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.     

Toward a population genetic framework of developmental evolution: the costs,limits, and consequences of phenotypic plasticity

Adaptive phenotypic plasticity allows organisms to cope with environmental variability, and yet, despite its adaptive significance, phenotypic plasticity is neither ubiquitous nor infinite. In this review, we merge developmental and population genetic perspectives to explore costs and limits on the evolution of plasticity. Specifically, we focus on the role of modularity in developmental genetic networks as a mechanism underlying phenotypic plasticity, and apply to it lessons learned from population genetic theory on the interplay between relaxed selection and mutation accumulation. We argue that the environmental specificity of gene expression and the associated reduction in pleiotropic constraints drive a fundamental tradeoff between the range of plasticity that can be accommodated and mutation accumulation in alternative developmental networks. This tradeoff has broad implications for understanding the origin and maintenance of plasticity and may contribute to a better understanding of the role of plasticity in the origin, diversification, and loss of phenotypic diversity.     

Constraints on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity in the clonal plant Hydrocotyle vulgaris

The evolution of phenotypic plasticity of plant traits may be constrained by costs and limits. However, the precise constraints are still unclear for many traits under different ecological contexts. In a glasshouse experiment, we grew ramets of 12 genotypes of a clonal plant Hydrocotyle vulgaris under the control (full light and no flood), shade and flood conditions and tested the potential costs and limits of plasticity in 13 morphological and physiological traits in response to light availability and flood variation. In particular, we used multiple regression and correlation analyses to evaluate potential plasticity costs, developmental instability costs and developmental range limits of each trait. We detected significant costs of plasticity in specific petiole length and specific leaf area in response to shade under the full light condition and developmental range limits in specific internode length and intercellular CO₂ concentration in response to light availability variation. However, we did not observe significant costs or limits of plasticity in any of the 13 traits in response to flood variation. Our results suggest that the evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plant traits can be constrained by costs and limits, but such constraints may be infrequent and differ under different environmental contexts.     

Evaluating the fitness consequences of plasticity in tolerance to pesticides

In a rapidly changing world, phenotypic plasticity may be a critical mechanism allowing populations to rapidly acclimate when faced with novel anthropogenic stressors. Theory predicts that if exposure to anthropogenic stress is heterogeneous, plasticity should be maintained as it allows organisms to avoid unnecessary expression of costly traits (i.e., phenotypic costs) when stressors are absent. Conversely, if exposure to stressors becomes constant, costs or limits of plasticity may lead to evolutionary trait canalization (i.e., genetic assimilation). While these concepts are well‐established in theory, few studies have examined whether these factors explain patterns of plasticity in natural populations facing anthropogenic stress. Using wild populations of wood frogs that vary in plasticity in tolerance to pesticides, the goal of this study was to evaluate the environmental conditions under which plasticity is expected to be advantageous or detrimental. We found that when pesticides were absent, more plastic populations exhibited lower pesticide tolerance and were more fit than less plastic populations, likely avoiding the cost of expressing high tolerance when it was not necessary. Contrary to our predictions, when pesticides were present, more plastic populations were as fit as less plastic populations, showing no signs of costs or limits of plasticity. Amidst unprecedented global change, understanding the factors shaping the evolution of plasticity will become increasingly important.     

Gene regulation,quantitative genetics and the evolution of reaction norms

Summary The ideas of phenotypic plasticity and of reaction norm are gaining prominence as important components of theories of phenotypic evolution. Our understanding of the role of phenotypic plasticity as an adaptation of organisms to variable environments will depend on (1) the form(s) of genetic and developmental control exerted on the shape of the reaction norm and (2) the nature of the constraints on the possible evolutionary trajectories in multiple environments. In this paper we identify two categories of genetic control of plasticity: allelic sensitivity and gene regulation. These correspond generally to two classes of response by the developmental system to environmental change: phenotypic modulation, in which plastic responses are a continuous and proportional function of environmental stimuli and developmental conversion, where responses tend to be not simply proportional to the stimuli. We propose that control of plasticity by regulatory actions has distinct advantages over simple allelic sensitivity: stability of phenotypic expression, capacity for anticipatory response and relaxation of constraints due to genetic correlations. We cite examples of the extensive molecular evidence for the existence of environmentally-cued gene regulation leading to developmental conversion. The results of quantitative genetic investigations on the genetics and evolution of plasticity, as well as the limits of current approaches are discussed. We suggest that evolution of reaction norms would be affected by the ecological context (i.e. spatial versus temporal variation, hard versus soft selection, and fine versus coarse environmental grain). We conclude by discussing some empirical approaches to address fundamental questions about plasticity evolution.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity: Tests with predator-induced morphology and life history in a freshwater snail

Potential constraints on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity were tested using data from a previous study on predator-induced morphology and life history in the freshwater snail Physa heterostropha. The benefit of plasticity can be reduced if facultative development is associated with energetic costs, developmental instability, or an impaired developmental range. I examined plasticity in two traits for 29 families of P. heterostropha to see if it was associated with growth rate or fecundity, within-family phenotypic variance, or the potential to produce extreme phenotypes. Support was found for only one of the potential constraints. There was a strong negative selection gradient for growth rate associated with plasticity in shell shape (β = ?0.3, P < 0.0001). This result was attributed to a genetic correlation between morphological plasticity and an antipredator behavior that restricts feeding. Thus, reduced growth associated with morphological plasticity may have had unmeasured fitness benefits. The growth reduction, therefore, is equivocal as a cost of plasticity. Using different fitness components (e.g., survival, fecundity, growth) to seek constraints on plasticity will yield different results in selection gradient analyses. Procedural and conceptual issues related to tests for costs and limits of plasticity are discussed, such as whether constraints on plasticity will be evolutionarily ephemeral and difficult to detect in nature.     

The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in spatially structured environments: implications of intraspecific competition, plasticity costs and environmental characteristics

We model the evolution of reaction norms focusing on three aspects: frequency-dependent selection arising from resource competition, maintenance and production costs of phenotypic plasticity, and three characteristics of environmental heterogeneity (frequency of environments, their intrinsic carrying capacity and the sensitivity to phenotypic maladaptation in these environments). We show that (i) reaction norms evolve so as to trade adaptation for acquiring resources against cost avoidance; (ii) maintenance costs cause reaction norms to better adapt to frequent rather than to infrequent environments, whereas production costs do not; and (iii) evolved reaction norms confer better adaptation to environments with low rather than with high intrinsic carrying capacity. The two previous findings contradict earlier theoretical results and originate from two previously unexplored features that are included in our model. First, production costs of phenotypic plasticity are only incurred when a given phenotype is actually produced. Therefore, they are proportional to the frequency of environments, and these frequencies thus affect the selection pressure to avoid costs just as much as the selection pressure to improve adaptation. This prevents the frequency of environments from affecting the evolving reaction norm. Secondly, our model describes the evolution of plasticity for a phenotype determining an individual's capability to acquire resources, and thus its realized carrying capacity. When individuals are distributed randomly across environments, they cannot avoid experiencing environments with intrinsically low carrying capacity. As selection pressures arising from the need to improve adaptation are stronger under such extreme conditions than under mild ones, better adaptation to environments with low rather than with high intrinsic carrying capacity results.     

Phenotypic and genomic plasticity of alternative male reproductive tactics in sailfin mollies

A major goal of modern evolutionary biology is to understand the causes and consequences of phenotypic plasticity, the ability of a single genotype to produce multiple phenotypes in response to variable environments. While ecological and quantitative genetic studies have evaluated models of the evolution of adaptive plasticity, some long-standing questions about plasticity require more mechanistic approaches. Here, we address two of those questions: does plasticity facilitate adaptive evolution? And do physiological costs place limits on plasticity? We examine these questions by comparing genetically and plastically regulated behavioural variation in sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna), which exhibit striking variation in plasticity for male mating behaviour. In this species, some genotypes respond plastically to a change in the social environment by switching between primarily courting and primarily sneaking behaviour. In contrast, other genotypes have fixed mating strategies (either courting or sneaking) and do not display plasticity. We found that genetic and plastic variation in behaviour were accompanied by partially, but not completely overlapping changes in brain gene expression, in partial support of models that predict that plasticity can facilitate adaptive evolution. We also found that behavioural plasticity was accompanied by broader and more robust changes in brain gene expression, suggesting a substantial physiological cost to plasticity. We also observed that sneaking behaviour, but not courting, was associated with upregulation of genes involved in learning and memory, suggesting that sneaking is more cognitively demanding than courtship.     

Old wine in new bottles: reaction norms in salmonid fishes

Genetic variability in reaction norms reflects differences in the ability of individuals, populations and ultimately species to respond to environmental change. By increasing our understanding of how genotype × environment interactions influence evolution, studies of genetic variation in phenotypic plasticity serve to refine our capacity to predict how populations will respond to natural and anthropogenic environmental variability, including climate change. Given the extraordinary variability in morphology, behaviour and life history in salmonids, one might anticipate the research milieu on reaction norms in these fishes to be empirically rich and intellectually engaging. Here, I undertake a review of genetic variability in continuous and discontinuous (threshold) norms of reaction in salmonid fishes, as determined primarily (but not exclusively) by common-garden experiments. Although in its infancy from a numerical publication perspective, there is taxonomically broad evidence of genetic differentiation in continuous, threshold and bivariate reaction norms among individuals, families and populations (including inter-population hybrids and backcrosses) for traits as divergent as embryonic development, age and size at maturity, and gene expression. There is compelling inferential evidence that plasticity is heritable and that population differences in reaction norms can reflect adaptive responses, by natural selection, to local environments. As a stimulus for future work, a series of 20 research questions are identified that focus on reaction-norm variability, selection, costs and constraints, demographic and conservation consequences, and genetic markers and correlates of phenotypic plasticity.     

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.     

Flowering time plasticity in Arabidopsis thaliana: a reanalysis of Westerman & Lawrence (1970)

Environmental variation in temperature can have dramatic effects on plant morphology, phenology, and fitness, and for this reason it is important to understand the evolutionary dynamics of phenotypic plasticity in response to temperature. We investigated constraints on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity in response to a temperature gradient in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana by applying modern analytical tools to the classic data of Westerman & Lawrence (1970). We found significant evidence for two types of constraints. First, we detected numerous significant genetic correlations between plastic responses to temperature and the mean value of a trait across all environments, which differed qualitatively in pattern between the set of ecotypes and the set of mutant lines in the original sample. Secondly, we detected significant costs of flowering time plasticity in two of the three experimental environments, and a net pattern of selection against flowering time plasticity in the experiment overall. Thus, when explored with contemporary methods, the prescient work of Westerman & Lawrence (1970) provides new insights about evolutionary constraints on the evolution of plasticity.     

Compensatory development and costs of plasticity: larval responses to desiccated conspecifics

Understanding constraints on phenotypic plasticity is central to explaining its evolution and the evolution of phenotypes in general, yet there is an ongoing debate on the classification and relationships among types of constraints. Since plasticity is often a developmental process, studies that consider the ontogeny of traits and their developmental mechanisms are beneficial. We manipulated the timing and reliability of cues perceived by fire salamander larvae for the future desiccation of their ephemeral pools to determine whether flexibility in developmental rates is constrained to early ontogeny. We hypothesized that higher rates of development, and particularly compensation for contradictory cues, would incur greater endogenous costs. We found that larvae respond early in ontogeny to dried conspecifics as a cue for future desiccation, but can fully compensate for this response in case more reliable but contradictory cues are later perceived. Patterns of mortality suggested that endogenous costs may depend on instantaneous rates of development, and revealed asymmetrical costs of compensatory development between false positive and false negative early information. Based on the results, we suggest a simple model of costs of development that implies a tradeoff between production costs of plasticity and phenotype-environment mismatch costs, which may potentially underlie the phenomenon of ontogenetic windows constraining plasticity.     

Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity

The costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity are thought to have important ecological and evolutionary consequences, yet they are not as well understood as the benefits of plasticity. At least nine ideas exist regarding how plasticity may be costly or limited, but these have rarely been discussed together. The most commonly discussed cost is that of maintaining the sensory and regulatory machinery needed for plasticity, which may require energy and material expenses. A frequently considered limit to the benefit of plasticity is that the environmental cues guiding plastic development can be unreliable. Such costs and limits have recently been included in theoretical models and, perhaps more importantly, relevant empirical studies now have emerged. Despite the current interest in costs and limits of plasticity, several lines of reasoning suggest that they might be difficult to demonstrate.