The implications of nongenetic inheritance for evolution in changing environments

Bonduriansky, Russell; Crean, Angela J.; Day, Troy

doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00213.x

Cited by 291 publications

(311 citation statements)

References 90 publications

(209 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

309

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our understanding of how different types of individual differences influence evolution is still in its infancy [66]. Nonetheless, there is growing evidence that each of the types of individual differences discussed here can directly cause evolutionary change and even alter eco-evolutionary dynamics.…”

Section: Individual Differences and Evolutionary Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An ontogenetic perspective on individual differences

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phenotypic differences among individuals can arise during any stage of life. Although several distinct processes underlying individual differences have been defined and studied (e.g. parental effects, senescence), we lack an explicit, unified perspective for understanding how these processes contribute separately and synergistically to observed variation in functional traits. We propose a conceptual framework based on a developmental view of lifehistory variation, linking each ontogenetic stage with the types of individual differences originating during that period. In our view, the salient differences among these types are encapsulated by three key criteria: timing of onset, when fitness consequences are realized, and potential for reversibility. To fill a critical gap in this framework, we formulate a new term to refer to individual differences generated during adulthood-reversible state effects. We define these as 'reversible changes in a functional trait resulting from life-history trade-offs during adulthood that affect fitness', highlighting how the adult phenotype can be repeatedly altered in response to environmental variation. Defining individual differences in terms of trade-offs allows explicit predictions regarding when and where fitness consequences should be expected. Moreover, viewing individual differences in a developmental context highlights how different processes can work in concert to shape phenotype and fitness, and lays a foundation for research linking individual differences to ecological and evolutionary theory.

show abstract

Section: Individual Differences and Evolutionary Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An ontogenetic perspective on individual differences

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two processes can lead to phenotypic change: plasticity and adaptive evolution. There has been considerable discussion about the relative roles of each in allowing populations to respond to change (e.g., Chevin et al 2010;Bonduriansky et al 2012).…”

Section: Population Responses To Environmental Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling Adaptive and Nonadaptive Responses of Populations to Environmental Change

Coulson

Kendall

Barthold

et al. 2017

The American Naturalist

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. abstract: Understanding how the natural world will be impacted by environmental change over the coming decades is one of the most pressing challenges facing humanity. Addressing this challenge is difficult because environmental change can generate both populationlevel plastic and evolutionary responses, with plastic responses being either adaptive or nonadaptive. We develop an approach that links quantitative genetic theory with data-driven structured models to allow prediction of population responses to environmental change via plasticity and adaptive evolution. After introducing general new theory, we construct a number of example models to demonstrate that evolutionary responses to environmental change over the short-term will be considerably slower than plastic responses and that the rate of adaptive evolution to a new environment depends on whether plastic responses are adaptive or nonadaptive. Parameterization of the models we develop requires information on genetic and phenotypic variation and demography that will not always be available, meaning that simpler models will often be required to predict responses to environmental change. We consequently develop a method to examine whether the full machinery of the evolutionarily explicit models we develop will be needed to predict responses to environmental change or whether simpler nonevolutionary models that are now widely constructed may be sufficient.

show abstract

“…Such estimates may thus reflect genetic variation among focal colonies but also any environmental variation due to the conditions experienced prior to our experiment (which we made effort to control) or parental effects (which we could not). There is growing awareness that both sources of variation may contribute to microevolutionary processes (Day and Bonduriansky 2011;Bonduriansky 2012), but disentangling them will require complex breeding designs (e.g., Bonduriansky et al 2012) that may prove challenging to implement for organisms with similar reproductive biology to Hippopodina.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Faster Is Not Always Better: Selection on Growth Rate Fluctuates across Life History and Environments

Monro

Marshall²

2014

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 support@jstor.org.. abstract: Growth rate is increasingly recognized as a key life-history trait that may affect fitness directly rather than evolve as a byproduct of selection on size or age. An ongoing challenge is to explain the abundant levels of phenotypic and genetic variation in growth rates often seen in natural populations, despite what is expected to be consistently strong selection on this trait. Such a paradox suggests limits to how contemporary growth rates evolve. We explored limits arising from variation in selection, based on selection differentials for age-specific growth rates expressed under different ecological conditions. We present results from a field experiment that measured growth rates and reproductive output in wild individuals of a colonial marine invertebrate (Hippopodina iririkiensis), replicated within and across the natural range of succession in its local community. Colony growth rates varied phenotypically throughout this range, but not all such variation was available for selection, nor was it always targeted by selection as expected. While the maintenance of both phenotypic and genetic variation in growth rate is often attributed to costs of growing rapidly, our study highlights the potential for fluctuating selection pressures throughout the life history and across environments to play an important role in this process.

show abstract

The implications of nongenetic inheritance for evolution in changing environments

Cited by 291 publications

References 90 publications

An ontogenetic perspective on individual differences

An ontogenetic perspective on individual differences

Modeling Adaptive and Nonadaptive Responses of Populations to Environmental Change

Faster Is Not Always Better: Selection on Growth Rate Fluctuates across Life History and Environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About