Developmental phenotypic plasticity: Where ecology and evolution meet molecular biology

The plastic response of phenotypic traits to environmental change is a common research focus in several disciplines - from ecology and evolutionary biology to physiology and molecular genetics. The use of model systems such as the flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana has facilitated a dialogue between developmental biologists asking how plasticity is controlled (proximate causes) and organismal biologists asking why plasticity exists (ultimate causes). Researchers studying ultimate causes and consequences are increasingly compelled to reject simplistic, ‘black box’ models, while those studying proximate causes and mechanisms are increasingly obliged to subject their interpretations to ecological ‘reality checks.’ We review the successful multidisciplinary efforts to understand the phytochrome-mediated shade-avoidance and light-seeking responses of flowering plants as a pertinent example of convergence between evolutionary and molecular biology. In this example, the two-way exchange between reductionist and holist camps has been essential to rapid and sustained progress. This should serve as a model for future collaborative efforts towards understanding the responses of organisms to their constantly changing environments.     

The combined effects of temporal autocorrelation and the costs of plasticity on the evolution of plasticity

Adaptive phenotypic plasticity is an important source of intraspecific variation, and for many plastic traits, the costs or factors limiting plasticity seem cryptic. However, there are several different factors that may constrain the evolution of plasticity, but few models have considered costs and limiting factors simultaneously. Here we use a simulation model to investigate how the optimal level of plasticity in a population depends on a fixed maintenance fitness cost for plasticity or an incremental fitness cost for producing a plastic response in combination with environmental unpredictability (environmental fluctuation speed) limiting plasticity. Our model identifies two mechanisms that act, almost separately, to constrain the evolution of plasticity: (i) the fitness cost of plasticity scaled by the nonplastic environmental tolerance, and (ii) the environmental fluctuation speed scaled by the rate of phenotypic change. That is, the evolution of plasticity is constrained by the high cost of plasticity in combination with high tolerance for environmental variation, or fast environmental changes in combination with slow plastic response. Qualitatively similar results are found when maintenance and incremental fitness costs of plasticity are incorporated, although a larger degree of plasticity is selected for with an incremental cost. Our model highlights that it is important to consider direct fitness costs and phenotypic limitations in relation to nonplastic environmental tolerance and environmental fluctuations, respectively, to understand what constrains the evolution of phenotypic plasticity.     

Developmental noise and ecological opportunity across space can release constraints on the evolution of plasticity

Phenotypic plasticity is a potentially definitive solution to environment heterogeneity, driving biologists to understand why it is not ubiquitous in nature. While costs and constraints may limit the success of plasticity, we are still far from a complete theory of when these limitations actually proscribe adaptive plasticity. Here I use a simple model of plasticity incorporating developmental noise to explore the competitive and evolutionary relationships of specialist and generalist genotypes spreading across a heterogeneous landscape. Results show that plasticity can arise in the context of specialism, preadapting genotypes to later evolve toward plastic generalism. Developmental noise helps a mutant with imperfect plasticity successfully compete against its ancestor, providing an evolutionary path by which subsequent mutations can refine plasticity toward its optimum. These results address how the complex selection pressures across a heterogeneous environment can help evolution find paths around constraints arising from developmental mechanisms.     

Transgenerational plasticity of inducible defences: Combined effects of grand‐parental,parental and current environments

Phenotypic plasticity can occur across generations (transgenerational plasticity) when environments experienced by the previous generations influenced offspring phenotype. The evolutionary importance of transgenerational plasticity, especially regarding within‐generational plasticity, is a currently hot topic in the plasticity framework. How long an environmental effect can persist across generations and whether multigenerational effects are cumulative are primordial—for the evolutionary significance of transgenerational plasticity—but still unresolved questions. In this study, we investigated how the grand‐parental, parental and offspring exposures to predation cues shape the predator‐induced defences of offspring in the Physa acuta snail. We expected that the offspring phenotypes result from a three‐way interaction among grand‐parental, parental and offspring environments. We exposed three generations of snails without and with predator cues according to a full factorial design and measured offspring inducible defences. We found that both grand‐parental and parental exposures to predator cues impacted offspring antipredator defences, but their effects were not cumulative and depended on the defences considered. We also highlighted that the grand‐parental environment did alter reaction norms of offspring shell thickness, demonstrating an interaction between the grand‐parental transgenerational plasticity and the within‐generational plasticity. We concluded that the effects of multigenerational exposure to predator cues resulted on complex offspring phenotypic patterns which are difficult to relate to adaptive antipredator advantages.     

The role of parental age effects on the evolution of aging

Many studies have found that older parents have shorter-lived offspring. However, the evolutionary significance of these findings is poorly understood. We carried out large-scale demographic experiments to examine the direct effect of maternal age and paternal age on offspring aging in inbred and outbred strains of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. We found that the age of mothers and, to a lesser extent, the age of fathers can have a large influence on both offspring longevity and the shape of the age-specific mortality trajectory. In two independent experiments we found that older mothers generally produced shorter-lived offspring, although the exact effect of maternal age on offspring longevity differed among strains. These results suggest that maternal age effects on progeny aging may influence the evolution of aging.     

Developmental causes of allometry: new models and implications for phenotypic plasticity and evolution

Shapes change during development because tissues, organs, and various anatomical features differ in onset, rate, and duration of growth. Allometry is the study of the consequences of differences in the growth of body parts on morphology, although the field of allometry has been surprisingly little concerned with understanding the causes of differential growth. The power-law equation y?=?ax(b), commonly used to describe allometries, is fundamentally an empirical equation whose biological foundation has been little studied. Huxley showed that the power-law equation can be derived if one assumes that body parts grow with exponential kinetics, for exactly the same amount of time. In life, however, the growth of body parts is almost always sigmoidal, and few, if any, grow for exactly the same amount of time during ontogeny. Here, we explore the shapes of allometries that result from real growth patterns and analyze them with new allometric equations derived from sigmoidal growth kinetics. We use an extensive ontogenetic dataset of the growth of internal organs in the rat from birth to adulthood, and show that they grow with Gompertz sigmoid kinetics. Gompertz growth parameters of body and internal organs accurately predict the shapes of their allometries, and that nonlinear regression on allometric data can accurately estimate the underlying kinetics of growth. We also use these data to discuss the developmental relationship between static and ontogenetic allometries. We show that small changes in growth kinetics can produce large and apparently qualitatively different allometries. Large evolutionary changes in allometry can be produced by small and simple changes in growth kinetics, and we show how understanding the development of traits can greatly simplify the interpretation of how they evolved.     

Comparing the effects of rapid evolution and phenotypic plasticity on predator-prey dynamics

Ecologists have increasingly focused on how rapid adaptive trait changes can affect population dynamics. Rapid adaptation can result from either rapid evolution or phenotypic plasticity, but their effects on population dynamics are seldom compared directly. Here we examine theoretically the effects of rapid evolution and phenotypic plasticity of antipredatory defense on predator-prey dynamics. Our analyses reveal that phenotypic plasticity tends to stabilize population dynamics more strongly than rapid evolution. It is therefore important to know the mechanism by which phenotypic variation is generated for predicting the dynamics of rapidly adapting populations. We next examine an advantage of a phenotypically plastic prey genotype over the polymorphism of specialist prey genotypes. Numerical analyses reveal that the plastic genotype, if there is a small cost for maintaining it, cannot coexist with the pairs of specialist counterparts unless the system has a limit cycle. Furthermore, for the plastic genotype to replace specialist genotypes, a forced environmental fluctuation is critical in a broad parameter range. When these results are combined, the plastic genotype enjoys an advantage with population oscillations, but plasticity tends to lose its advantage by stabilizing the oscillations. This dilemma leads to an interesting intermittent limit cycle with the changing frequency of phenotypic plasticity.     

Developmental plasticity and maternal effects of reproductive characteristics in the frog,Bombina orientalis

Summary Life history theory suggests that reproductive characteristics such as ovum size and clutch size should be well buffered against vararies of the environment. However, studies which demonstrate environmental sensitivity of reproductive characteristics are increasing in number, as are studies which find that maternal effects are responsible for much of the variation in developmental and growth rates in embryonic and larval fish and amphibians. The data reported here demonstrate that the environment, in terms of temperature and food availability that a specific individual encounters during vitellogenesis, exerts a strong influence on both egg size and number. Warmer temperatures and less food decrease ovum size, while colder temperatures and less food decrease clutch size. The variation in ovum size that is induced by the environment can exert a strong influence on variation in offspring development and growth and serve as an excellent model for studies on the evolution of developmental plasticity.     

Developmental plasticity and evolutionary explanations

Developmental plasticity looks like a promising bridge between ecological and developmental perspectives on evolution. Yet, there is no consensus on whether plasticity is part of the explanation for adaptive evolution or an optional “add‐on” to genes and natural selection. Here, we suggest that these differences in opinion are caused by differences in the simplifying assumptions, and particular idealizations, that enable evolutionary explanation. We outline why idealizations designed to explain evolution through natural selection prevent an understanding of the role of development, and vice versa. We show that representing plasticity as a reaction norm conforms with the idealizations of selective explanations, which can give the false impression that plasticity has no explanatory power for adaptive evolution. Finally, we use examples to illustrate why evolutionary explanations that include developmental plasticity may in fact be more satisfactory than explanations that solely refer to genes and natural selection.     

Parentage and the evolution of parental behavior

Parentage is the proportion of juveniles in a brood that areoffspring of potential care givers. We analyzed how reductionsin parentage affect the evolution of parental behavior usinga static optimization model. The main benefit of parental effortwas an increase in the survival of offspring, and the main costswere reduced opportunities to seek additional matings or toparasitize neighbors and or reduced survival. Both the costsand benefits included terms for relatedness to young. The effectof parentage depended on (1) whether parents responded in ecologicaltime (facultative response) or in evolutionary time (nonfacultativeresponse), (2) whether the cues enabling assessment of parentagepermitted discrimination among offspring, and (3) whether parentagewas the same among different groups of juveniles (unrestricted)or varied between them (restricted). When parents did not knowtheir own parentage and mean parentage was the same for allmatings, reduced parentage affected the costs and benefits equally,so, as in several previous models, there was no effect on theoptimal level of parental effort. Parentage did affect optimalparental effort when mean parentage to the present brood differedfrom that to young from alternative or future matings. Loweredparentage reduced optimal parental effort when the cost of parentingwas missed opportunities for extrapair copulations or broodparasitism or when parentage was consistently higher in alternativeor future matings. Nonlinear changes in parentage with age gavecomplex trajectories of parental care, with individuals of differentages having similar parentage but exhibiting different levelsof parental effort. Correlations between parentage and othervariables in the model (such as opportunities for additionalmatings) sometimes masked, but never eliminated, the effectsof parentage. When parents could discriminate their own youngin a brood, overall parental effort was reduced, but nepotismwas increased. When parents could not discriminate their ownoffspring but had general cues about average parentage to thebrood, effects varied depending on the costs and benefits ofparental behavior. When parental behavior was costly to caregivers, parentage had more effect than when parenting was notcostly. Likewise, parentage had less effect when care greatlyincreased offspring survival than when care was less necessary.Our analyses reconcile conflicting results from previous modelsand suggest a general framework for analyzing parental behaviorwithin populations and among higher taxonomic groups.     

Paternity and the evolution of male parental care

It is generally believed that level of paternity (the proportion of zygotes in a brood that were fertilized by the male providing parental care) has an important role in the evolution of parental care. We have used population genetics models to investigate this role. The models indicate that only in mating systems where a parental male “sacrifices” promiscous matings can paternity influence the evolution of male parental care. This is because level of paternity can reflect the number of opportunities for these promiscuous fertilizations. For example, high paternity can mean few opportunities and therefore a low cost for paternal care.Certain behaviors may preadapt a species for the evolution of male parental care because they decrease the costs of providing care. For example, in fish species where male care has evolved from spawning territories, the very establishment of territories may have precluded males from gaining promiscuous matings, thereby eliminating the promiscuity costs and facilitating the evolution of care. Without a promiscuity cost, level of paternity will not have influenced the evolution of male care in fishes.Because paternity has limited influence in the evolution of male care, differences in reliability of parentage between males and females are unlikely to explain the prevalence of female care. Our analysis suggests that paternity differences between species cannot serve as a general explanation for the observed patterns of parental care behavior.     

Developmental plasticity in schistosomes and other helminths

Developmental plasticity in helminth life cycles serves, in most cases, to increase the probability of transmission between hosts, suggesting that the necessity to achieve transmission is a prominent selective pressure in the evolution of this phenomenon. Some evidence suggests that digenean trematodes from the genus Schistosoma are also capable of limited developmental responses to host factors. Here we review the currently available data on this phenomenon and attempt to draw comparisons with similar processes in the life cycles of other helminths. At present the biological significance of developmental responses by schistosomes under laboratory conditions remains unclear. Further work is needed to determine whether developmental plasticity plays any role in increasing the probability of schistosome transmission and life cycle propagation under adverse conditions, as it does in other helminth life cycles.     

Mutational effects on constraints on character evolution and phenotypic plasticity inArabidopsis thaliana

Although the concept of genetic constraints plays an important role in our understanding of the evolution of natural populations, there are still few empirical investigations probing the nature and limits of constraints in plant and animal species, aside from some studies inDrosophila. In the work reported here, we use an induced mutation - artificial selection protocol to analyse constraints on character means and phenotypic plasticity to nutrients inArabidopsis thaliana, an annual crucifer. We induced point mutations in a highly inbred line characterized by an extreme phenotype (very fast life cycle, early flowering, reduced leaf production) and little plasticity. We then selected individuals with increased leaf numbers. The goals were to determine if: (i) it is possible to increase leaf production; (ii) this has an effect on reproductive fitness; (iii) a mutation-selection process simultaneously alters the environmental insensitivity of the plant, thereby allowing phenotypic plasticity; and (iv) changes in the target trait affect other characters or their plasticities. The results demonstrate that: (a) mutations do increase leaf number; (b) this yields a much higher reproductive fitness, owing to the extension of the very short life cycle of the base inbred line; (c) there are no changes in plasticity of leaf number or of any other trait, possibly because few loci are involved in the control of plasticity; (d) changes in leaf number are related to alterations in three other traits comprising a strong set of covarying characters inA. thaliana. Two uncorrelated traits are capable of independent evolution from the constrained set. We therefore suggest that environmentally insensitive ecotypes of A.thaliana can quickly evolve to form ecologically specialized, relatively environmentally invariant genotypes.     

The evolution of parental optimism

In choosing how many offspring to rear per cycle, parents commonly starts with more than they really can afford, then allow/encourage some to die. Multiple incentives for overproduction exist. By creating marginal young, parents may: (1) capitalize when unpredictable resources prove unusually rich; (2) supply these as food or servants for core brood members; and/or (3) have a stock of replacements for any core offspring that either fail to survive or develop poorly.     

The evolution of parental care

Our understanding of parental care behavior can be significantly advanced through the application of Williams's Principle, which states that reproduction has not only a benefit but also a cost to lifetime fitness. My laboratory has formalized Williams's Principle into the relative value theorem and found that its application to fishes, the taxa with the most diverse patterns of parental care, can help to explain which sex provides care and how much. In fishes, it is often the male that provides parental care, not because the male obtains greater benefits from this care, but probably because he pays fewer costs. Fish dynamically adjust their investment into parental care according to the number of offspring in their brood, past investment, genetic relatedness, and alternative mating opportunities, all of which affect the value of current offspring relative to potential future offspring. These results may also help us understand the joy and the challenges of parental care in humans.     

The role of maternal and paternal effects in the evolution of parental quality by sexual selection

Genetic models of maternal effects and models of mate choice have focused on the evolutionary effects of variation in parental quality. There have been, however, few attempts to combine these into a single model for the evolution of sexually selected traits. We present a quantitative genetic model that considers how male and female parental quality (together or separately) affect the expression of a sexually selected offspring trait. We allow female choice of males based on this parentally affected trait and examine the evolution of mate choice, parental quality and the indicator trait. Our model reveals a number of consequences of maternal and paternal effects. (1) The force of sexual selection owing to adaptive mate choice can displace parental quality from its natural selection optimum. (2) The force of sexual selection can displace female parental quality from its natural selection optimum even when nonadaptive mate choice occurs (e.g. runaway sexual selection), because females of higher parental quality produce more attractive sons and these sons counterbalance the loss in fitness owing to over-investment in each offspring. (3) Maternal and paternal effects can provide a source of genetic variation for offspring traits, allowing evolution by sexual selection even when those traits do not show direct genetic variation (i.e. are not heritable). (4) The correlation between paternal investment and the offspring trait influenced by the parental effects can result in adaptive mate choice and lead to the elaboration of both female preference and the male sexually selected trait. When parental effects exist, sexual selection can drive the evolution of parental quality when investment increases the attractiveness of offspring, leading to the elaboration of indicator traits and higher than expected levels of parental investment.