotamias represent a radiation in which aspects of the environment might have acted as the selective force driving species’ divergence.     

Promises and limits of an agency perspective in evolutionary developmental biology

An agent-based perspective in the study of complex systems is well established in diverse disciplines, yet is only beginning to be applied to evolutionary developmental biology. In this essay, we begin by defining agency and associated terminology formally. We then explore the assumptions and predictions of an agency perspective, apply these to select processes and key concept areas relevant to practitioners of evolutionary developmental biology, and consider the potential epistemic roles that an agency perspective might play in evo devo. Throughout, we discuss evidence supportive of agential dynamics in biological systems relevant to evo devo and explore where agency thinking may enrich the explanatory reach of research efforts in evolutionary developmental biology.     

The integrated phenotype

Proper functioning of complex phenotypes requires that multiple traits work together. Examination of relationships among traits within and between complex characters and how they interact to function as a whole organism is critical to advancing our understanding of evolutionary developmental plasticity. Phenotypic integration refers to the relationships among multiple characters of a complex phenotype, and their relationships with other functional units (modules) in an organism. In this review, I summarize a brief history of the concept of phenotypic integration in plant and animal biology. Following an introduction of concepts, including modularity, I use an empirical case-study approach to highlight recent advance in clarifying the developmental and genomic basis of integration. I end by highlighting some novel approaches to genomic and epigenetic perturbations that offer promise in further addressing the role of phenotypic integration in evolutionary diversification. In the age of the phenotype, studies that examine the genomic and developmental changes in relationships of traits across environments will shape the next chapter in our quest for understanding the evolution of complex characters.     

Social competition as a driver of phenotype–environment correlations: implications for ecology and evolution

While it is universally recognised that environmental factors can cause phenotypic trait variation via phenotypic plasticity, the extent to which causal processes operate in the reverse direction has received less consideration. In fact individuals are often active agents in determining the environments, and hence the selective regimes, they experience. There are several important mechanisms by which this can occur, including habitat selection and niche construction, that are expected to result in phenotype–environment correlations (i.e. non-random assortment of phenotypes across heterogeneous environments). Here we highlight an additional mechanism – intraspecific competition for preferred environments – that may be widespread, and has implications for phenotypic evolution that are currently underappreciated. Under this mechanism, variation among individuals in traits determining their competitive ability leads to phenotype–environment correlation; more competitive phenotypes are able to acquire better patches. Based on a concise review of the empirical evidence we argue that competition-induced phenotype–environment correlations are likely to be common in natural populations before highlighting the major implications of this for studies of natural selection and microevolution. We focus particularly on two central issues. First, competition-induced phenotype–environment correlation leads to the expectation that positive feedback loops will amplify phenotypic and fitness variation among competing individuals. As a result of being able to acquire a better environment, winners gain more resources and even better phenotypes – at the expense of losers. The distinction between individual quality and environmental quality that is commonly made by researchers in evolutionary ecology thus becomes untenable. Second, if differences among individuals in competitive ability are underpinned by heritable traits, competition results in both genotype–environment correlations and an expectation of indirect genetic effects (IGEs) on resource-dependent life-history traits. Theory tells us that these IGEs will act as (partial) constraints, reducing the amount of genetic variance available to facilitate evolutionary adaptation. Failure to recognise this will lead to systematic overestimation of the adaptive potential of populations. To understand the importance of these issues for ecological and evolutionary processes in natural populations we therefore need to identify and quantify competition-induced phenotype–environment correlations in our study systems. We conclude that both fundamental and applied research will benefit from an improved understanding of when and how social competition causes non-random distribution of phenotypes, and genotypes, across heterogeneous environments.     

Nutrients from salmon parents alter selection pressures on their offspring

Organisms can modify their surrounding environment, but whether these changes are large enough to feed back and alter their evolutionary trajectories is not well understood, particularly in wild populations. Here we show that nutrient pulses from decomposing Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) parents alter selection pressures on their offspring with important consequences for their phenotypic and genetic diversity. We found a strong survival advantage to larger eggs and faster juvenile metabolic rates in streams lacking carcasses but not in streams containing this parental nutrient input. Differences in selection intensities led to significant phenotypic divergence in these two traits among stream types. Stronger selection in streams with low parental nutrient input also decreased the number of surviving families compared to streams with high parental nutrient levels. Observed effects of parent‐derived nutrients on selection pressures provide experimental evidence for key components of eco‐evolutionary feedbacks in wild populations.     

Repeated evolution of local adaptation in swimming performance: population‐level trade‐offs between burst and endurance swimming in Brachyrhaphis freshwater fish

Specialization is fundamentally important in biology because specialized traits allow species to expand into new environments, in turn promoting population differentiation and speciation. Specialization often results in trade‐offs between traits that maximize fitness in one environment but not others. Despite the ubiquity of trade‐offs, we know relatively little about how consistently trade‐offs evolve between populations when multiple sets of populations experience similarly divergent selective regimes. In the present study, we report a case study on Brachyrhaphis fishes from different predation environments. We evaluate apparent within/between population trade‐offs in burst‐speed and endurance at two levels of evolutionary diversification: high‐ and low‐predation populations of Brachyrhaphis rhabdophora, and sister species Brachyrhaphis roseni and Brachyrhaphis terrabensis, which occur in high‐ and low‐predation environments, respectively. Populations of Brachyrhaphis experiencing different predation regimes consistently evolved swimming specializations indicative of a trade‐off between two swimming forms that are likely highly adaptive in the environment in which they occur. We show that populations have become similarly locally adapted at both levels of diversification, suggesting that swimming specialization has evolved rather rapidly and persisted post‐speciation. Our findings provide valuable insight into how local adaptation evolves at different stages of evolutionary divergence.     

Eco‐evolutionary feedbacks between prey densities and linkage disequilibrium in the predator maintain diversity

Diversity occurs at multiple scales. Within a single population, there is diversity in genotypes and phenotypes. At a larger scale, within ecological communities, there is diversity in species. A number of studies have investigated how diversity at these two scales influence each other through what has been termed eco‐evolutionary feedbacks. Here we study a three‐species ecological module called apparent competition, in which the predator is evolving in a trait that determines its interaction with two prey species. Unlike previous studies on apparent competition, which employed evolutionary frameworks with very simple genetics, we study an eco‐evolutionary model in which the predator's trait is determined by two recombining diallelic loci, so that its mean and variance can evolve, as well as associations (linkage disequilibrium) between the loci. We ask how eco‐evolutionary feedbacks with these two loci affect the coexistence of the prey species and the maintenance of polymorphisms within the predator species. We uncover a novel eco‐evolutionary feedback between the prey densities and the linkage disequilibrium between the predator's loci. Through a stability analysis, we demonstrate how these feedbacks affect polymorphisms at both loci and, among others, may generate stable cycling.     

Russian comparative embryology takes form: a conceptual metamorphosis toward “evo‐devo”

This essay recapitulates major paths followed by the Russian tradition of what we refer to today as evolutionary developmental biology (“evo‐devo”). The article addresses several questions regarding the conceptual history of evolutionary embryological thought in its particularly Russian perspective: (1) the assertion by the St. Petersburg academician Wolff regarding the possible connections between environmental modifications during morphogenesis and the “transformation” of species, (2) the discovery of shared “principles” underlying animal development by von Baer, (3) the experimental expression of Baer's principles by Kowalevsky and Mechnikoff, (4) Severtsov's theory of phylembryogenesis, (5) Filatov's approach to the study of evolution using comparative “developmental mechanics”, and (6) Shmalgausen's concept of “stabilizing” selection as an attempt to elucidate the evolution of developmental mechanisms. The focus on comparative evolutionary embryology, which was established by Kowalevsky and Mechnikoff, still continues to be popular in present‐day “evo‐devo” research in Russia.     

Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo): Past, Present, and Future

Evolutionary developmental biology (evo–devo) is that part of biology concerned with how changes in embryonic development during single generations relate to the evolutionary changes that occur between generations. Charles Darwin argued for the importance of development (embryology) in understanding evolution. After the discovery in 1900 of Mendel’s research on genetics, however, any relationship between development and evolution was either regarded as unimportant for understanding the process(es) of evolution or as a black box into which it was hard to see. Research over the past two decades has opened that black box, revealing how studies in evo–devo highlight the mechanisms that link genes (the genotype) with structures (the phenotype). This is vitally important because genes do not make structures. Developmental processes make structures using road maps provided by genes, but using many other signals as well—physical forces such as mechanical stimulation, temperature of the environment, and interaction with chemical products produced by other species—often species in entirely different kingdoms as in interactions between bacteria and squid or between leaves and larvae (Greene Science 243:643–666, 1989). Not only do genes not make structures (the phenotype), but new properties and mechanisms emerge during embryonic development: genes are regulated differentially in different cells and places; aggregations of similar cells provide the cellular resources (modules) from which tissues and organs arise; modules and populations of differently differentiated cells interact to set development along particular tracks; and organisms interact with their environment and create their niche in that environment. Such interactions are often termed “epigenetic,” meaning that they direct gene activity using mechanisms that are not encoded in the DNA of the genes. This paper reviews the origins of evo–devo, how the field has changed over the past 30 years, evaluates the recognition of the importance for development and evolution of mechanisms that are not encoded in DNA, and evaluates what the future might bring for evo–devo. Although impossible to know, history tells us that we might expect more of the same; expansion of evo–devo into other areas of biology (ecology, physiology, behavior); absorption of evo–devo by evolution or a unification of biology in which evo–devo plays a major role.     

The other side of phenotypic plasticity: a developmental system that generates an invariant phenotype despite environmental variation

Understanding how the environment impacts development is of central interest in developmental and evolutionary biology. On the one hand, we would like to understand how the environment induces phenotypic changes (the study of phenotypic plasticity). On the other hand, we may ask how a development system maintains a stable and precise phenotypic output despite the presence of environmental variation. We study such developmental robustness to environmental variation using vulval cell fate patterning in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans as a study system. Here we review both mechanistic and evolutionary aspects of these studies, focusing on recently obtained experimental results. First, we present evidence indicating that vulval formation is under stabilizing selection. Second, we discusss quantitative data on the precision and variability in the output of the vulval developmental system in different environments and different genetic backgrounds. Third, we illustrate how environmental and genetic variation modulate the cellular and molecular processes underlying the formation of the vulva. Fourth, we discuss the evolutionary significance of environmental sensitivity of this developmental system.     

Selective processes in development: implications for the costs and benefits of phenotypic plasticity

Adaptive phenotypic plasticity, the ability of a genotype to develop a phenotype appropriate to the local environment, allows organisms to cope with environmental variation and has implications for predicting how organisms will respond to rapid, human-induced environmental change. This review focuses on the importance of developmental selection, broadly defined as a developmental process that involves the sampling of a range of phenotypes and feedback from the environment reinforcing high-performing phenotypes. I hypothesize that understanding the degree to which developmental selection underlies plasticity is key to predicting the costs, benefits, and consequences of plasticity. First, I review examples that illustrate that elements of developmental selection are common across the development of many different traits, from physiology and immunity to circulation and behavior. Second, I argue that developmental selection, relative to a fixed strategy or determinate (switch) mechanisms of plasticity, increases the probability that an individual will develop a phenotype best matched to the local environment. However, the exploration and environmental feedback associated with developmental selection is costly in terms of time, energy, and predation risk, resulting in major changes in life history such as increased duration of development and greater investment in individual offspring. Third, I discuss implications of developmental selection as a mechanism of plasticity, from predicting adaptive responses to novel environments to understanding conditions under which genetic assimilation may fuel diversification. Finally, I outline exciting areas of future research, in particular exploring costs of selective processes in the development of traits outside of behavior and modeling developmental selection and evolution in novel environments.