Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 105–117

Plastic inducible morphologies are not always adaptive: The importance of time delays in a stochastic environment

  • Dianna K. Padilla
  • Stephen C. Adolph
Article

Summary

We present a mathematical model for predicting the expected fitness of phenotypically plastic organisms experiencing a variable environment. We assume that individuals experience two discrete environments probabilistically in time (as a Markov process) and that there are two different phenotypic states, each yielding the highest fitness in one of the two environments. We compare the expected fitness of a phenotypically fixed individual to that of an individual whose phenotype is induced to produce the better phenotype in each environment with a time lag between experiencing a new environment and realization of the new phenotype. Such time lags are common in organisms where phenotypically plastic, inducible traits have been documented. We find that although plasticity is generally adaptive when time lags are short (relative to the time scale of environmental variability), plasticity can be disadvantageous for longer lag times. Asymmetries in environmental change probabilities and/or the relative fitnesses of each phenotype strongly influence whether plasticity is favoured. In contrast to other models, our model does not require costs for plasticity to be disadvantageous; costs affect the results quantitatively, not qualitatively.

Keywords

phenotypic plasticity inducible phenotypes spatiotemporal variability stochastic environment variable environment Markovian model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adler, F.R. and Harvell, C.D. (1990) Inducible defenses, phenotypic variability and biotic environments.Trends Ecol. Evol. 5 407–10.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, F.R. and Karban, R. (1994) Defended fortresses or moving targets? Another model of induced defenses inspired my military metaphores.Am. Nat. 144 813–32.Google Scholar
  3. Åstro(7F)m, M. and Lundberg, P. (1994) Plant defence and stochastic risk of herbivory.Evol. Ecol. 8 288–98.Google Scholar
  4. Bernays, E. (1986) Diet-induced head allometry among foliage-chewing insects and its importance for granivores.Science 231 495–7.Google Scholar
  5. Bradshaw, A.D. (1965) Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants.Adv. Genet. 13 115–55.Google Scholar
  6. Buss, L.W. and Grosberg, R.K. (1990) Morphogenic basis for phenotypic differences in hydroid competitive behavior.Nature 343 63–6.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, C.W. and Harvell, C.D. (1992) Inducible defenses and the allocation of resources: a minimal model.Am. Nat. 139 521–39.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Dempster, E.R. (1955) Maintenance of genetic heterogeneity.Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 20 25–32.Google Scholar
  10. Dodson, S.I. and Havel, J.E. (1988) Indirect prey effects: some morphological and life history responses ofDaphnia pulex exposed toNotonecta undulata.Limnol. Oceanogr. 33 1274–85.Google Scholar
  11. Fagen, R. (1987) Phenotypic plasticity and social environment.Evol. Ecol. 1 263–71.Google Scholar
  12. Greene, E. (1989). A diet-induced developmental polymorphism in a caterpillar.Science 243 643–6.Google Scholar
  13. Harvell, C.D. (1986) The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses in a marine bryozoan: cues, costs, and consequences.Am. Nat. 128 810–23.Google Scholar
  14. Harvell, C.D. (1990) The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses.Q. Rev. Biol. 65 323–40.Google Scholar
  15. Harvell, C.D. and Padilla, D.K. (1990) Inducible morphology, heterochrony, and size hierarchies in a colonial invertebrate monoculture.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87 508–12.Google Scholar
  16. Havel, J.E. (1987) Predator-induced defenses: a review. InPredation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities (W.C. Kerfoot and A. Sih, eds), pp. 263–78. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH.Google Scholar
  17. Hoel, P.G., Port, S.C. and Stone, C.J. (1972)Introduction to Stochastic Processes. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  18. Houston, A.I. and McNamara, J.M. (1992) Phenotypic plasticity as a state-dependent life-history decision.Evol. Ecol. 6 243–53.Google Scholar
  19. Karban, R. and Myers, J.H. (1989) Induced plant responses to herbivory.Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20 331–48.Google Scholar
  20. León, J.A. (1993) Plasticity in fluctuating environments. InAdaptation in stochastic environments (J. Yoshimura and C.W. Clark, eds), pp. 105–21. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  21. Levins, R. (1968)Evolution in Changing Environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  22. Lively, C.M. (1986a) Predator-induced shell dimorphism in the acorn barnacle,Chthamalus anisopoma.Evolution 40 232–42.Google Scholar
  23. Lively, C.M. (1986b) Canalization versus developmental conversion in a spatially variable environment.Am. Nat. 128 561–72.Google Scholar
  24. Meyer, A. (1987) Phenotypic plasticity and heterochrony inCichlasoma manaquense (Pisces, Cichlidae) and their implications for speciation in cichlid fishes.Evolution 41 1357–69.Google Scholar
  25. Moran, N.A. (1992) The evolutionary maintenance of alternative phenotypes.Am. Nat. 139 971–89.Google Scholar
  26. Palumbi, S.R. (1984) Tactics of acclimation: morphological changes of sponges in an unpredictable environment.Science 225 1478–80.Google Scholar
  27. Scheiner, S.M. (1993) Genetics and evolution of phenotypic plasticity.Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24 35–68.Google Scholar
  28. Schlichting, C.D. (1986) The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants.Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17 667–93.Google Scholar
  29. Schlichting, C.D. (1989) Phenotypic integration and environmental change.Bioscience 39 460–4.Google Scholar
  30. Sebens, K.P. and Miles, J.S. (1988) Sweeper tentacles in a gorgonian octocoral: morphological modifications for interference competition.Biol. Bull. 175 378–87.Google Scholar
  31. Shapiro, A.M. (1976) Seasonal polyphenism. InEvolutionary biology, (M.K. Hecht, W.C. Steere and B. Wallace, eds), Vol. 9, pp. 259–333. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Smith, L.D. and Palmer, A.R. (1994) Effects of manipulated diet on size and performance of brachyuran crab claws.Science 264 710–12.Google Scholar
  33. Smith-Gill, S.J. (1983) Developmental plasticity: developmental conversionversus phenotypic modulation.Am. Zool. 23 47–55.Google Scholar
  34. Stearns, S.C. (1989) The evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity.Bioscience 39 436–45.Google Scholar
  35. Stemberger, R.S. and Gilbert, J.J. (1987) Multiple species induction of morphological defense in the rotifer,Keratella testudo.Ecology 68 370–8.Google Scholar
  36. Sultan, S.E. (1987) Evolutionary implications of phenotypic plasticity in plants.Evol. Biol. 21 127–78.Google Scholar
  37. Thompson, D.B. (1992) Consumption rates and the evolution of diet-induced plasticity in the head morphology ofMelanoplus femurrubrum (Orthoptera: Acridadae).Oecologia 89 204–13.Google Scholar
  38. Thompson, J.D. (1991) Phenotypic plasticity as a component of evolutionary change.Trends Ecol. Evol. 6 246–9.Google Scholar
  39. Van Alstyne, K.L. (1988) Herbivore grazing increases polyphenolic defenses in the intertidal brown algaFucus distichus.Ecology 69 655–63.Google Scholar
  40. Van Tienderen, P.H. (1991) Evolution of generalists and specialists in spatially heterogeneous environments.Evolution 45 1317–23.Google Scholar
  41. Via, S. (1984) The quantitative genetics of polyphagy in an insect herbivore: II. Genetic correlations in larval performance within and across host plants.Evolution 38 896–905.Google Scholar
  42. West-Eberhard, M.J. (1989) Phenotypic plasticity and the origins of diversity.Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20 249–78.Google Scholar
  43. Wimberger, P. (1991) Plasticity of jaw and skull morphology in the neotropical cichlidsGeophagus brasiliensis andG. steindachneri.Evolution 45 1545–63.Google Scholar
  44. Yoshimura, J. and Clark, C.W. (1991) Individual adaptations in stochastic environments.Evol. Ecol. 5 173–92.Google Scholar
  45. Yoshimura, J. and Clark, C.W. (eds) (1993)Adaptation in Stochastic Environments. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dianna K. Padilla
    • 1
  • Stephen C. Adolph
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyHarvey Mudd CollegeClaremontUSA

Personalised recommendations