Evolutionary physiology
topics
1. Patterns
2. Processes
Evolutionary physiology
topics
1. Patterns
• How and why of particular transitions
How and why did endothermic vertebrates evolve
from ectothermic ancestors?
Endothermy versus ectothermy
scala naturae
Endothermy versus ectothermy
Endothermy versus ectothermy
Advantages of endothermy:
• Independent of environment
• Stenothermy
• Aerobic metabolism
Endothermy versus ectothermy
Advantages of ectothermy:
• Low energetic requirements
metabolism (Wg-1day-1)
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
mammals
1.2
Passerine birds
1
reptiles
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.1g
10g
1kg
100kg
1000kg
Endothermy versus ectothermy
Advantages of ectothermy:
• Low energy requirements
 Low food habitats
Endothermy versus ectothermy
Advantages of ectothermy:
• Low energy requirements
 Low food habitats
 Fluctuating food habitats
Flinders Island
Mt Chappell Island
Cape Barren Island
Chappell Island tiger snake
(Notechis ater serventyi)
Short-tailed shearwater
(Puffinus tenuirostris)
Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum)
Western banded gecko (Coleonyx variegatus)
Endothermy versus ectothermy
Advantages of ectothermy:
• Low energy requirements
 Low food habitats
 Fluctuating food habitats
 Small body dimensions
surface/volume
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
2
4
6
body length
8
10
mammals:
>20 g
lizards:
8% spp. < 1 g
80% spp. < 20 g
salamanders:
20% spp. < 1 g
90% spp. < 20 g
Dwarf chameleon
Dwarf gecko
Monte Iberia Eleuth
Kitti’s hog-nosed bat
Etruscan shrew
L: 29-33 mm
W: 1.5-2.5 g
FR: 4xW/day
HR: 835 b/min
RR: 661 p/min
Endothermy versus ectothermy
Advantages of ectothermy:
• Low energy requirements
 Low food habitats
 Fluctuating food habitats
 Small body dimensions
 Elongate body forms
surface/volume
10
diameter
5
height
0
0
10
20
30
height/diameter
40
50
wood rat (Neotoma sp.)
weasel (Mustela nivalis)
energy loss: x2
Afrocaecilia taitana
Desmognathus ochrophaeus
Bipes bipes
Anguis fragilis
Opheodrys aestivus
Endothermy versus ectothermy
Advantages of ectothermy:
• Low energy requirements
 Low food habitats
 Fluctuating food habitats
 Small body dimensions
 Elongate body forms
 Low water habitats
Sauromalus obesus
Scaphiopus couchii
Endothermy versus ectothermy
Advantages of ectothermy:
• Low energy requirements
 Low food habitats
 Fluctuating food habitats
 Small body dimensions
 Elongate body forms
 Low water habitats
 Low oxygen habitats
Iguana iguana
Amblyrhynchus cristatus
Neoseps reynoldsi
Scincus mitranus
Dilong paradoxus
Xu et al. 2004. Nature 431: 680-684.
Synapsida (mammal-like reptiles)
Dimetrodon (Pelycosauria)
Moschops (Therapsida)
Endothermy in Mammalia:
1. RM x5
2. Tb > Ta, 28°C < Tb < 40°C
3.
DTcore < 1-2°C
4. Maero x5
• Thermoregulation first
 physiological version
Synapsida evolve
from small ectotherms
decrease in size
increase in size
(30-100 kg)
Tb constant,
physiological benefits
become inertial
homeotherms
evolve
insulation
increased metabolism
improved insulation
McNab 1978. Am. Nat. 112: 1-21.
• Thermoregulation first
 brain version
Synapsida evolve
from small ectotherms
evolve larger, more
complex brains
increase in size
(30-100 kg)
Tb constant,
physiological benefits
Hulbert 1980.
become inertial
homeotherms
evolve
insulation
• Thermoregulation first
 ecological version
Synapsida evolve
from small ectotherms
evolve nocturnal
habits
increase in size
(30-100 kg)
Tb constant,
physiological advantages
become inertial
homeotherms
evolve
insulation
Crompton et al. 1978. Nature 272: 333-336.
• Aerobic capacity first
 sustained ativity version
small change in
basal metabolic rate
minimal effect on
thermoregulatory capacity
large effect on
maximal aerobic metabolic rate
Ruben 1995 Ann. Rev. Physiol. 57: 69-95.
• Aerobic capacity first
 parental care version
small change in
basal metabolic rate
minieme verandering in
thermoregulatie-capaciteit
large effect on
maximal aerobic metabolic rate
necessary for locomotor costs
related to parental care
Koteja 2000 Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 267: 479-484
Evolutionary physiology
topics
1. Patterns
• How and why of particular transitions
• Testing a-priori-hypotheses
 plastic responses are adaptive
Dicerandra linearifolia
• leaf length
• leaf thickness
• density of stomata
Winn A.A. 1999. J. Evol. Biol. 12: 306-313.
0.165
35
96
94
25
20
15
92
Density of stomata (mm-2)
0.160
Leaf thickness (mm)
Leaf length (mm)
30
0.155
0.150
0.145
10
90
88
86
84
82
80
78
5
0.140
winter
summer
76
winter
summer
winter
summer
Winn A.A. 1999. J. Evol. Biol. 12: 306-313.
-0.01
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
Selection gradiënt for stomata density
0.08
Selection gradiënt for leave thickness
Selection gradiënt for leave length
0.65
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
-0.02
-0.04
winter
summer
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
-0.06
winter
summer
winter
summer
Winn A.A. 1999. J. Evol. Biol. 12: 306-313.
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Colder is better
Hotter is better
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Deleterious acclimation hypothesis
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Escherichia coli
Leroi et al. 1994.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91: 1917-1921.
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
>
32°
32°
41.5°
32°
41.5°
Escherichia coli
37°
acclimation
>
41.5°
competition
Leroi et al. 1994.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91: 1917-1921.
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Bicyclus anynana
Geister T.L. & Fischer 2007. Behav. Ecol. 18: 658-664.
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
20°
27°
development
larvae
20°
20,20° 27,27°
27°
20,27° 27,20°
27°
20,20° 27,27°
20°
acclimation
20,27° 27,20°
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Oribatida
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
Marion Island,
Prince Edward Islands
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
15°
Locomotor tests -5° up to 35°
Halozetes marinus
Halozetes marionensis
10°
Halozetes belgicae
Halozetes fulvus
5°
Podacarus auberti
0°
acclimation
7 days
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Halozetes marinus
deleterious acclimation
Halozetes marionensis
Halozetes belgicae
Halozetes fulvus
Podacarus auberti
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
15°C
10°C
5°C
0°C
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Halozetes marinus
deleterious acclimation
Halozetes marionensis
beneficial acclimation
Halozetes belgicae
Halozetes fulvus
Podacarus auberti
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
15°C
10°C
5°C
0°C
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Halozetes marinus
deleterious acclimation
Halozetes marionensis
beneficial acclimation
colder is better
Halozetes belgicae
Halozetes fulvus
Podacarus auberti
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
15°C
10°C
5°C
0°C
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Halozetes marinus
deleterious acclimation
Halozetes marionensis
beneficial acclimation
colder is better
Halozetes belgicae
Halozetes fulvus
Podacarus auberti
geen plasticiteit
geen plasticiteit
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
15°C
10°C
5°C
0°C
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
Evolutionary physiology
topics
1. Patterns
• How and why of particular transitions
• Testing a-priori-hypotheses
 plastic responses are adaptive
 phenotypic plasticity ~ environmental variability
Rana temporaria
Lind & Johansson 2006. J. Evol. Biol. 20: 1288-1297
•
•
•
•
•
•
14 small islands
10 clutches < 20-50 eggs
depth pools
variability drying / island
lab: 4 tadpoles / container
2 regimes: Constant & Drying
• developmental time ~ regime (D<C)
• developmental time ~ island
• phenotypic plasticity ~ variability island
Lind & Johansson 2006. J. Evol. Biol. 20: 1288-1297
constant
developmental time
island 1
(homo)
28
plasticity=11
17
drying
island 2
(hetero)
28
plasticity=18
10
• devolopmental time ~ regime (D<C)
• developmental time ~ island
• phenotypic plasticity ~ variability island
Lind & Johansson 2006. J. Evol. Biol. 20: 1288-1297
Evolutionary physiology
topics
1. Patterns
• How and why of particular transitions
• Testing a-priori-hypotheses
 plastic responses are adaptive
 phenotypic plasticity ~ environmental variability
 a jack-of-all-trades is a master of none
sprint speed
sprint speed
‘specialist’
40
35
30
25
20
‘generalist’
15
10
5
0
6
8
10
14
18
22
26
lichaamstemperatuur
30
34
38
rank
12
10
Laudakia stellio
8
6
4
2
0
18
22
26
30
34
38
42
lichaamstemperatuur
Huey R.B. & Hertz P.E. 1984. Evolution 38:441-444.
rank
5
4
3
Amoeba
2
1
0
10
15
20
25
lichaamstemperatuur
30
38
Huey R.B. & Hertz P.E. 1984. Evolution 38:441-444.
Escherichia coli
Hughes et al. 2007. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 80: 406-421.
Escherichia coli
7.8
7.0
6.3
5.3
2000 generations
non-active
Hughes et al. 2007. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 80: 406-421.
Escherichia coli
7.8
7.0
6.3
5.3
2000 generations
non-active
C > P in constant and fluctuating environments
Hughes et al. 2007. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 80: 406-421.
Escherichia coli
7.8
7.0
6.3
5.3
2000 generations
non-active
R > P in some fluctuating and constant environments
Hughes et al. 2007. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 80: 406-421.
Escherichia coli
7.8
7.0
6.3
5.3
2000 generations
non-active
B > P in fluctuating environments, but not in 7.8
Hughes et al. 2007. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 80: 406-421.
Escherichia coli
7.8
7.0
6.3
5.3
2000 generations
non-active
A > P in constant, not in fluctuating environments
Hughes et al. 2007. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 80: 406-421.
Escherichia coli
(1) adaptation to cycling pH, randomly changing pH and constante pH follows
different patterns
(2) in variable environments generalists evolve, in constant environments
specialists evolve;
(3) in variable environments the ‘cycling’ lines have a higher fitness than
the ‘random changes’ lines;
(4) an acclimation benefit (BAH) was not always detected.
Hughes et al. 2007. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 80: 406-421.
• 18 Lygosominae
• sprinting, jumping, clinging, climbing
Goodman et al. 2007. Evol. Ecol. Res. 9: 527-546.
Evolutionary physiology
topics
1. Patterns
• How and why of particular transitions
• Testing a-priori-hypotheses




plastic responses are adaptive
phenotypic plasticity ~ environmental variability
a jack-of-all-traits is a master of none
symmorphosis: design satisfies need
Evolutionary physiology
topics
Evolutionary physiology
topics
king pin
one half rule
Weibel et al. 1991. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88: 10357-10361
mitochondria
in muscle cells
capillary design
(volume, surface)
hematocrite
V02max
heart
stroke volume
surface pulmonary vesicles
diffusion capacity membrane
Evolutionary physiology
topics
1. Patterns
2. Processes
• natural selection
performance gradient
genetic
variation
?
fitness gradient
design
variation
performance
fitness
? variation ? variation
quantitative
genetics
physiology
morphology
biochemistry
kinematics
biomechanics
ecology
behavioral biology
juvenile survival
Zootoca vivipara
limited food supply
abundant food supply
initial endurance
LeGalliard et al. 2004. Nature 432: 502-505.
Evolutionary physiology
topics
1. Patterns
2. Processes
• natural selection
• sexual selection
• intrasexual selection (male-male combat)
• intersexual selection (female choice)
Neriene litigiosa
deCarvalho et al. 2004. Anim. Behav. 68: 473-482.
Phase 3 Locomotion
Joint male energy use (EmW)
1200
X 11.5
1200
800
Phase 2
X 7.4
600
Phase 1
X 3.5
400
200
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time (min)
Neriene litigiosa
deCarvalho et al. 2004. Anim. Behav. 68: 473-482.
Necora puber
Thorpe et al. 1995.
Anim. Behav. 50: 1657-1666
Uca lactea
Matsuma & Murai 1995.
Anim. Behav. 69: 569-577
anaerobic respiration
Agkistrodon contortix
Schuett & Grober 2000 Physiol & Behav 71: 335-341.
Agkistrodon contortix
Schuett & Grober 2000 Physiol & Behav 71: 335-341.
Anolis sagrei
Evolutionary physiology
implications
Evolutionary physiology
implications
Evolutionary physiology
implications
Evolutionary physiology
implications
http://www.sfecologie.org/blog/2011/09/30/evolrescueonline-topic-1/