Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Morphological Integration, Evolutionary Constraints, and Extinction: A Computer Simulation-Based Study

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Evolutionary Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is well known that there is a strong relationship among the environment, selection, and extinction, but the underlying role of genetics and genetic constraints in contributing to extinction is less appreciated. Integration of characters may enhance survivability for species, providing that selective pressure is parallel with the patterns of morphological integration. However, we hypothesize that, if the direction of selection shifts, integration may also prevent populations from responding quickly enough to the new directions of selection. This would lead to the inability to find a successful adaptive solution, causing downward pressure on the population, and ultimately, extinction. We test this model with a computer simulation, using an adaptive landscape model. We generate populations of varying levels of multivariate integration and generate selection pressures to test the ability of the populations to respond to selection both parallel and orthogonal to the axis of maximum variation. In these simulations, more highly integrated populations survived longer when selection was in the direction of maximum variation. However, when selection was closer to orthogonal to the axis of maximum variation, extinction was more rapid in highly integrated populations. These results suggest that integration may play a strong role in both survivability and extinction. Tightly integrated populations are highly persistent when selection pressure is close to the axis of maximum variation, which is expected to frequently be the case since integration is likely often a product of selection. However, these highly integrated taxa are more susceptible to extinction when the direction of selection shifts, and is closer to orthogonal to the axis of maximum variation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Berger, R. (1986). Constraints for the evolution of functionally coupled characters: A nonlinear analysis of a phenotypic model. Evolution, 40, 182–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, R., & Lynch, M. (1995). Evolution and extinction in a changing environment: A quantitative-genetic analysis. Evolution, 49, 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheverud, J. (1984). Quantitative genetics and developmental constraints on evolution by selection. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 110, 155–171.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cheverud, J. (1996). Developmental integration and the evolution of pleiotropy. American Zoologist, 36, 44–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chevin, L., Lande, R., & Mace, G. (2010). Adaptation, plasticity, and extinction in a changing environment: Towards a predictive theory. PLoS Biology, 8, e1000357.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cody, M. (1966). A general theory of clutch size. Evolution, 20, 174–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma, D. (2010). Evolutionary constraint and ecological consequences. Evolution, 64(7), 1865–1884.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gomulkiewicz, R., & Holt, R. (1995). When does evolution by natural selection prevent extinction? Evolution, 49, 201–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomulkiewicz, R., & Houle, D. (2009). Demographic and genetic constraints on evolution. The American Naturalist, 174, E218–E229.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hallgrimson, B., Jamniczky, H., Young, N., Rolian, C., Parsons, T., Boughner, J., et al. (2009). Deciphering the palimpsest: Studying the relationship between morphological integration and phenotypic covariation. Evolutionary Biology, 36, 355–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, T. (2003). Is modularity necessary for evolvability? Remarks on the relationship between pleiotropy and evolvability. Biosystems, 69, 83–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, T., & Houle, D. (2008). Measuring and comparing evolvability and constraint in multivariate characters. Evolutionary Biology, 21, 1201–1219.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huey, R., & Hertz, P. (1984). Is a jack-of-all-temperatures a master of none? Evolution, 38, 441–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., Arnold, S., & Bürger, R. (2004). Evolution and stability of the G-Matrix on a landscape with a moving optimum. Evolution, 58, 1639–1654.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., Arnold, S., & Bürger, R. (2007). The mutation matrix and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution, 61, 727–745.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kellermann, V., van Heerwaarden, B., Sgrò, C., & Hoffmann, A. (2009). Fundamental evolutionary limits in ecological traits drive Drosophila species distributions. Science, 325, 1244–1246.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klingenberg, C. (2004). Integration, modules, and development: Molecules to morphology to evolution. In M. Pigliucci & K. Preston (Eds.), Phenotypic integration: Studying the ecology and evolution of complex phenotypes (pp. 213–230). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lande, R. (1979). Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain: Body-size allometry. Evolution, 33, 402–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lande, R., & Shannon, S. (1996). The role of genetic variation in adaptation and population persistence in a changing environment. Evolution, 50, 434–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marroig, G., & Cheverud, J. (2005). Size as a line of least evolutionary resistance: Diet and adaptive morphological variation in New World monkeys. Evolution, 59, 1128–1142.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marroig, G., & Cheverud, J. (2010). Size as a line of least resistance II: Direct selection on size or correlated response due to constraints? Evolution, 64, 1470–1488.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. (1976). What determines the rate of evolution? The American Naturalist, 110, 331–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J., Burian, R., Kauffman, S., Alberch, P., Campbell, J., Goodwin, B., et al. (1985). Developmental constraints and evolution: A perspective from the Mountain Lake conference on development and evolution. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 60, 265–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mezey, J. G., & Houle, D. (2005). The dimensionality of genetic variation for wing shape in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution, 59, 1027–1038.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, H., & Unkless, R. (2008). Population extinction and the genetics of adaptation. The American Naturalist, 172, 160–169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pachut, J. (1992). Morphological integration and covariance during astogeny of an ordovician trepostome bryozoan from communities of different diversities. Journal of Paleontology, 66, 750–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlicev, M. (2009). Measuring morphological integration using eigenvalue variance. Evolutionary Biology, 36, 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlicev, M., Cheverud, J., & Wagner, G. (2010). Evolution of adaptive phenotypic variation patterns by direct selection for evolvability. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.2113.

  • Pigliucci, M. (2008). Is evolvability evolvable? Nature Reviews Genetics, 9, 75–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, S. (1998). The evolution of canalization and the breaking of von Baer’s law: Modeling the evolution of development with epistasis. Evolution, 52, 647–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riedl, R. (1978). Order in living organisms: A systems analysis of evolution. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolian, C. (2009). Integration and evolveability in primate hands and feet. Evolutionary Biology, 36, 100–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schluter, D. (1996). Adaptive radiation along genetic lines of least resistance. Evolution, 50, 1766–1774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, M., & Fischer, M. (2009). Morphological integration in mammalian limb proportions: Dissociation between function and development. Evolution, 63(3), 749–766.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shubin, N., & Wake, D. (1996). Phylogeny, variation, and morphological integration. American Zoologist, 36, 51–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G. (1953). The meaning of evolution. New Haven: Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villmoare, B., Fish, J., & Jungers, W. (2011). Selection, integration, and strepsirrhine locomotor adaptations. Evolutionary Biology, 38, 88–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G. (1988). The influence of variation and of developmental constraints on the rate of multivariate phenotypic evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 1, 45–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G. (1996). Homologues, natural kinds and the evolution of modularity. American Zoologist, 36, 36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G., & Alternberg, L. (1996). Complex adaptations and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution, 50, 967–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, T. (2001). A quantitative genetic test of adaptive decoupling across metamorphosis for locomotor and life-history traits in the pacific tree frog, Hyla regilla. Evolution, 55, 1668–1677.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (1932). The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. In Proceedings of the sixth international congress on genetics (pp. 355–366). Reprinted in William B. Provine (1986), Sewall wright: evolution: selected papers (pp. 161–177). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Wright, S. (1949). Population structure in evolution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 93, 471–478.

  • Wroe, S., & Milne, N. (2007). Convergence and remarkably consistent constraint in the evolution of carnivore skull shape. Evolution, 65, 1251–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, N., & Hallgrimsson, B. (2005). Serial homology and the evolution of mammalian limb covariation structure. Evolution, 59(12), 269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, N., Wagner, G., & Hallgrimson, B. (2010). Development and the evolvability of human limbs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 3400–3405.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anthropology, Center for the Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

    Brian Villmoare

  2. Department of Anthropology, University College London, London, UK

    Brian Villmoare

Authors
  1. Brian Villmoare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian Villmoare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Villmoare, B. Morphological Integration, Evolutionary Constraints, and Extinction: A Computer Simulation-Based Study. Evol Biol 40, 76–83 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-012-9186-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-012-9186-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation