Landscapes, Surfaces, and Morphospaces: What Are They Good For?

Pigliucci, Massimo

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199595372.003.0003

Cited by 13 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Simpson (1944Simpson ( , 1953, Lande (1976Lande ( , 1979 and Arnold et al (2001), among others, used the 'spatial' component of Wright's landscapes to represent the phenotype. The resulting landscapes are typically termed adaptive landscapes (Pigliucci 2012), although Simpson (1944) called them selective landscapes (see also Brodie et al 1995).…”

Section: Genotypic Fitness Landscapesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of morphogenetic fitness landscapes: conceptualising the interplay between the developmental and ecological drivers of morphological innovation

Marshall

2014

Aust. J. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Here I show how fitness landscapes can be used to understand the relative importance of developmental and ecological change in initiating morphological innovation. Key is the use of morphogenetic 'rules' as the axes of the landscape, which enables explicit incorporation of the contribution that specific morphologies make to fitness. Four modes of fitness landscape evolution are identified: (1) change in the density of peaks on the landscape, driven by an increase in the number of selective pressures encountered; (2) change in the dimensionality of the landscape through the addition of morphogenetic rules; (3) change in the size of one or more dimensions of the landscape through elaboration of already existing morphogenetic rules; and, (4) shifting the position of peaks in the landscape. Morphological innovation is initiated by ecological change in Mode (1), for example the Cambrian explosion of animals, and Mode (4), for example, when taxa such as sticklebacks make a shift in environment, or during coevolutionary escalation. Morphological change is initiated by developmental innovation for Mode (2), typified by some macroevolutionary innovations, such as the emergence of jaws, and in Mode (3), for example, in the differentiation of flower morphology facilitated by gene duplication of the B-class developmental genes.

show abstract

Section: Genotypic Fitness Landscapesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of morphogenetic fitness landscapes: conceptualising the interplay between the developmental and ecological drivers of morphological innovation

Marshall

2014

Aust. J. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our framework takes into account the traits of both interacting players simultaneously, and a dimension is simply a challenged trait-axis in the phenotype space of pursuers or attracters. Apart from its simplicity, the established phenotype space approach (Dietrich & Skipper Jr., 2012;Pigliucci, 2013) can be adopted to study, for instance, trade-offs in traits used in different subgoals, interaction modes, or focal goals (Arnold, 1983;Ghalambor et al, 2003;Fontaine et al, 2011;Shoval et al, 2012;Pilosof et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating trait-based mechanisms, alternative interaction modes and forbidden links increases the minimum trait dimensionality of ecological networks

Boddy

Eastwood

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trait-based approaches in direct intraspecific and interspecific interactions address proximate and evolutionary questions across biological systems. However, interest in particular questions or systems has led to specialised descriptions of how interactions occur. We propose a generalised description in which interactions can be: defined by goals (e.g. consumption, parasitism, pollination); charted systematically (with logic statements); and explained by performance inequalities (comparing traits of individuals). Consequently, goal failures ('forbidden links') are interaction outcomes; alternative strategies to goal success exist; and matching traits are reformulated as difference traits. To illustrate, we introduce a new network measure: minimum mechanistic dimensionality, the minimum number of traits for the mechanistic explanation of the outcomes. Our dimensionality offers alternative explanations for intransitive networks. We show that previous approaches underestimate the dimensionality of 658 published empirical ecological networks (animal dominance, food webs, pollination, parasitism, seed dispersal) by omitting concepts emerging from the framework (mechanistic perspective, trait-mediated goal failures, generalisation to alternative interaction strategies). Such underestimation can prevent models from generating networks at the interaction outcome level. The framework provides a common mechanistic basis for proximate and evolutionary questions, inspiring hypotheses and trait-based models of social network dynamics, antagonistic or mutualistic community assembly or invasion, and coevolution.

show abstract

“…In lowdimensional landscapes, the Wrightian peaks and valleys would tend to reappear. Moreover, because of the difficulty of defining realistic and treatable genotype-phenotype and phenotype-fitness maps, we do not know how to unify the landscapes based on genotypes with those based on phenotypes (Pigliucci, 2010(Pigliucci, , 2012. These and other problems hamper a satisfactory unification of genotypic and phenotypic evolution as well as micro-and macroevolution (Alberch, 1991;Arnold et al, 2001;Lewontin, 1974;Pigliucci, 2010;Provine, 1986;Rice, 2012;Waddington, 1974;Wagner and Zhang, 2011).…”

Section: Difficulties With the Evolutionary Landscapesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, because natural selection mostly acts on phenotypes, to fully understand how fitness depends on genotypes, one has to consider at least two components: a genotype-phenotype and a phenotype-fitness function (or map). In the absence of a better integration between functional and evolutionary biology, we do not know how to construct these maps, let alone connect them, in an empirically founded way (Alberch, 1991;Lewontin, 1974;Pigliucci, 2012;Travisano and Shaw, 2012;Waddington, 1974).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some authors attribute the term fitness landscape to the genotype-based Wright-style landscape and the term adaptive landscape to the phenotype-based landscape originally envisioned by Simpson (Arnold et al, 2001;McGhee, 2007;Pigliucci, 2012;Simpson, 1944). Because this nomenclature is not universally adopted, I will explicitly mention whether I refer to genotype-or phenotype-based landscapes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Empirically founded genotype–phenotype maps from mammalian cyclic nucleotide-gated ion channels

Becchetti

2014

Journal of Theoretical Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landscapes, Surfaces, and Morphospaces: What Are They Good For?

Cited by 13 publications

References 33 publications

The evolution of morphogenetic fitness landscapes: conceptualising the interplay between the developmental and ecological drivers of morphological innovation

The evolution of morphogenetic fitness landscapes: conceptualising the interplay between the developmental and ecological drivers of morphological innovation

Incorporating trait-based mechanisms, alternative interaction modes and forbidden links increases the minimum trait dimensionality of ecological networks

Empirically founded genotype–phenotype maps from mammalian cyclic nucleotide-gated ion channels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About