Do stable environments select against phenotypic plasticity in hermaphroditic sex allocation?

Abstract

Phenotypic plasticity is the environment-induced change in the phenotype of an organism. Natural selection operates for the ability of individuals to adjust their phenotype to the current environmental conditions when environmental conditions fluctuate. Simultaneous hermaphrodites may exhibit plasticity in sex allocation according to the availability of mates at any particular time. The plasticity in sex allocation has probably evolved under fluctuating mating opportunities, which are usually low but increase when hermaphrodites incur sudden demographic expansion. Here we compare the plasticity in sex allocation in two different populations of the hermaphroditic polychaete worm Ophryotrocha diadema -a laboratory population and a wild one. Worms from the laboratory population were kept under constant crowded conditions for about 200 generations (i.e. they were exposed to high mating opportunities). Worms from the wild population were kept under crowded conditions for 20 generations only. Worms from the laboratory population showed significantly less plasticity in sex allocation than worms from the wild population. Although we cannot rule out the hypotheses that genetic drift or local adaptation played a role in the differences between the two populations, the most likely explanation for our results is that worms of the laboratory population underwent a loss of plasticity in sex allocation because they were kept under constant mating opportunities. In fact, the sensory and regulatory machinery that worms use for exhibiting plastic sex allocation responses is likely to be the same as the machinery that is required for mate searching and sex role synchronization between mating partners. The need to maintain this machinery can explain why worms from the laboratory population diminished their plasticity in sex allocation but did not lose it completely. Therefore our results give some clues as to how plasticity in sex allocation evolves or is constrained.

Does the cost of a function affect its degree of plasticity? A test on plastic sex allocation in three closely related species of hermaphrodites

“…The effect of these chemical cues is so strong that we can manipulate the sex allocation ofworms by simply varying the amount of cues rather than varying the number of worms in the enclosures (Schleicherová et al, 2010). These worms have kept plasticity in sex allocation although cultured in dense laboratory populations for generations (Schleicherová et al, 2013). In this experiment, we used worms of the lab culture from the California population.…”

Seasonal plasticity in morphology and metabolism differs between migratory North American and resident Costa Rican monarch butterflies

“…Trait plasticity may be lost when species ranges expand out of temperate, seasonal environments, and into tropical, constant environments. This loss may occur via costs of plasticity that include a reduced efficacy of selection (DeWitt et al, 1998; Kawecki, 1994; Van Dyken & Wade, 2010; Van Tienderen, 1991; Whitlock, 1996) or genetic assimilation whereby adaptation to a new constant environment fixes the trait value (Lande, 2009; Price et al, 2003; Schleicherová et al, 2013; Waddington, 1961; Wan et al, 2018).…”

Seasonal plasticity in morphology and metabolism differs between migratory North American and resident Costa Rican monarch butterflies

“…Trait plasticity may be lost when species ranges expand out of temperate, seasonal environments and into tropical, constant environments. This loss may occur via costs of plasticity that include a reduced efficacy of selection (Van Tienderen 1991; Kawecki 1994; Whitlock 1996; DeWitt et al 1998; Van Dyken and Wade 2010) or genetic assimilation whereby adaptation to a new constant environment fixes the trait value (Waddington 1961; Price et al 2003; Lande 2009; Schleicherová et al 2013; Wan et al 2018).…”