Evolution of development type in benthic octopuses: holobenthic or pelago-benthic ancestor?
- 510 Downloads
Octopuses of the family Octopodidae are singular among cephalopods in their reproductive behavior, showing two major reproductive strategies: the first is the production of few and large eggs resulting in well-developed benthic hatchlings (holobenthic life history); the second strategy is the production of numerous small eggs resulting in free-swimming planktonic hatchlings (pelago-benthic life history). Here, we utilize a Bayesian-based phylogenetic comparative method using a robust molecular phylogeny of 59 octopus species to reconstruct the ancestral states of development type in benthic octopuses, through the estimation of the most recent common ancestors and the rate of gain and loss in complexity (i.e., planktonic larvae) during the evolution. We found a high probability that a free-swimming hatchling was the ancestral state in benthic octopuses, and a similar rate of gain and loss of planktonic larvae through evolution. These results suggest that in benthic octopuses the holobenthic strategy has evolved from an ancestral pelago-benthic life history. During evolution, the paralarval stage was reduced to well-developed benthic hatchlings, which supports a “larva-first” hypothesis. We propose that the origin of the holobenthic life history in benthic octopuses is associated with colonization of cold and deep sea waters.
KeywordsLife history evolution Phylogenetics Octopodidae Comparative method Dollo’s law
We thank Claudio González, Unai Markaida, Cesar Salinas, and Arminda Rebollo for their help with octopus tissue samples and Ian Gleadall for comments about octopus phylogenetic relationships.
Conflict of interest
This work was partially funded by grants to C.I. FONDECYT 3110152 and to E.P. ICM P05-002 and PFB-23. Support to M.C. Pardo-Gandarillas by a MECESUP-Chile Doctoral Fellowship is also acknowledged. Finally, F. Peña acknowledges a CONICYT Master’s Fellowship.
- Belcari, P., G. Tserpes, M. González, E. Lefkaditou, B. Marceta, G. Piccinetti Manfrin & A. Souplet, 2002. Distribution and abundance of Eledone cirrhosa (Lamarck, 1798) and Eledone moschata (Lamarck, 1798) (Cephalopoda: Octopoda) in the Mediterranean Sea. Scientia Marina 66: 143–155.Google Scholar
- Boletzky, S., 1992. Evolutionary aspects of development, life style, and reproductive mode in incirrate octopods (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). Revue Suisse De Zoologie 99: 755–770.Google Scholar
- Collins, M. A., C. Yau, P. R. Boyle, D. Friese & U. Piatkowski, 2002. Distribution of cephalopods from plankton surveys around the British Isles. Bulletin of Marine Science 71: 239–254.Google Scholar
- Darriba, D., G. L. Taboada, R. Doallo & D. Posada, 2012. jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nature Methods 9: 772.Google Scholar
- Hanlon, R. T. & J. B. Messenger, 1996. Cephalopod behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Harvey, P. H. & M. Pagel, 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Hernández, C. E., E. Rodríguez-Serrano, J. Avaria-Llautureo, O. Inostroza-Michael, B. Morales-Pallero, D. Boric-Bargetto, C. B. Canales-Aguirre, P. A. Marquet, & A. Meade, 2013. Using phylogenetic information and the comparative method to evaluate hypotheses in macroecology. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12033.
- Kass, R. E. & A. E. Raftery, 1995. Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90: 773–795.Google Scholar
- Meade, A., 2011. BayesTrees v. 1.3. http://www.evolution.reading.ac.uk/BayesTrees.html. Accessed 11 June 2012.
- Nesis, K. N., 2003. Distribution of recent Cephalopoda and implications for plio-pleistocene events. Berliner Paläobiologische Abhandlungen 3: 199–224.Google Scholar
- Norman, M. D., 2000. Cephalopods: a world guide. Conch Books, Hackenheim.Google Scholar
- Norman, M. D. & F. G. Hochberg, 2005. The current state of octopus taxonomy. Phuket Marine Biological Research Bulletin 66: 127–154.Google Scholar
- Pearse, J. S., R. Mooi, S. J. Lockhart & A. Brandt, 2007. Brooding and species diversity in the Southern Ocean: selection for brooders or speciation within brooding clades? In Krupnik, I., M. A. Lang & S. E. Miller (eds), Smithsonian at the poles contributions to international polar year science. Smithsonian Institution Scholary Press, Washington: 181–196.Google Scholar
- Rambaut, A., & A. J. Drummond, 2009. Tracer v1.5. http//tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/tracer. Accessed 11 June 2012.
- Roff, D. A., 2002. Life history evolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.Google Scholar
- Roura, A., 2013. Ecology of planktonic cephalopod paralarvae in coastal upwelling systems. PhD thesis. Universidad de Vigo.Google Scholar
- Stearns, S. C., 1992. The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Stearns, S. C. & R. F. Hoekstra, 2005. Evolution, an introduction, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Strugnell, J. M., M. Norman, J. Jackson, A. J. Drummond & A. Cooper, 2005. Molecular phylogeny of coleoid cephalopods (Mollusca: Cephalopoda) using a multigene approach; the effect of data partitioning on resolving phylogenies in a Bayesian framework. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 37: 426–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Young, R. E. & R. F. Harman, 1988. “Larva”, “paralarva” and “subadult” in cephalopod terminology. Malacología 29: 201–208.Google Scholar
- Young, R. E. & M. Vecchione, 1996. Analysis of morphology to determine primary sister-taxon relationships within coleoid cephalopods. American Malacological Bulletin 12: 91–112.Google Scholar