Two different, but related, evolutionary theories pertaining to phenotypic plasticity were proposed by James Mark Baldwin and Conrad Hal Waddington. Unfortunately, these theories are often confused with one another. Baldwin's notion of organic selection posits that plasticity influences whether an individual will survive in a new environment, thus dictating the course of future evolution. Heritable variations can then be selected upon to direct phenotypic evolution (i.e., "orthoplasy"). The combination of these two processes (organic selection and orthoplasy) is now commonly referred to as the "Baldwin effect." Alternately, Waddington's genetic assimilation is a process whereby an environmentally induced phenotype, or "acquired character," becomes canalized through selection acting upon the developmental system. Genetic accommodation is a modern term used to describe the process of heritable changes that occur in response to a novel induction. Genetic accommodation is a key component of the Baldwin effect, and genetic assimilation is a type of genetic accommodation. I here define both the Baldwin effect and genetic assimilation in terms of genetic accommodation, describe cases in which either should occur in nature, and propose that each could play a role in evolutionary diversification.

Two general processes may influence gene flow among populations. One involves divergent selection, wherein the maladaptation of immigrants and hybrids impedes gene flow between ecological environments (i.e. ecological speciation). The other involves geographic features that limit dispersal. We determined the relative influence of these two processes in natural populations of Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata). If selection is important, gene flow should be reduced between different selective environments. If geography is important, gene flow should be impeded by geographic distance and physical barriers. We examined how genetic divergence, long-term gene flow, and contemporary dispersal within a watershed were influenced by waterfalls, geographic distance, predation, and habitat features. We found that waterfalls and geographic distance increased genetic divergence and reduced dispersal and long-term gene flow. Differences in predation or habitat features did not influence genetic divergence or gene flow. In contrast, differences in predation did appear to reduce contemporary dispersal. We suggest that the standard predictions of ecological speciation may be heavily nuanced by the mating behaviour and life history strategies of guppies.

Divergent natural selection, adaptive divergence and gene flow may interact in a number of ways. Recent studies have focused on the balance between selection and gene flow in natural populations, and empirical work has shown that gene flow can constrain adaptive divergence, and that divergent selection can constrain gene flow. A caveat is that phenotypic diversification may be under the direct influence of environmental factors (i.e. it may be due to phenotypic plasticity), in addition to partial genetic influence. In this case, phenotypic divergence may occur between populations despite high gene flow that imposes a constraint on genetic divergence. Plasticity may dampen the effects of natural selection by allowing individuals to rapidly adapt phenotypically to new conditions, thus slowing adaptive genetic divergence. On the other hand, plasticity may promote future adaptive divergence by allowing populations to persist in novel environments. Plasticity may promote gene flow between selective regimes by allowing dispersers to adapt to alternate conditions, or high gene flow may result in the selection for increased plasticity. Here I expand frameworks for understanding relationships among selection, adaptation and gene flow to include the effects of phenotypic plasticity in natural populations, and highlight its importance in evolutionary diversification.

We identify two processes by which humans increase genetic exchange among groups of individuals: by affecting the distribution of groups and dispersal patterns across a landscape, and by affecting interbreeding among sympatric or parapatric groups. Each of these processes might then have two different effects on biodiversity: changes in the number of taxa through merging or splitting of groups, and the extinction/extirpation of taxa through effects on fitness. We review the various ways in which humans are affecting genetic exchange, and highlight the difficulties in predicting the impacts on biodiversity. Gene flow and hybridization are crucially important evolutionary forces influencing biodiversity. Humans alter natural patterns of genetic exchange in myriad ways, and these anthropogenic effects are likely to influence the genetic integrity of populations and species. We argue that taking a gene-centric view towards conservation will help resolve issues pertaining to conservation and management. Editor's suggested further reading in BioEssays A systemic view of biodiversity and its conservation: Processes, interrelationships, and human culture Abstract.

Genetic adaptation and phenotypic plasticity are two ways in which organisms can adapt to local environmental conditions. We examined genetic and plastic variation in gill and brain size among swamp (low oxygen; hypoxic) and river (normal oxygen; normoxic) populations of an African cichlid fish, Pseudocrenilabrus multicolor victoriae. Larger gills and smaller brains should be advantageous when oxygen is low, and we hypothesized that the relative contribution of local genetic adaptation vs. phenotypic plasticity should be related to potential for dispersal between environments (because of gene flow’s constraint on local genetic adaptation). We conducted a laboratory‐rearing experiment, with broods from multiple populations raised under high‐oxygen and low‐oxygen conditions. We found that most of the variation in gill size was because of plasticity. However, both plastic and genetic effects on brain mass were detected, as were genetic effects on brain mass plasticity. F1 offspring from populations with the highest potential for dispersal between environments had characteristically smaller and more plastic brains. This phenotypic pattern might be adaptive in the face of gene flow, if smaller brains and increased plasticity confer higher average fitness across environment types.