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.     

New Approaches for Absolute Quantification of Stable‐Isotope‐Labeled Peptide Standards for Targeted Proteomics Based on a UV Active Tag

Targeted proteomics depends on the availability of stable isotope labeled (SIL) peptide standards, which for absolute protein quantification need to be absolutely quantified. In the present study, three new approaches for absolute quantification of SIL peptides are developed. All approaches rely on a quantification tag (Qtag) with a specific UV absorption. The Qtag is attached to the peptide during synthesis and is removed by tryptic digestion under standard proteomics workflow conditions. While one quantification method (method A) is designed to allow the fast and economic production of absolutely quantified SIL peptides, two other methods (methods B and C) are developed to enable the straightforward re‐quantification of SIL peptides after reconstitution to control and monitor known problems related to peptide solubility, precipitation, and adhesion to vials. All methods yield consistent results when compared to each other and when compared to quantification by amino acid analysis. The precise quantitation methods are used to characterize the in vivo specificity of the H3 specific histone methyltransferase EZH2.     

Ecological and morphological determinants of evolutionary diversification in Darwin's finches and their relatives

Darwin''s finches are a classic example of adaptive radiation, a process by which multiple ecologically distinct species rapidly evolve from a single ancestor. Such evolutionary diversification is typically explained by adaptation to new ecological opportunities. However, the ecological diversification of Darwin''s finches following their dispersal to Galápagos was not matched on the same archipelago by other lineages of colonizing land birds, which diversified very little in terms of both species number and morphology. To better understand the causes underlying the extraordinary variation in Darwin''s finches, we analyze the evolutionary dynamics of speciation and trait diversification in Thraupidae, including Coerebinae (Darwin''s finches and relatives) and, their closely related clade, Sporophilinae. For all traits, we observe an early pulse of speciation and morphological diversification followed by prolonged periods of slower steady‐state rates of change. The primary exception is the apparent recent increase in diversification rate in Darwin''s finches coupled with highly variable beak morphology, a potential key factor explaining this adaptive radiation. Our observations illustrate how the exploitation of ecological opportunity by contrasting means can produce clades with similarly high diversification rate yet strikingly different degrees of ecological and morphological differentiation.     

Biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: different non-crop habitats increase diversity of ground-dwelling beetles (Coleoptera) but support different communities

Agricultural intensification poses a major threat to the conservation of biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. Since non-crop habitats are regarded as important refuges for farmland biodiversity, various greening measures have been proposed to halt biodiversity loss. However, the effectiveness of these measures for biodiversity conservation is still under debate. Therefore, we here compared ground-dwelling beetle (Coleoptera) assemblages of different non-crop habitats (field margins, set-aside fields sown with wildflowers, and permanent grassland fallows) and wheat fields within an intensively used agricultural landscape in western Germany. Taxonomic diversity of Carabidae, Staphylinidae and other coleopteran families and their conservation value were higher in all non-crop habitats than on wheat fields. Surprisingly, though, different types of non-crop habitats did not differ in species richness or the number of threatened species. Thus, field margins and sown wildflower fields were as effective in promoting beetle diversity as grassland fallows. However, different non-crop habitats supported different species assemblages, and several species, in particular especially large ones, were restricted to grassland fallows. These results suggest that different greening measures are effective in promoting the biodiversity of beetles, and that permanent grassland fallows are essential for nature conservation. The fact that habitat types harbored different assemblages stresses the need to combine a variety of greening measures to yield the highest benefit for biodiversity.