Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Ongoing and Future Challenges
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Biology
Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Evolution of phenotypic plasticity in extreme environments

Profile image of Ary HoffmannAry Hoffmann

2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

https://doi.org/10.1098/RSTB.2016.0138
visibility

…

description

12 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Phenotypic plasticity, if adaptive, may allow species to counter the detrimental effects of extreme conditions, but the infrequent occurrence of extreme environments and/or their restriction to low-quality habitats within a species range means that they exert little direct selection on reaction norms. Plasticity could, therefore, be maladaptive under extreme environments, unless genetic correlations are strong between extreme and non-extreme environmental states, and the optimum phenotype changes smoothly with the environment. Empirical evidence suggests that populations and species from more variable environments show higher levels of plasticity that might preadapt them to extremes, but genetic variance for plastic responses can also be low, and genetic variation may not be expressed for some classes of traits under extreme conditions. Much of the empirical literature on plastic responses to extremes has not yet been linked to ecologically relevant conditions, such as asymmetrical ...

Related papers

Quantitative estimation of phenotypic plasticity: bridging the gap between the evolutionary concept and its ecological applications
Fernando Valladares

2006

Summary 1 Global change and emerging concepts in ecology and evolution are leading to a growing interest in phenotypic plasticity (PP), the environmentally contingent trait expression observed in a given genotype. The need to quantify PP in a simple manner in comparative ecological studies has resulted in the prevalence of various indices instead of the classic approaches, ie a comparison of slopes in the norms of reactions (trait vs. environment plots).

View PDFchevron_right
Should I Change or Should I Go? Phenotypic Plasticity and Matching Habitat Choice in the Adaptation to Environmental Heterogeneity
Pim Edelaar

The American Naturalist

It can be challenging for organisms to achieve a good match between their phenotypic characteristics and environmental requirements that vary in space and time. The evolution of adaptive phenotypes can result from genetic differentiation at the population level. Individuals, however, could also change their phenotype (adaptive plasticity) or select an environment because it matches with their phenotype (matching habitat choice). It is poorly known under which conditions these different solutions to environmental heterogeneity evolve and whether they operate together. Using an individual-based simulation model, we assessed which solutions evolved depending on degree of temporal variation, costs of multiple underlying traits, and order of dispersal and development. Population genetic divergence was superseded by plasticity or matching habitat choice as temporal variation increased. Plasticity and matching habitat choice were limited by their trait costs, even when this involved only a part of the underlying traits. Independent of the order of dispersal and development, plasticity evolved more commonly than matching habitat choice, in part because the match a phenotype can achieve by matching habitat choice is limited by the types of environments available. Our results explain the apparent relative rarity of matching habitat choice in nature. At the same time, our results can be used to look for matching habitat choice in those biological systems where the conditions for other solutions seem unfavorable.

View PDFchevron_right
Adaptive phenotypic plasticity: consensus and controversy
Peter Van Tienderen

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 1995

View PDFchevron_right
Genotype-Environment Interaction and the Evolution of Phenotypic Plasticity
Sara Via

Evolution, 1985

Studies of spatial variation in the environment have primarily focused on how genetic variation can be maintained. Many one-locus genetic models have addressed this issue, but, for several reasons, these models are not directly applicable to quantitative (polygenic) traits. One reason is that for continuously varying characters, the evolution of the mean phenotype expressed in different environments (the norm of reaction) is also of interest. Our quantitative genetic models describe the evolution of phenotypic response to the environment, also known as phenotypic plasticity (Gause, 1947), and illustrate how the norm of reaction (Schmalhausen, 1949) can be shaped by selection. These models utilize the statistical relationship which exists between genotype-environment interaction and genetic correlation to describe evolution of the mean phenotype under soft and hard selection in coarse-grained environments. Just as genetic correlations among characters within a single environment can constrain the response to simultaneous selection, so can a genetic correlation between states of a character which are expressed in two environments. Unless the genetic correlation across environments is ? 1, polygenic variation is exhausted, or there is a cost to plasticity, panmictic populations under a bivariate fitness function will eventually attain the optimum mean phenotype for a given character in each environment. However, very high positive or negative correlations can substantially slow the rate of evolution and may produce temporary maladaptation in one environment before the optimum joint phenotype is finally attained. Evolutionary trajectories under hard and soft selection can differ: in hard selection, the environments with the highest initial mean fitness contribute most individuals to the mating pool. In both hard and soft selection, evolution toward the optimum in a rare environment is much slower than it is in a common one. A subdivided population model reveals that migration restriction can facilitate local adaptation. However, unless there is no migration or one of the special cases discussed for panmictic populations holds, no geographical variation in the norm of reaction will be maintained at equilibrium. Implications of these results for the interpretation of spatial patterns of phenotypic variation in natural populations are discussed.

View PDFchevron_right
Evolution in stressful environments. I. Phenotypic variability, phenotypic selection, and response to selection in five distinct environmental stresses
Bitty Roy

2000

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

View PDFchevron_right
Adaptive phenotypic plasticity and resilience of vertebrates to increasing climatic unpredictability
Pierre-Yves Henry

Climate Research, 2010

As ecosystems undergo global changes, there is increasing interest in understanding how organisms respond to changing environments. Recent evidence drawn from available vertebrate studies suggests that most of the phenotypic responses to climate change would be due to plasticity. We hypothesize that organisms that have evolved in unpredictable environments inform us about the mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity which provide an adaptive response to climate instability. As climate changes increase climatic hazards, these resilience mechanisms are expected to spread within species, populations and communities. We review studies that have demonstrated the importance of phenotypic plasticity in different life-history traits in overcoming climate uncertainty. We focus on organisms from unstable, recurrently energetically restrictive environments which possess a variety of morphological, physiological and/or behavioural adaptations to climate-driven selective pressures. First, we treat plastic morphological changes in response to fluctuating food availability. Adjustment of morphometric traits and/or organ size to energy supply would be essential in harsh environments. Second, we review the role of flexible energy-saving mechanisms, such as daily torpor, hibernation and energy storage, in overcoming climate-driven energetic shortages. Lastly, we address the role of plastic modulation of reproduction in fine-tuning the energy allocation to offspring production according to environmental conditions, with an emphasis on opportunistic breeding. Overall, we predict that species (or genotypes) possessing these efficient physiological mechanisms of resilience to unpredictable water and food fluctuations will be selectively advantaged in the face of increasing climatic instability.

View PDFchevron_right
Beyond buying time: the role of plasticity in phenotypic adaptation to rapid environmental change
Jennifer Donelson

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 2019

One contribution of 13 to a theme issue 'The role of plasticity in phenotypic adaptation to rapid environmental change'.

View PDFchevron_right
Climate change, adaptation, and phenotypic plasticity: the problem and the evidence
Andrew Hendry

Evolutionary Applications, 2014

Many studies have recorded phenotypic changes in natural populations and attributed them to climate change. However, controversy and uncertainty has arisen around three levels of inference in such studies. First, it has proven difficult to conclusively distinguish whether phenotypic changes are genetically based or the result of phenotypic plasticity. Second, whether or not the change is adaptive is usually assumed rather than tested. Third, inferences that climate change is the specific causal agent have rarely involved the testingand exclusionof other potential drivers. We here review the various ways in which the above inferences have been attempted, and evaluate the strength of support that each approach can provide. This methodological assessment sets the stage for 11 accompanying review articles that attempt comprehensive syntheses of what is currently known and not knownabout responses to climate change in a variety of taxa and in theory. Summarizing and relying on the results of these reviews, we arrive at the conclusion that evidence for genetic adaptation to climate change has been found in some systems, but is still relatively scarce. Most importantly, it is clear that more studies are neededand these must employ better inferential methodsbefore general conclusions can be drawn. Overall, we hope that the present paper and special issue provide inspiration for future research and guidelines on best practices for its execution.

View PDFchevron_right
Evolutionary Analyses of Morphological and Physiological Plasticity in Thermally Variable Environments
Raymond Huey

American Zoologist, 1998

SYNOPSIS. Morphological and physiological plasticity is often thought to represent an adaptive response to variable environments. However, determining whether a given pattern of plasticity is in fact adaptive is analytically challenging, as is evaluating the degree of and limits to adaptive plasticity. Here we describe a general methodological framework for studying the evolution of plastic responses. This framework synthesizes recent analytical advances from both evolutionary ecology and functional biology, and it does so by integrating field experiments, functional and physiological analyses, environmental data, and genetic studies of plasticity. We argue that studies of plasticity in response to the thermal environment may be particularly valuable in understanding the role of environmental variation in the evolution of plasticity: not only can thermally-relevant traits often be mechanistically and physiologically linked to the thermal environment, but also the variability and predictability of the thermal environment itself can be quantified on ecologically relevant time scales. We illustrate this approach by reviewing a case study of seasonal plasticity in the extent of wing melanization in Western White Butterflies (Pontia occidentalis). This review demonstrates that 1) wing melanin plasticity is heritable, 2) plasticity does increase fitness in nature, but the effect varies between seasons and between years, 3) selection on existing variation in the magnitude of plasticity favors increased plasticity in one melanin trait that affects thermoregulation, but 4) the marked unpredictability of short-term (within-season) weather patterns substantially limits the capacity of plasticity to match optimal wing phenotypes to the weather conditions actually experienced. We complement the above case study with a casual review of selected aspects of thermal acclimation responses. The magnitude of thermal acclimation ("flexibility") is demonstrably modest rather than fully compensatory. The magnitude of genetic variation (crucial to evolutionary responses to selection) in thermal acclimation responses has been investigated in only a few species to date. In conclusion, we suggest that an understanding of selection and evolution of thermal acclimation will be enhanced by experimental examinations of mechanistic links between traits and environments, of the physiological bases and functional consequences of acclimation, of patterns of environmental variability and predictability, of the fitness consequences of acclimation in nature, and of potential genetic constraints. c o n d i t i o n s i n a way that may alter that individual's fitness. 1 From the Symposium Responses of Terrestrial Ar-Acclimation to temperature in eCtOtherms thropods to Variation in the Thermal and Hydric En-has long been a central topic of physiologvironment: Molecular, Organismal, and Evolutionary j c a l r e s e a r c h (Bernard QUOte above; PrOSSer, S^?or,ntee an^o^ivTSg3

View PDFchevron_right
Evolutionary tipping points in the capacity to adapt to environmental change
Dustin R. Rubenstein

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015

In an era of rapid climate change, there is a pressing need to understand how organisms will cope with faster and less predictable variation in environmental conditions. Here we develop a unifying model that predicts evolutionary responses to environmentally driven fluctuating selection and use this theoretical framework to explore the potential consequences of altered environmental cycles. We first show that the parameter space determined by different combinations of predictability and timescale of environmental variation is partitioned into distinct regions where a single mode of response (reversible phenotypic plasticity, irreversible phenotypic plasticity, bet-hedging, or adaptive tracking) has a clear selective advantage over all others. We then demonstrate that, although significant environmental changes within these regions can be accommodated by evolution, most changes that involve transitions between regions result in rapid population collapse and often extinction. Thus, th...

View PDFchevron_right

References (140)

  1. Parmesan C. 2006 Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 637-669. (doi:10.1146/Annurev. Ecolsys.37.091305.110100)
  2. Hoffmann AA, Sgro CM. 2011 Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature 470, 479 -485. (doi:10.1038/nature09670)
  3. Ozgul A, Childs DZ, Oli MK, Armitage KB, Blumstein DT, Olson LE, Tuljapurkar S, Coulson T. 2010 Coupled dynamics of body mass and population growth in response to environmental change. Nature 466, 482-485. (doi:10.1038/Nature09210)
  4. Ozgul A, Tuljapurkar S, Benton TG, Pemberton JM, Clutton-Brock TH, Coulson T. 2009 The dynamics of phenotypic change and the shrinking sheep of St. Kilda. Science 325, 464-467. (doi:10.1126/ Science.1173668)
  5. Ellner SP, Geber MA, Hairston Jr NG. 2011 Does rapid evolution matter? Measuring the rate of contemporary evolution and its impacts on ecological dynamics. Ecol. Lett. 14, 603-614. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01616.x)
  6. Merila J, Hendry AP. 2014 Climate change, adaptation, and phenotypic plasticity: the problem and the evidence. Evol. Appl. 7, 1-14. (doi:10. 1111/eva.12137)
  7. Gienapp P, Teplitsky C, Alho JS, Mills JA, Merila J. 2008 Climate change and evolution: disentangling environmental and genetic responses. Mol. Ecol. 17, 167-178. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007. 03413.x)
  8. Charmantier A, McCleery RH, Cole LR, Perrins C, Kruuk LE, Sheldon BC. 2008 Adaptive phenotypic plasticity in response to climate change in a wild bird population. Science 320, 800-803. (doi:10. 1126/science.1157174)
  9. Reed TE, Waples RS, Schindler DE, Hard JJ, Kinnison MT. 2010 Phenotypic plasticity and population viability: the importance of environmental predictability. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 3391 -3400. (doi:10.1098/Rspb.2010.0771)
  10. Chevin LM, Lande R. 2010 When do adaptive plasticity and genetic evolution prevent extinction of a density-regulated population? Evolution 64, 1143 -1150. (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009. 00875.x)
  11. Chevin LM, Lande R, Mace GM. 2010 Adaptation, plasticity, and extinction in a changing environment: towards a predictive theory. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000357. (doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000357)
  12. Botero CA, Weissing FJ, Wright J, Rubenstein DR. 2015 Evolutionary tipping points in the capacity to adapt to environmental change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 184-189. (doi:10.1073/pnas. 1408589111)
  13. Ashander J, Chevin LM, Baskett M. 2016 Predicting rescue via evolving plasticity in stochastic environments. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20161690. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.1690)
  14. Kovach-Orr C, Fussmann GF. 2013 Evolutionary and plastic rescue in multitrophic model communities. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120084. (doi:10.1098/ rstb.2012.0084)
  15. Easterling DR, Meehl GA, Parmesan C, Changnon SA, Karl TR, Mearns LO. 2000 Climate extremes: observations, modeling, and impacts. Science 289, 2068 -2074. (doi:10.1126/science.289.5487.2068)
  16. Stocker TF. 2014 Climate change 2013: the physical science basis: Working Group I contribution to the Fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Ummenhofer CC, Meehl GA. 2017 Extreme weather and climate events with ecological relevance: a review. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372, 20160135. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0135)
  18. Hoffmann AA, Parsons PA. 1991 Evolutionary genetics and environmental stress. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  19. Hoffmann AA, Parsons PA. 1997 Extreme environmental change and evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Pardo D, Jenouvrier S, Weimerskirch H, Barbraud C. 2017 Effect of extreme sea surface temperature events on the demography of an age-structured albatross population. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372, 20160143. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0143)
  21. Bailey LD, Ens BJ, Both C, Heg D, Oosterbeek K, van de Pol M. 2017 No phenotypic plasticity in nest-site selection in response to extreme flooding events. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372, 20160139. (doi:10.1098/ rstb.2016.0139)
  22. Lynch M, Gabriel W. 1987 Environmental tolerance. Am. Nat. 129, 283 -303. (doi:10.1086/284635)
  23. Chevin LM, Gallet R, Gomulkiewicz R, Holt RD, Fellous S. 2013 Phenotypic plasticity in evolutionary rescue experiments. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120089. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0089)
  24. Lande R. 2014 Evolution of phenotypic plasticity and environmental tolerance of a labile quantitative character in a fluctuating environment. J. Evol. Biol. 27, 866 -875. (doi:10.1111/jeb.12360)
  25. Kingsolver JG, Buckley LB. 2017 Quantifying thermal extremes and biological variation to predict evolutionary responses to changing climate. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372, 20160147. (doi:10.1098/rstb. 2016.0147)
  26. van de Pol M, Jenouvrier S, Cornelissen JHC, Visser ME. 2017 Behavioural, ecological and evolutionary responses to extreme climatic events: challenges and directions. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372, 20160134. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0134)
  27. Grant PR, Grant BR, Huey RB, Johnson MTJ, Knoll AH, Schmitt J. 2017 Evolution caused by extreme events. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372, 20160146. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0146)
  28. Marrot P, Garant D, Charmantier A. 2017 Multiple extreme climatic events strengthen selection for earlier breeding in a wild passerine. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372, 20160372. (doi:10.1098/rstb. 2016.0372)
  29. Agrawal AF, Whitlock MC. 2010 Environmental duress and epistasis: how does stress affect the strength of selection on new mutations? Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 450-458. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.05.003)
  30. Hoffmann AA, Hercus MJ. 2000 Environmental stress as an evolutionary force. Bioscience 50, 217-226. (doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0217:Esaaef ]2.3. Co;
  31. Holt RD. 2009 Bringing the Hutchinsonian niche into the 21st century: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 19 659 -19 665. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0905137106)
  32. Garcı ´a-Ramos G, Kirkpatrick M. 1997 Genetic models of adaptation and gene flow in peripheral populations. Evolution 51, 21 -28. (doi:10.2307/ 2410956)
  33. Kirkpatrick M, Barton NH. 1997 Evolution of a species' range. Am. Nat. 150, 1-23. (doi:10.1086/ 286054)
  34. Nougue ´O, Svendsen N, Jabbour-Zahab R, Lenormand T, Chevin LM. 2016 The ontogeny of tolerance curves: habitat quality versus acclimation in a stressful environment. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 1625-1635. (doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12572)
  35. Pulliam HR. 1988 Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am. Nat. 132, 652 -661. (doi:10.1086/ 284880)
  36. Lande R. 2009 Adaptation to an extraordinary environment by evolution of phenotypic plasticity rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372: 20160138 and genetic assimilation. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 1435 -1446. (doi:10.1111/J.1420-9101.2009. 01754.X).
  37. Kawecki T. 2004 Ecological and evolutionary consequences of source-sink population dynamics. In Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations (eds I Hanski, O Gaggiotti), pp. 387-414. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
  38. Holt RD, Gaines MS. 1992 Analysis of adaptation in heterogeneous landscapes: implications for the evolution of fundamental niches. Evol. Ecol. 6, 433-447. (doi:10.1007/BF02270702)
  39. Sasaki A, de Jong G. 1999 Density dependence and unpredictable selection in a heterogeneous environment: compromise and polymorphism in the ESS reaction norm. Evolution 53, 1329 -1342. (doi:10.2307/2640880)
  40. de Jong G, Behera N. 2002 The influence of life- history differences on the evolution of reaction norms. Evol. Ecol. Res. 4, 1-25.
  41. Ghalambor C, McKay J, Carroll S, Reznick D. 2007 Adaptive versus non-adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments. Funct. Ecol. 21, 394-407. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01283.x)
  42. Falconer DS. 1952 The problem of environment and selection. Am. Nat. 86, 293-298. (doi:10.1086/ 281736)
  43. Via S, Lande R. 1985 Genotype-environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39, 505-522. (doi:10.2307/ 2408649)
  44. Kirkpatrick M, Lofsvold D. 1989 The evolution of growth trajectories and other complex quantitative characters. Genome 31, 778-783. (doi:10.1139/ g89-137)
  45. Stinchcombe JR, Kirkpatrick M, Function-valued Traits Working Group. 2012 Genetics and evolution of function-valued traits: understanding environmentally responsive phenotypes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 637 -647. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.07.002)
  46. Gomulkiewicz R, Kirkpatrick M. 1992 Quantitative genetics and the evolution of reaction norms. Evolution 46, 390-411. (doi:10.2307/2409860)
  47. Kirkpatrick M, Lofsvold D. 1992 Measuring selection and constraint in the evolution of growth. Evolution 46, 954-971. (doi:10.2307/2409749)
  48. de Jong G. 1990 Quantitative genetics of reaction norms. J. Evol. Biol. 3, 447-468. (doi:10.1046/j. 1420-9101.1990.3050447.x)
  49. Gavrilets S, Scheiner SM. 1993 The genetics of phenotypic plasticity. 5. Evolution of reaction norm shape. J. Evol. Biol. 6, 31-48. (doi:10.1046/j.1420- 9101.1993.6010031.x)
  50. Tufto J. 2000 The evolution of plasticity and nonplastic spatial and temporal adaptations in the presence of imperfect environmental cues. Am. Nat. 156, 121-130. (doi:10.1086/303381)
  51. Chevin LM, Lande R. 2013 Evolution of discrete phenotypes from continuous norms of reaction. Am. Nat. 182, 13 -27. (doi:10.1086/670613)
  52. Hammill E, Rogers A, Beckerman A. 2008 Costs, benefits and the evolution of inducible defences: a case study with Daphnia pulex. J. Evol. Biol. 21, 705 -715. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01520.x)
  53. de Jong G. 2005 Evolution of phenotypic plasticity: patterns of plasticity and the emergence of ecotypes. New Phytol. 166, 101-117. (doi:10.1111/ j.1469-8137.2005.01322.x)
  54. Lande R. 1976 Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution. Evolution 30, 314 -334. (doi:10.2307/2407703)
  55. Ernande B, Dieckmann U, Heino M. 2004 Adaptive changes in harvested populations: plasticity and evolution of age and size at maturation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 415-423. (doi:10.1098/ rspb.2003.2519)
  56. Svennungsen TO, Holen OH, Leimar O. 2011 Inducible defenses: continuous reaction norms or threshold traits? Am. Nat. 178, 397-410. (doi:10. 1086/661250)
  57. Dewitt TJ, Sih A, Wilson DS. 1998 Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 77 -81. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(97)01274-3)
  58. Van Tienderen P. 1991 Evolution of generalists and specialists in spatially heterogeneous environments. Evolution 45, 1317 -1331. (doi:10.2307/2409882)
  59. Gabriel W. 2005 How stress selects for reversible phenotypic plasticity. J. Evol. Biol. 18, 873-883. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00959.x)
  60. Gavrilets S, Scheiner SM. 1993 The genetics of phenotypic plasticity. VI. Theoretical predictions for directional selection. J. Evol. Biol. 6, 49 -68. (doi:10. 1046/j.1420-9101.1993.6010049.x)
  61. Bull JJ. 1987 Evolution of phenotypic variance. Evolution 41, 303 -315. (doi:10.2307/2409140)
  62. Kawecki TJ. 2000 The evolution of canalization under fluctuating selection. Evolution 54, 1 -12. (doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00001.x)
  63. Tufto J. 2015 Genetic evolution, plasticity, and bet- hedging as adaptive responses to temporally autocorrelated fluctuating selection: a quantitative genetic model. Evolution 69, 2034-2049. (doi:10. 1111/evo.12716)
  64. Chevin LM, Lande R. 2011 Adaptation to marginal habitats by evolution of increased phenotypic plasticity. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 1462-1476. (doi:10. 1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02279.x)
  65. de Jong G. 1999 Unpredictable selection in a structured population leads to local genetic differentiation in evolved reaction norms. J. Evol. Biol. 12, 839 -851. (doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.1999. 00118.x)
  66. Narum SR, Campbell NR, Meyer KA, Miller MR, Hardy RW. 2013 Thermal adaptation and acclimation of ectotherms from differing aquatic climates. Mol. Ecol. 22, 3090-3097. (doi:10.1111/ mec.12240)
  67. Sorensen JG, Dahlgaard J, Loeschcke V. 2001 Genetic variation in thermal tolerance among natural populations of Drosophila buzzatii: down regulation of Hsp70 expression and variation in heat stress resistance traits. Funct. Ecol. 15, 289-296. (doi:10. 1046/j.1365-2435.2001.00525.x)
  68. Lancaster LT, Dudaniec RY, Hansson B, Svensson EI. 2015 Latitudinal shift in thermal niche breadth results from thermal release during a climate- mediated range expansion. J. Biogeogr. 42, 1953-1963. (doi:10.1111/jbi.12553)
  69. Woods EC, Hastings AP, Turley NE, Heard SB, Agrawal AA. 2012 Adaptive geographical clines in the growth and defense of a native plant. Ecol. Monogr. 82, 149-168. (doi:10.1890/11-1446.1)
  70. Toftegaard T, Posledovich D, Navarro-Cano JA, Wiklund C, Gotthard K, Ehrlen J. 2016 Variation in plant thermal reaction norms along a latitudinal gradient-more than adaptation to season length. Oikos 125, 622-628. (doi:10.1111/oik.02323)
  71. Stinchcombe JR, Weinig C, Ungerer M, Olsen KM, Mays C, Halldorsdottir SS, Purugganan MD, Schmitt J. 2004 A latitudinal cline in flowering time in Arabidopsis thaliana modulated by the flowering time gene FRIGIDA. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 4712-4717. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0306401101)
  72. Volis S, Ormanbekova D, Yermekbayev K. 2015 Role of phenotypic plasticity and population differentiation in adaptation to novel environmental conditions. Ecol. Evol. 5, 3818 -3829. (doi:10.1002/ ece3.1607)
  73. Taibi K, del Campo AD, Aguado A, Mulet JM. 2015 The effect of genotype by environment interaction, phenotypic plasticity and adaptation on Pinus halepensis reforestation establishment under expected climate drifts. Ecol. Eng. 84, 218-228. (doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.09.005)
  74. Gugger S, Kesselring H, Stocklin J, Hamann E. 2015 Lower plasticity exhibited by high-versus mid- elevation species in their phenological responses to manipulated temperature and drought. Ann. Bot. 116, 953-962. (doi:10.1093/aob/mcv155)
  75. Chown SL, Slabber S, McGeoch MA, Janion C, Leinaas HP. 2007 Phenotypic plasticity mediates climate change responses among invasive and indigenous arthropods. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 2531-2537. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0772)
  76. Maron JL, Elmendorf SC, Vila M. 2007 Contrasting plant physiological adaptation to climate in the native and introduced range of Hypericum perforatum. Evolution 61, 1912-1924. (doi:10. 1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00153.x)
  77. Paccard A, Fruleux A, Willi Y. 2014 Latitudinal trait variation and responses to drought in Arabidopsis lyrata. Oecologia 175, 577-587. (doi:10.1007/ s00442-014-2932-8)
  78. Sgro CM, Overgaard J, Kristensen TN, Mitchell KA, Cockerell FE, Hoffmann AA. 2010 A comprehensive assessment of geographic variation in heat tolerance and hardening capacity in populations of Drosophila melanogaster from eastern Australia. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 2484-2493. (doi:10.1111/j.1420- 9101.2010.02110.x)
  79. Magozzi S, Calosi P. 2015 Integrating metabolic performance, thermal tolerance, and plasticity enables for more accurate predictions on species vulnerability to acute and chronic effects of global warming. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 181 -194. (doi:10. 1111/gcb.12695)
  80. Overgaard J, Kristensen TN, Mitchell KA, Hoffmann AA. 2011 Thermal tolerance in widespread and rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372: 20160138 tropical Drosophila species: does phenotypic plasticity increase with latitude? Am. Nat. 178, S80-S96. (doi:10.1086/661780)
  81. Franks SJ, Weis AE. 2008 A change in climate causes rapid evolution of multiple life-history traits and their interactions in an annual plant. J. Evol. Biol. 21, 1321-1334. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008. 01566.x)
  82. Novy A, Flory SL, Hartman JM. 2013 Evidence for rapid evolution of phenology in an invasive grass. J. Evol. Biol. 26, 443-450. (doi:10.1111/jeb.12047)
  83. Kingsolver J, Massie K, Ragland G, Smith M. 2007 Rapid population divergence in thermal reaction norms for an invading species: breaking the temperature-size rule. J. Evol. Biol. 20, 892-900. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01318.x)
  84. Willis CG, Ruhfel B, Primack RB, Miller-Rushing AJ, Davis CC. 2008 Phylogenetic patterns of species loss in Thoreau's woods are driven by climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 17 029 -17 033. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0806446105)
  85. Nussey DH, Postma E, Gienapp P, Visser ME. 2005 Selection on heritable phenotypic plasticity in a wild bird population. Science 310, 304 -306. (doi:10.1126/Science.1117004)
  86. Reed TE, Jenouvrier S, Visser ME. 2013 Phenological mismatch strongly affects individual fitness but not population demography in a woodland passerine. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 131 -144. (doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2656.2012.02020.x)
  87. Chevin LM, Visser ME, Tufto J. 2015 Estimating the variation, autocorrelation, and environmental sensitivity of phenotypic selection. Evolution 69, 2319 -2332. (doi:10.1111/evo.12741)
  88. Morin JP, Moreteau B, Petavy G, David JR. 1999 Divergence of reaction norms of size characters between tropical and temperate populations of Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. J. Evol. Biol. 12, 329-339. (doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.1999. 00038.x)
  89. Trotta V, Calboli FCF, Ziosi M, Guerra D, Pezzoli MC, David JR, Cavicchi S. 2006 Thermal plasticity in Drosophila melanogaster: a comparison of geographic populations. BMC Evol. Biol. 6, 13. (doi:10.1186/1471-2148-6-67)
  90. Scheiner SM. 2002 Selection experiments and the study of phenotypic plasticity. J. Evol. Biol. 15, 889-898. (doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00468.x)
  91. Lerman DN, Feder ME. 2001 Laboratory selection at different temperatures modifies heat-shock transcription factor (HSF) activation in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Exp. Biol. 204, 315-323.
  92. Santana ML, Bignardi AB, Eler JP, Ferraz JBS. 2016 Genetic variation of the weaning weight of beef cattle as a function of accumulated heat stress. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 133, 92 -104. (doi:10.1111/ jbg.12169)
  93. Rose G, Kause A, Mulder HA, van der Werf JHJ, Thompson AN, Ferguson MB, van Arendonk JAM. 2013 Merino ewes can be bred for body weight change to be more tolerant to uncertain feed supply. J. Anim. Sci. 91, 2555-2565. (doi:10.2527/ jas.2012-5539)
  94. Mota RR, Tempelman RJ, Lopes PS, Aguilar I, Silva FF, Cardoso FF. 2016 Genotype by environment interaction for tick resistance of Hereford and Braford beef cattle using reaction norm models. Genet. Select. Evol. 48, 12. (doi:10.1186/s12711- 015-0178-5)
  95. De Jong G. 1990 Genotype-by-environment interaction and the genetic covariance between environments: multilocus genetics. Genetica 81, 171 -177. (doi:10.1007/BF00360862)
  96. Annicchiarico P, Mariani G. 1996 Prediction of adaptability and yield stability of durum wheat genotypes from yield response in normal and artificially drought-stressed conditions. Field Crops Res. 46, 71 -80. (doi:10.1016/0378-4290(95) 00087-9)
  97. Li L, Hermesch S. 2016 Environmental variation and breed sensitivity for growth rate and backfat depth in pigs. Anim. Prod. Sci. 56, 61 -69. (doi:10.1071/ an14066)
  98. Hoffmann AA, Merila J. 1999 Heritable variation and evolution under favourable and unfavourable conditions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 96 -101. (doi:10. 1016/S0169-5347(99)01595-5)
  99. Charmantier A, Garant D. 2005 Environmental quality and evolutionary potential: lessons from wild populations. Proc. R. Soc. B 272, 1415-1425. (doi:10.1098/Rspb.2005.3117)
  100. Paaby AB, Rockman MV. 2014 Cryptic genetic variation: evolution's hidden substrate. Nat. Rev. Genet. 15, 247 -258. (doi:10.1038/nrg3688)
  101. Scheiner SM. 1993 Genetics and evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24, 35 -68. (doi:10.1146/annurev.es.24.110193.000343)
  102. Oomen RA, Hutchings JA. 2015 Genetic variability in reaction norms in fishes. Environ. Rev. 23, 353- 366. (doi:10.1139/Z86-007)
  103. Brommer JE, Merila J, Sheldon BC, Gustafsson L. 2005 Natural selection and genetic variation for reproductive reaction norms in a wild bird population. Evolution 59, 1362-1371. (doi:10. 1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01785.x)
  104. Murren CJ et al. 2014 Evolutionary change in continuous reaction norms. Am. Nat. 183, 453 -467. (doi:10.1086/675302)
  105. Hoffmann AA. 2010 Physiological climatic limits in Drosophila: patterns and implications. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 870 -880. (doi:10.1242/jeb.037630)
  106. Kingsolver JG, Higgins JK, Augustine KE. 2015 Fluctuating temperatures and ectotherm growth: distinguishing non-linear and time-dependent effects. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 2218-2225. (doi:10.1242/ jeb.120733)
  107. Terblanche JS, Hoffmann AA, Mitchell KA, Rako L, le Roux PC, Chown SL. 2011 Ecologically relevant measures of tolerance to potentially lethal temperatures. J. Exp. Biol. 214, 3713-3725. (doi:10.1242/jeb.061283)
  108. Zhao F, Zhang W, Hoffmann AA, Ma CS. 2014 Night warming on hot days produces novel impacts on development, survival and reproduction in a small arthropod. J. Anim. Ecol. 83, 769-778. (doi:10. 1111/1365-2656.12196)
  109. Schlichting CD, Pigliucci M. 1998 Phenotypic evolution: a reaction norm perspective. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
  110. Telemeco RS. 2014 Immobile and mobile life-history stages have different thermal physiologies in a lizard. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 87, 203-215. (doi:10.1086/674959)
  111. Kingsolver JG, Woods HA. 2016 Beyond thermal performance curves: modeling time-dependent effects of thermal stress on ectotherm growth rates. Am. Nat. 187, 283-294. (doi:10.1086/684786)
  112. Fischer B, van Doorn GS, Dieckmann U, Taborsky B. 2014 The evolution of age-dependent plasticity. Am. Nat. 183, 108-125. (doi:10.1086/674008)
  113. Salinas S, Munch SB. 2012 Thermal legacies: transgenerational effects of temperature on growth in a vertebrate. Ecol. Lett. 15, 159-163. (doi:10. 1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01721.x)
  114. Walsh MR, Cooley F, Biles K, Munch SB. 2015 Predator-induced phenotypic plasticity within-and across-generations: a challenge for theory? Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20142205. (doi:10.1098/rspb. 2014.2205)
  115. Sheriff MJ, Love OP. 2013 Determining the adaptive potential of maternal stress. Ecol. Lett. 16, 271-280. (doi:10.1111/ele.12042)
  116. Kuijper B, Hoyle RB. 2015 When to rely on maternal effects and when on phenotypic plasticity? Evolution 69, 950 -968. (doi:10.1111/evo.12635)
  117. Ezard TH, Prizak R, Hoyle RB. 2014 The fitness costs of adaptation via phenotypic plasticity and maternal effects. Funct. Ecol. 28, 693-701. (doi:10.1111/ 1365-2435.12207)
  118. Uller T, English S, Pen I. 2015 When is incomplete epigenetic resetting in germ cells favoured by natural selection? Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20150682. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.0682)
  119. Hoffmann AA, Sorensen JG, Loeschcke V. 2003 Adaptation of Drosophila to temperature extremes: bringing together quantitative and molecular approaches. J. Therm. Biol. 28, 175-216. (doi:10. 1016/S0306-4565(02)00057-8)
  120. Cooper BS, Tharp JM, Jernberg II, Angilletta MJ. 2012 Developmental plasticity of thermal tolerances in temperate and subtropical populations of Drosophila melanogaster. J. Therm. Biol. 37, 211-216. (doi:10.1016/j.jtherbio.2012.01.001)
  121. Gerken AR, Eller OC, Hahn DA, Morgan TJ. 2015
  122. Constraints, independence, and evolution of thermal plasticity: probing genetic architecture of long-and short-term thermal acclimation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 4399-4404. (doi:10.1073/pnas. 1503456112)
  123. Kellett M, Hoffmann AA, McKechnie SW. 2005 Hardening capacity in the Drosophila melanogaster species group is constrained by basal thermotolerance. Funct. Ecol. 19, 853-858. (doi:10. 1111/j.1365-2435.2005.01025.x)
  124. Tonsor SJ, Elnaccash TW, Scheiner SM. 2013 Developmental instability is genetically correlated with phenotypic plasticity, constraining heritability, and fitness. Evolution 67, 2923-2935. (doi:10. 1111/evo.12175) rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372: 20160138
  125. Auld JR, Agrawal AA, Relyea RA. 2010 Re-evaluating the costs and limits of adaptive phenotypic plasticity. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 503-511. (doi:10. 1098/rspb.2009.1355)
  126. Van Buskirk J, Steiner UK. 2009 The fitness costs of developmental canalization and plasticity. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 852-860. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009. 01685.x)
  127. Hoekstra LA, Montooth KL. 2013 Inducing extra copies of the Hsp70 gene in Drosophila melanogaster increases energetic demand. BMC Evol. Biol. 13, 11. (doi:10.1186/1471-2148-13-68).
  128. Venable DL, Lawlor L. 1980 Delayed germination and dispersal in desert annuals: escape in space and time. Oecologia 46, 272 -282. (doi:10.1007/ BF00540137)
  129. Cohen D. 1967 Optimizing reproduction in a randomly varying environment when a correlation may exist between the conditions at the time a choice has to be made and the subsequent outcome. J. Theor. Biol. 16, 1 -14. (doi:10.1016/ 0022-5193(67)90050-1)
  130. Venable DL, Brown JS. 1988 The selective interactions of dispersal, dormancy, and seed size as adaptations for reducing risk in variable environments. Am. Nat. 131, 360 -384. (doi:10. 1086/284795)
  131. Fedorka KM, Winterhalter WE, Shaw KL, Brogan WR, Mousseau TA. 2012 The role of gene flow asymmetry along an environmental gradient in constraining local adaptation and range expansion. J. Evol. Biol. 25, 1676 -1685. (doi:10.1111/j.1420- 9101.2012.02552.x)
  132. Bradshaw WE, Holzapfel CM. 2008 Genetic response to rapid climate change: it's seasonal timing that matters. Mol. Ecol. 17, 157-166. (doi:10.1111/J. 1365-294x.2007.03509.X)
  133. Visser ME. 2008 Keeping up with a warming world; assessing rate of adaptation to climate change. Proc. R. Soc. B 275, 649-659. (doi:10.1098/rspb. 2007.0997)
  134. Chuine I. 2010 Why does phenology drive species distribution? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 3149-3160. (doi:10.1098/Rstb.2010.0142)
  135. Vedder O, Bouwhuis S, Sheldon BC. 2013 Quantitative assessment of the importance of phenotypic plasticity in adaptation to climate change in wild bird populations. PLoS Biol. 11, e1001605. (doi:10.1371/journal.pbio. 1001605)
  136. Gienapp P, Lof M, Reed TE, McNamara J, Verhulst S, Visser ME. 2013 Predicting demographically sustainable rates of adaptation: can great tit breeding time keep pace with climate change? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120289. (doi:10.1098/rstb. 2012.0289)
  137. Phillimore AB, Leech DI, Pearce-Higgins JW, Hadfield JD. 2016 Passerines may be sufficiently plastic to track temperature-mediated shifts in optimum lay date. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3259-3272. (doi:10.1111/gcb.13302)
  138. Rehm EM, Olivas P, Stroud J, Feeley KJ. 2015 Losing your edge: climate change and the conservation value of range-edge populations. Ecol. Evol. 5, 4315-4326. (doi:10.1002/ece3.1645)
  139. Aspinwall MJ, Loik ME, de Dios VR, Tjoelker MG, Payton PR, Tissue DT. 2015 Utilizing intraspecific variation in phenotypic plasticity to bolster agricultural and forest productivity under climate change. Plant Cell Environ. 38, 1752 -1764. (doi:10. 1111/pce.12424)
  140. Ullah I, Ashraf M, Zafar Y. 2008 Genotypic variation for drought tolerance in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.): leaf gas exchange and productivity. Flora 203, 105-115. (doi:10.1016/j.flora.2007.12.001) rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372: 20160138

Related papers

Adaptive versus non‐adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments
Cameron Ghalambor

Functional …, 2007

The role of phenotypic plasticity in evolution has historically been a contentious issue because of debate over whether plasticity shields genotypes from selection or generates novel opportunities for selection to act. Because plasticity encompasses diverse adaptive and non-adaptive responses to environmental variation, no single conceptual framework adequately predicts the diverse roles of plasticity in evolutionary change. 2. Different types of phenotypic plasticity can uniquely contribute to adaptive evolution when populations are faced with new or altered environments. Adaptive plasticity should promote establishment and persistence in a new environment, but depending on how close the plastic response is to the new favoured phenotypic optimum dictates whether directional selection will cause adaptive divergence between populations. Further, non-adaptive plasticity in response to stressful environments can result in a mean phenotypic response being further away from the favoured optimum or alternatively increase the variance around the mean due to the expression of cryptic genetic variation. The expression of cryptic genetic variation can facilitate adaptive evolution if by chance it results in a fitter phenotype. 3. We conclude that adaptive plasticity that places populations close enough to a new phenotypic optimum for directional selection to act is the only plasticity that predictably enhances fitness and is most likely to facilitate adaptive evolution on ecological timescales in new environments. However, this type of plasticity is likely to be the product of past selection on variation that may have been initially non-adaptive. 4. We end with suggestions on how future empirical studies can be designed to better test the importance of different kinds of plasticity to adaptive evolution.

View PDFchevron_right
Role of phenotypic plasticity and population differentiation in adaptation to novel environmental conditions
Sergei Volis

Ecology and Evolution, 2015

Species can adapt to new environmental conditions either through individual phenotypic plasticity, intraspecific genetic differentiation in adaptive traits, or both. Wild emmer wheat, Triticum dicoccoides, an annual grass with major distribution in Eastern Mediterranean region, is predicted to experience in the near future, as a result of global climate change, conditions more arid than in any part of the current species distribution. To understand the role of the above two means of adaptation, and the effect of population range position, we analyzed reaction norms, extent of plasticity, and phenotypic selection across two experimental environments of high and low water availability in two core and two peripheral populations of this species. We studied 12 quantitative traits, but focused primarily on the onset of reproduction and maternal investment, which are traits that are closely related to fitness and presumably involved in local adaptation in the studied species. We hypothesized that the population showing superior performance under novel environmental conditions will either be genetically differentiated in quantitative traits or exhibit higher phenotypic plasticity than the less successful populations. We found the core population K to be the most plastic in all three trait categories (phenology, reproductive traits, and fitness) and most successful among populations studied, in both experimental environments; at the same time, the core K population was clearly genetically differentiated from the two edge populations. Our results suggest that (1) two means of successful adaptation to new environmental conditions, phenotypic plasticity and adaptive genetic differentiation, are not mutually exclusive ways of achieving high adaptive ability; and (2) colonists from some core populations can be more successful in establishing beyond the current species range than colonists from the range extreme periphery with conditions seemingly closest to those in the new environment.

View PDFchevron_right
The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in response to anthropogenic disturbance
Cristian Correa

Evolutionary Ecology Research, 2010

Questions: Do evolutionary changes in phenotypic plasticity occur after anthropogenic disturbance? Do these changes tend to be increases or decreases in plasticity? How do these evolutionary patterns differ among taxa and trait types? Does evolution of plasticity change with time since the disturbance? Data incorporated: Evolutionary rates for plasticity estimated from 20 studies that have compared a plastic response in two or more populations, at least one of which had experienced an anthropogenic disturbance in nature and at least one of which had not. Method of analysis: We estimate evolutionary rates (darwins and haldanes) for plasticity for each study, which represent the amount of evolutionary change in plasticity. We then perform analyses of covariance, with the evolutionary rate numerator (amount of evolutionary change) as a response variable, taxa and trait type as predictor variables, and the amount of evolutionary time as a covariate. Conclusions: We find that plasticity has evolved in several cases, including both increases and decreases in the levels of plasticity following anthropogenic disturbances. The typical direction of this evolutionary response depends on an interaction between taxon and trait type. For instance, invertebrates sometimes show the evolution of increased plasticity for life-history traits, but the evolution of decreased plasticity for morphological traits. Plants, on the other hand, show no trends in the direction of plasticity evolution.

View PDFchevron_right
Trait variation in extreme thermal environments under constant and fluctuating temperatures
Stephan Munch

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 2019

One contribution of 13 to a theme issue 'The role of plasticity in phenotypic adaptation to rapid environmental change'.

View PDFchevron_right
Selection in a fluctuating environment leads to decreased genetic variation and facilitates the evolution of phenotypic plasticity
L. Hallsson, Mats Björklund

Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 2012

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Climate Change
  • Biology
  • Ecology
  • Phenotypic Plasticity
  • Medicine
  • Biological evolution
  • Extreme Environments
  • Adaptation in extreme environment
  • Medical and Health Sciences

    • Cited by

    Deciphering Hybrid Larch Reaction Norms Using Random Regression
    Facundo Muñoz

    G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2018

    The link between phenotypic plasticity and heterosis is a broad fundamental question, with stakes in breeding. We report a case-study evaluating temporal series of wood ring traits of hybrid larch ( × and reciprocal) in relation to soil water availability. Growth rings record the tree plastic responses to past environmental conditions, and we used random regressions to estimate the reaction norms of ring width and wood density with respect to water availability. We investigated the role of phenotypic plasticity on the construction of hybrid larch heterosis and on the expression of its quantitative genetic parameters. The data came from an intra-/interspecific diallel mating design between both parental species. Progenies were grown in two environmentally contrasted sites, in France. Ring width plasticity with respect to water availability was confirmed, as all three taxa produced narrower rings under the lowest water availability. Hybrid larch appeared to be the most plastic taxon a...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Conservation implications of ecological responses to extreme weather and climate events
    Nathalie Butt

    Diversity and Distributions

    This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Molecular Ecological Basis of Grasshopper (Oedaleus asiaticus) Phenotypic Plasticity under Environmental Selection
    Barry Pittendrigh

    Frontiers in physiology, 2017

    While ecological adaptation in insects can be reflected by plasticity of phenotype, determining the causes and molecular mechanisms for phenotypic plasticity (PP) remains a crucial and still difficult question in ecology, especially where control of insect pests is involved. Oedaleus asiaticus is one of the most dominant pests in the Inner Mongolia steppe and represents an excellent system to study phenotypic plasticity. To better understand ecological factors affecting grasshopper phenotypic plasticity and its molecular control, we conducted a full transcriptional screening of O. asiaticus grasshoppers reared in four different grassland patches in Inner Mongolia. Grasshoppers showed different degrees of PP associated with unique gene expressions and different habitat plant community compositions. Grasshopper performance variables were susceptible to habitat environment conditions and closely associated with plant architectures. Intriguingly, eco-transcriptome analysis revealed five...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Fluctuating thermal environments and time-dependent effects on fruit fly egg-hatching performance
    Francisco Bozinovic K.

    Ecology and Evolution

    Insights about the suitability of a thermal landscape for a given species should consider not only average thermal values but also variability in thermal values (Bozinovic, Medina, Alruiz, Cavieres, &

    View PDFchevron_right
    Adaptation to contrasting habitats underlies distinct plastic responses to environmental variation in two closely related Senecio species
    Violeta Velikova

    Phenotypic plasticity can maintain population fitness in novel or changing environments if it allows the phenotype to track the new trait optimum. Understanding how adaptation to contrasting environments determines plastic responses can identify how plasticity evolves, and its potential to be adaptive in response to environmental change. We sampled 79 genotypes from populations of two closely related but ecologically divergent ragwort species (Senecio, Asteraceae), and transplanted multiple clones of each genotype into four field sites along an elevational gradient representing each species’ native range, the edge of their range, and conditions outside their native range. At each transplant site, we quantified differences in survival, growth, leaf morphology, chlorophyll fluorescence and gene expression for both species. Overall, the two species differed in their sensitivity to the elevational gradient. As evidence of plasticity, leaf morphology changed across the elevational gradie...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved