Evolutionary Biology

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 494–503 | Cite as

Within-Population Developmental and Morphological Plasticity is Mirrored in Between-Population Differences: Linking Plasticity and Diversity

  • Frank JohanssonEmail author
  • Alex Richter-Boix
Research Article


It has been suggested that phenotypic plasticity can facilitate evolutionary diversification of organisms. If life-history and morphological diversification across a lineage is mirrored in diversification in the same traits due to phenotypic plasticity within a lineage it fulfils one of the expectations that are needed to support this diversification hypothesis. We carried out a laboratory study to examine development rate and morphology between and within populations of the parsley frog, Pelodytes punctatus. We found that frogs reared in the laboratory had a longer development time, relatively longer hind legs and relatively narrower heads under constant water level compared to those under decreasing water level simulating pool drying. This adaptive phenotypic plasticity response to pool drying was mirrored across populations because frogs from permanent waters had longer development times, relatively longer hind legs and relatively narrower heads compared to frogs from temporary waters. Hence the developmental and morphological plasticity observed within populations was also observed between populations as constitutive expressed traits. We suggest that the morphology pattern observed was driven by a common developmental process (time to metamorphosis), indicating that plasticity may contribute to evolutionary change, ultimately resulting in genetic accommodation of the morphological traits.


Development time Morphology Life history Genetic accommodation Pelodytes Temporary pools 



We thank Anssi Laurila and German Orizaola for helpful comments on earlier drafts of the article. The research was funded by the Swedish Research Council to FJ. ARB was supported by a Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture postdoctoral grant (MEC2007-0944) and by a Beatriu de Pinós postdoctoral fellowship (2008 BP A 00032).

Supplementary material

11692_2013_9225_MOESM1_ESM.doc (118 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 117 kb)


  1. Abramoff, M. D., Magelhaes, P. J., & Ram, S. J. (2004). Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics International, 11, 36–42.Google Scholar
  2. Agrawal, A. A. (2001). Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Science, 294, 321–326.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altwegg, R., & Reyer, H. U. (2003). Patterns of natural selection on size at metamorphosis in water frogs. Evolution, 57, 872–882.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Badyaev, A. V. (2009). Evolutionary significance of phenotypic accommodation in novel environments: an empirical test of the Baldwin effect. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364, 1124–1141.Google Scholar
  5. Blem, C. R., Steiner, J. W., & Miller, M. A. (1978). Comparison of jumping abilities of the cricket frogs Acris gryllus and Acris crepitans. Herpetologica, 34, 288–291.Google Scholar
  6. Blouin, M. S., & Brown, T. S. (2000). Effects of temperature-induced variation in anuran larval growth rate on head width and leg length at metamorphosis. Oecologia, 125, 358–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blouin, M. S., & Loeb, L. G. (1991). Effects of environmentally induced development-rate variation on head and limb morphology in the green tree frog, Hyla cinerea. American Naturalist, 138, 717–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boersma, M., Spaak, P., & De Meester, L. (1998). Predator-mediated plasticity in morphology, life history, and behavior of Daphnia: the uncoupling of responses. American Naturalist, 152, 237–248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conover, D. O., & Heins, S. W. (1987). Adaptive variation in environmental and genetic sex determination in a fish. Nature, 326, 496–498.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crawley, M. J. (2002). Statistical computing: An introduction to data analysis using S-plus. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Denver, R. J., Mirhadi, N., & Phillips, M. (1998). Adaptive plasticity in amphibian metamorphosis: response of Scaphiopus hammondii tadpoles to habitat desiccation. Ecology, 79, 1859–1872.Google Scholar
  12. Emerson, S. B. (1985). Skull shape in frogs – correlations with diet. Herpetologia, 41, 177–188.Google Scholar
  13. Ghalambor, C. K., Mckay, J. K., Carroll, S. P., & Reznick, D. N. (2007). Adaptive versus non-adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments. Functional Ecology, 21, 394–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gomez-Mestre, I., & Buchholz, D. R. (2006). Developmetal plasticity mirrors differences among taxa in spadefoot toads linking plasticity and diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 19021–19026.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomez-Mestre, I., Saccoccio, V. L., Iijima, T., Collins, E. M., Rosenthal, G. G., & Warkentin, K. M. (2010). The shape of things to come: linking developmental plasticity to postmetamorphic morphology in anurans. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 23, 1364–1373.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gosner, K. L. (1960). A simple table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica, 16, 183–190.Google Scholar
  17. Guyétant, R., Temmermans, W., & Avrillier, J. N. (1999). Phénologie de la reproduction chez Pelodytes punctatus Daudin, 1802 (Amphibia, Anura). Amphibia-Reptilia, 20, 149–160.Google Scholar
  18. Hallatschek, O., & Nelson, D. R. (2008). Gene surfing in expanding populations. Theoretical Population Biology, 73, 158–170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johansson, F., Lind, M. I., & Lederer, B. (2010). Trait performance correlations across life stages under environmental stress conditions in the common frog, Rana temporaria. PLoS One, 5(7), e11680.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jourdan-Pileau, H., David, P., & Crochet, P.-A. (2012). Phenotypic plasticity allows the Mediterranean parsley frog Pelodytes punctatus to exploit two temporal niches under continuous gene flow. Molecular Ecology, 21, 876–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kondrashov, A. S. (2003). Accumulation of Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibilities within a spatially structured population. Evolution, 52, 151–153.Google Scholar
  22. Laugen, A. T., Kruuk, L. E. B., Laurila, A., Räsänen, K., Stone, J., & Merilä, J. (2005). Quantitative genetics of larval life-history traits in Rana temporaria in different environmental conditions. Genetical Research, 86, 161–170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ledon-Retting, C. C., Pfennig, D. W., & Nascone-Yoder, N. (2008). Ancestral variation and the potential for genetic accommodation in larval amphibians: implications for the evolution of novel feeding strategies. Evolution & Development, 10, 316–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lind, M. I., Ingvarsson, P. K., Johansson, H., Hall, D., & Johansson, F. (2011). Gene flow and selection on phenotypic plasticity in an island system of Rana temporaria. Evolution, 65, 684–697.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lind, M., & Johansson, F. (2007). The degree of adaptive phenotypic plasticity is correlated with spatial environmental heterogeneity experienced by island populations of Rana temporaria. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20, 1288–1297.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Losos, J., et al. (1999). Evolutionary implications of phenotypic plasticity in the hindlimb of the lizard Anolis sagrei. Evolution, 54, 301–305.Google Scholar
  27. Mantel, N. (1967). The detection of disease of clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Research, 27, 209–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Moczek, A. P., Sultan, S., Foster, S., Ledon-Rettig, C., Dworkin, I., Nijhout, H. F., et al. (2011). The role of developmental plasticity in evolutionary innovation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 278, 2705–2713.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morey, S. R., & Reznick, D. N. (2004). The relationship between habitat permanence and larval development in California spadefoot toads: field and laboratory comparisons of developmental plasticity. Oikos, 104, 172–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nauwelaerts, S., Ramsay, J., & Aerts, P. (2007). Morphological correlates of aquatic and terrestrial locomotion in a semi-aquatic frog, Rana esculenta: no evidence for a design conflict. Journal of Anatomy, 210, 304–317.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Newman, R. A. (1992). Adaptive plasticity in amphibian metamorphosis. BioScience, 42, 671–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nöllert, A., & Nöllert, C. (1992). Die Amphibien Europas. Stuttgart: Franckh-Kosmos.Google Scholar
  33. Nosil, P., Egan, S. P., Funk, D. J., & Hoekstra, H. (2007). Heterogeneous genomic differentiation between walking-stick ecotypes: “Isolation by Adaptation” and multiple roles for divergent selection. Evolution, 62, 316–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nosil, P., Vines, T., & Funk, D. J. (2005). Perspective: Reproductive isolation caused by natural selection against immigrants from divergent habitats. Evolution, 59, 705–719.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Oksanen, J., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., O’Hara, B., Simpson, G. L., Solymos, P., et al. (2009). Community Ecology Package, version 1.15-3.
  36. Orizaola, G., & Laurila, A. (2009). Microgeographic variation in temperature-induced plasticity in an isolated amphibian metapopulation. Evolutionary Ecology, 26, 979–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pfennig, D., Wund, M. A., Snell-Rood, E. C., Cruickshank, T., Schlichting, C. D., & Moczek, A. P. (2010). Phenotypic plasticity’s impacts on diversification and speciation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25, 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pinheiro, J., Bates, D.,DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. & R. C. team. (2008). nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1-90.Google Scholar
  39. Price, T. D., Qvarnström, A., & Erwin, D. E. (2003). The role of phenotypic plasticity in driving genetic evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270, 1433–1440.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Queitsch, C., Sangster, T. A., & Lindquist, S. (2002). Hsp90 as a capacitor of phenotypic variation. Nature, 417, 618–624.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Relyea, R. A. (2002). Local population differences in phenotypic plasticity: Predator-induced changes in wood frog tadpoles. Ecological Monographs, 72, 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Richter-Boix, A., Llorente, G. A., & Montori, A. (2006a). Effects of phenotypic plasticity on post-metamorphic traits during pre-metamorphic stages in the anuran Pelodytes punctatus. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 8, 309–320.Google Scholar
  43. Richter-Boix, A., Llorente, G. A., & Montori, A. (2006b). A comparative analysis of the adaptive developmental plasticity hypothesis in six Mediterranean anuran species along a pond permanency gradient. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 8, 1139–1154.Google Scholar
  44. Richter-Boix, A., Llorente, G. A., & Montori, A. (2007). Structure and dynamics of an amphibian metacommunity in two regions. Journal of Animal Ecology, 76, 607–618.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Richter-Boix, A., Tejedo, M., & Rezende, E. (2011). Evolution and plasticity of anuran larval development in response to desiccation: a comparative analysis. Ecology and Evolution, 1, 15–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Richter-Boix, A., Teplitsky, C., Rogell, B., & Laurila, A. (2010). Local selection modifies phenotypic divergence among Rana temporaria populations in the presence of gene flow. Molecular Ecology, 19, 716–731.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sánchez-Herráiz, M. J., Barbadillo, L. J., Machordom, A., & Sanchiz, B. (2000). A new species of Pelodytid frog from the Iberian Peninsula. Herpetologica, 56, 105–118.Google Scholar
  48. Suzuki, Y., & Nijhout, H. F. (2006). Evolution of polyphenism by genetic accommodation. Science, 311, 650–652.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tejedo, M., Marangoni, F., Pertoldi, C., Richter-Boix, A., Laurila, A., Orizaola, G., et al. (2010). Contrasting effects of environmental factors during larval stage on morphological plasticity in post-metamorphic frogs. Climate Research, 43, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vasemägi, A. (2006). The adaptive hypothesis of clinal variation revisited: Single-locus clines as a result of spatially restricted gene flow. Genetics, 173, 2411–2414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Waddington, C. H. (1953). Genetic assimilation of an acquired character. Evolution, 7, 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. West, B., Welch, K. B., & Galecki, A. T. (2006). Linear mixed models: A practical guide using statistical software. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  53. West-Eberhard, M. J. (2005). Developmental plasticity and the origin of species differences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 6543–6549.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilbur, H. M. (1987). Regulation of structure in complex systems: Experimental temporal pond communities. Ecology, 60, 1432–1437.Google Scholar
  55. Zuur, A. F., Leno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A., & Smith, G. M. (2009). Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York, USA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and GeneticsUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations