Morphological Consequences of Developmental Plasticity in Rana temporaria are not Accommodated into Among-Population or Among-Species Variation
Environmental induced developmental plasticity occurs in many organisms and it has been suggested to facilitate biological diversification. Here we use ranid frogs to examine whether morphological changes derived from adaptive developmental acceleration in response to pool drying within a species are mirrored by differences among populations and across species. Accelerated development in larval anurans under pool drying conditions is adaptive and often results in allometric changes in limb length and head shape. We examine the association between developmental rate and morphology within population, among populations in divergent environments, and among species inside the Ranidae frog family, combining experimental approaches with phylogenetic comparative analyses. We found that frogs reared under decreasing water conditions that simulated fast pool drying had a faster development rate compared to tadpoles reared on constant water conditions. This faster developmental rate resulted in different juvenile morphologies between the two pool drying conditions. The association between developmental rate and morphology found as a result of plasticity was not mirrored by differences among populations that differed in development, neither was it mirrored among species that differed in development rate. We conclude that morphological differences among populations and species were not driven by variation in developmental time per se. Instead, selective factors, presumably operating on locomotion and prey choice, seem to have had a stronger evolutionary effect on frog morphology than evolutionary divergences in developmental rate in the ranid populations and species studied.
KeywordsDevelopment time Temporary pools Morphology Ranidae Tadpoles Phenotypic plasticity
We thank J.J. Wiens for assistance in deriving the phylogeny used in this article from a previously published large-scale phylogeny. We also tank J. Cabot and M. Calvo for granting access to the herpetological collections at Estación Biológica de Doñana and Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, respectively. FJ was supported by The Swedish Research Council.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Abramoff, M. D., Magelhaes, P. J., & Ram, S. J. (2004). Image Processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics International, 11, 36–42.Google Scholar
- APHA. (1985). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (16th ed.). Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
- Benjamini, Y., & Hochenberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 57, 289–300.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Gosner, K. L. (1960). A simple table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica, 16, 183–190.Google Scholar
- Hoskin, C. (2010). Breeding behaviour of the Barred frog Mixophyes coggeri. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum—Nature, 55, 1–7.Google Scholar
- Johansson, F., Veldhoen, N., Lind, M. I., & Helbing, C. (2013). Phenotypic plasticity in the hepatic transcriptome of the European common frog (Rana temporaria): The interplay between environmental induction and geographic lineage on developmental response. Molecular Ecology, 22, 5608–5623.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lewis, B., & Rohweder, D. (2005). Distribution, habitat, and conservation status of the Giant Barred Frog, Mixophyes iteratus in the Bungawalbin catchment, northeastern New South Wales. Pacific Conservation Biology, 11, 189–197.Google Scholar
- Orme, D., Freckleton, R., Thomas, G., Petzoldt, T., Fritz, S., Isaac, N., et al. (2012). Caper: Comparative analyses of phylogeneticsand evolution in R. version 0.5. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=caper.
- Pigliucci, M. (2001). Phenotypic plasticity: Beyond nature and nurture. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkiss University Press.328 pp.Google Scholar
- 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
- Richter-Boix, A., Llorente, G. A., & Montori, A. (2006). 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
- Savage, R. M. (1961). The ecology and life history of the common frog. London: Sir Isac Pitman and Sons.Google Scholar
- West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution (p. 794). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Wund, M. A., Baker, J. A., Clancy, B., Golub, J., & Fosterk, S. A. (2008). A test of the “Flexible stem” model of evolution: Ancestral plasticity, genetic accommodation, and morphological divergence in the threespine stickleback radiation. The American Naturalist, 172, 449–462.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar