Between-individual differences in behavioural plasticity within populations: causes and consequences
TL;DR: How between-individual differences in behavioural plasticity can result from additive and interactive effects of genetic make-up and past environmental conditions, and under which conditions natural selection might favour this form of between- individual variation is discussed.
About: This article is published in Animal Behaviour.The article was published on 2013-05-01. It has received 331 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Phenotypic plasticity & Population.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: It is presented both theoretical and empirical arguments to show that behavioural adjustments to urban habitats are widespread and that they may potentially be important in facilitating resource use, avoiding disturbances and enhancing communication.
510 citations
TL;DR: Findings support the assumption that differences among individuals in prior experiences may contribute to individual differences in behavioural plasticities observed at a given age, and suggest how an appreciation of the similarities and differences between different types of behavioural Plasticities may help theoreticians formulate testable models to explain the evolution of individual differences.
Abstract: Interest in individual differences in animal behavioural plasticities has surged in recent years, but research in this area has been hampered by semantic confusion as different investigators use the same terms (e.g. plasticity, flexibility, responsiveness) to refer to different phenomena. The first goal of this review is to suggest a framework for categorizing the many different types of behavioural plasticities, describe examples of each, and indicate why using reversibility as a criterion for categorizing behavioural plasticities is problematic. This framework is then used to address a number of timely questions about individual differences in behavioural plasticities. One set of questions concerns the experimental designs that can be used to study individual differences in various types of behavioural plasticities. Although within-individual designs are the default option for empirical studies of many types of behavioural plasticities, in some situations (e.g. when experience at an early age affects the behaviour expressed at subsequent ages), ‘replicate individual’ designs can provide useful insights into individual differences in behavioural plasticities. To date, researchers using within-individual and replicate individual designs have documented individual differences in all of the major categories of behavioural plasticities described herein. Another important question is whether and how different types of behavioural plasticities are related to one another. Currently there is empirical evidence that many behavioural plasticities [e.g. contextual plasticity, learning rates, IIV (intra-individual variability), endogenous plasticities, ontogenetic plasticities) can themselves vary as a function of experiences earlier in life, that is, many types of behavioural plasticity are themselves developmentally plastic. These findings support the assumption that differences among individuals in prior experiences may contribute to individual differences in behavioural plasticities observed at a given age. Several authors have predicted correlations across individuals between different types of behavioural plasticities, i.e. that some individuals will be generally more plastic than others. However, empirical support for most of these predictions, including indirect evidence from studies of relationships between personality traits and plasticities, is currently sparse and equivocal. The final section of this review suggests how an appreciation of the similarities and differences between different types of behavioural plasticities may help theoreticians formulate testable models to explain the evolution of individual differences in behavioural plasticities and the evolutionary and ecological consequences of individual differences in behavioural plasticities.
233 citations
Cites background from "Between-individual differences in b..."
...…on trait values are reversible or irreversible (Piersma & Lindstrom, 1997; Piersma & Drent, 2003; Gabriel et al., 2005; Utz et al., 2014), or, more loosely, whether the effects of experience on behaviour are ‘short-term’ versus ‘long-lasting’ (Dingemanse & Wolf, 2013; Westneat et al., 2014)....
[...]
...…between other types of learning, different types of contextual plasticity, and other types of exogenous behavioural plasticities (Sih & Bell, 2008; Dingemanse & Wolf, 2010, 2013; Mathot et al., Biological Reviews 91 (2016) 534–567 © 2015 Cambridge Philosophical Society 2012; Sih & Del Giudice,…...
[...]
...…at least some of the variation across individuals or across genotypes in that type of behavioural plasticity at a given age could be due to differences among those individuals in experiences earlier in life (Stamps & Groothuis, 2010b; Dingemanse & Wolf, 2013; Snell-Rood, Davidowitz & Papaj, 2013)....
[...]
TL;DR: Genetic differential susceptibility experiments can test the bright side as well as the dark side of the moderating role of genotypes traditionally considered to represent vulnerability to negative conditions, and possibilities to broaden the G component in the G×E equation by including genetic pathways are suggested.
Abstract: The efficacy of interventions might be underestimated or even go undetected as a main effect when it is hidden in gene-by-environment (G×E) interactions. This review moves beyond the problems thwarting correlational G×E research to propose genetic differential susceptibility experiments. G×E experiments can test the bright side as well as the dark side of the moderating role of genotypes traditionally considered to represent vulnerability to negative conditions. The differential susceptibility model predicts that carriers of these risk genotypes profit most from interventions changing the environment for the better. The evolutionary background of G×E and differential susceptibility is discussed, and statistical methods for the analysis of differential susceptibility (versus diathesis stress) are reviewed. Then, based on results from 22 randomized G×E experiments, meta-analytic evidence for the differential susceptibility model is presented. Intervention effects are much stronger in the susceptible genotyp...
221 citations
Cites background from "Between-individual differences in b..."
...Two evolutionary explanations for differential susceptibility in humans have been suggested (Dingemanse & Wolf 2013, Wolf et al. 2008)....
[...]
...As a result, natural selection results in a mixture of susceptible (adapters) and less susceptible (rigid) types (Dingemanse & Wolf 2013)....
[...]
TL;DR: This framework for investigating variation in phenotypic variance reveals that interactions between levels of the hierarchy form the preconditions for the evolution of all types of plasticity, and this idea is extended to the residual level within individuals, where both adaptive plasticity in residuals and canalization‐like processes (stability) can evolve.
Abstract: Phenotypes vary hierarchically among taxa and populations, among genotypes within populations, among individuals within genotypes, and also within individuals for repeatedly expressed, labile phenotypic traits. This hierarchy produces some fundamental challenges to clearly defining biological phenomena and constructing a consistent explanatory framework. We use a heuristic statistical model to explore two consequences of this hierarchy. First, although the variation existing among individuals within populations has long been of interest to evolutionary biologists, within-individual variation has been much less emphasized. Within-individual variance occurs when labile phenotypes (behaviour, physiology, and sometimes morphology) exhibit phenotypic plasticity or deviate from a norm-of-reaction within the same individual. A statistical partitioning of phenotypic variance leads us to explore an array of ideas about residual within-individual variation. We use this approach to draw attention to additional processes that may influence within-individual phenotypic variance, including interactions among environmental factors, ecological effects on the fitness consequences of plasticity, and various types of adaptive variance. Second, our framework for investigating variation in phenotypic variance reveals that interactions between levels of the hierarchy form the preconditions for the evolution of all types of plasticity, and we extend this idea to the residual level within individuals, where both adaptive plasticity in residuals and canalization-like processes (stability) can evolve. With the statistical tools now available to examine heterogeneous residual variance, an array of novel questions linking phenotype to environment can be usefully addressed.
218 citations
Cites background from "Between-individual differences in b..."
...…effects is often more subtle than typically portrayed; some activational environmental effects (cue to a predator) can also have carryover effects through processes such as learning (Dingemanse & Wolf, 2013), potentially producing complexities not captured by current variance equations....
[...]
...This variance component may reflect either genetic variance or environmental factors that have carry-over effects from one instance of expression to another (e.g. developmental plasticity: Lynch & Walsh, 1998; Wilson et al., 2008; Dingemanse & Wolf, 2013; Snell-Rood, 2013)....
[...]
TL;DR: Although it is concur that polyandry is a generally common and ubiquitous phenomenon, it is emphasised that it remains variable and the persistence of single paternity, both within and between populations, requires more careful consideration.
Abstract: A popular notion in sexual selection is that females are polyandrous and their offspring are commonly sired by more than a single male. We now have large-scale evidence from natural populations to be able to verify this assumption. Although we concur that polyandry is a generally common and ubiquitous phenomenon, we emphasise that it remains variable. In particular, the persistence of single paternity, both within and between populations, requires more careful consideration. We also explore an intriguing relation of polyandry with latitude. Several recent large-scale analyses of the relations between key population fitness variables, such as heterozygosity, effective population size (Ne), and inbreeding coefficients, make it possible to examine the global effects of polyandry on population fitness for the first time.
200 citations
References
More filters
Book•
01 Jan 1981
TL;DR: The genetic constitution of a population: Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and changes in gene frequency: migration mutation, changes of variance, and heritability are studied.
Abstract: Part 1 Genetic constitution of a population: Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Part 2 Changes in gene frequency: migration mutation. Part 3 Small populations - changes in gene frequency under simplified conditions. Part 4 Small populations - less simplified conditions. Part 5 Small populations - pedigreed populations and close inbreeding. Part 6 Continuous variation. Part 7 Values and means. Part 8 Variance. Part 9 Resemblance between relatives. Part 10 Heritability. Part 11 Selection - the response and its prediction. Part 12 Selection - the results of experiments. Part 13 Selection - information from relatives. Part 14 Inbreeding and crossbreeding - changes of mean value. Part 15 Inbreeding and crossbreeding - changes of variance. Part 16 Inbreeding and crossbreeding - applications. Part 17 Scale. Part 18 Threshold characters. Part 19 Correlated characters. Part 20 Metric characters under natural selection.
20,288 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1996
TL;DR: This book discusses the genetic Basis of Quantitative Variation, Properties of Distributions, Covariance, Regression, and Correlation, and Properties of Single Loci, and Sources of Genetic Variation for Multilocus Traits.
Abstract: I. The Genetic Basis of Quantitative Variation - An Overview of Quantitative Genetics - Properties of Distributions - Covariance, Regression, and Correlation - Properties of Single Loci - Sources of Genetic Variation for Multilocus Traits - Sources of Environmental Variation - Resemblance Between Relatives - Introduction to Matrix Algebra and Linear Models - Analysis of Line Crosses - Inbreeding Depression - Matters of Scale - II. Quantitative-Trait Loci - Polygenes and Polygenic Mutation - Detecting Major Genes - Basic Concepts of Marker-Based Analysis - Mapping and Characterizing QTLs: Inbred-Line Crosses - Mapping and Characterizing QTLs: Outbred Populations - III. Estimation Procedures - Parent-Offspring Regression - Sib AnalysisTwins and Clones - Cross-Classified Designs - Correlations Between Characters - Genotype x Environment Interaction - Maternal Effects Sex Linkage and Sexual Dimorphism - Threshold Characters - Estimation of Breeding Values - Variance-Component Estimation with Complex Pedigrees - Appendices - Expectations, Variances and Covariances of Compound Variables - Path Analysis - Matrix Algebra and Linear Models - Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Likelihood-Ratio Tests - Estimation of Power of Statistical Tests -
6,530 citations
TL;DR: Measures of directional and stabilizing selection on each of a set of phenotypically correlated characters are derived, retrospective, based on observed changes in the multivariate distribution of characters within a generation, not on the evolutionary response to selection.
Abstract: Natural selection acts on phenotypes, regardless of their genetic basis, and produces immediate phenotypic effects within a generation that can be measured without recourse to principles of heredity or evolution. In contrast, evolutionary response to selection, the genetic change that occurs from one generation to the next, does depend on genetic variation. Animal and plant breeders routinely distinguish phenotypic selection from evolutionary response to selection (Mayo, 1980; Falconer, 1981). Upon making this critical distinction, emphasized by Haldane (1954), precise methods can be formulated for the measurement of phenotypic natural selection. Correlations between characters seriously complicate the measurement of phenotypic selection, because selection on a particular trait produces not only a direct effect on the distribution of that trait in a population, but also produces indirect effects on the distribution of correlated characters. The problem of character correlations has been largely ignored in current methods for measuring natural selection on quantitative traits. Selection has usually been treated as if it acted only on single characters (e.g., Haldane, 1954; Van Valen, 1965a; O'Donald, 1968, 1970; reviewed by Johnson, 1976 Ch. 7). This is obviously a tremendous oversimplification, since natural selection acts on many characters simultaneously and phenotypic correlations between traits are ubiquitous. In an important but neglected paper, Pearson (1903) showed that multivariate statistics could be used to disentangle the direct and indirect effects of selection to determine which traits in a correlated ensemble are the focus of direct selection. Here we extend and generalize Pearson's major results. The purpose of this paper is to derive measures of directional and stabilizing (or disruptive) selection on each of a set of phenotypically correlated characters. The analysis is retrospective, based on observed changes in the multivariate distribution of characters within a generation, not on the evolutionary response to selection. Nevertheless, the measures we propose have a close connection with equations for evolutionary change. Many other commonly used measures of the intensity of selection (such as selective mortality, change in mean fitness, variance in fitness, or estimates of particular forms of fitness functions) have little predictive value in relation to evolutionary change in quantitative traits. To demonstrate the utility of our approach, we analyze selection on four morphological characters in a population of pentatomid bugs during a brief period of high mortality. We also summarize a multivariate selection analysis on nine morphological characters of house sparrows caught in a severe winter storm, using the classic data of Bumpus (1899). Direct observations and measurements of natural selection serve to clarify one of the major factors of evolution. Critiques of the "adaptationist program" (Lewontin, 1978; Gould and Lewontin, 1979) stress that adaptation and selection are often invoked without strong supporting evidence. We suggest quantitative measurements of selection as the best alternative to the fabrication of adaptive scenarios. Our optimism that measurement can replace rhetorical claims for adaptation and selection is founded in the growing success of field workers in their efforts to measure major components of fitness in natural populations (e.g., Thornhill, 1976; Howard, 1979; Downhower and Brown, 1980; Boag and Grant, 1981; Clutton-Brock et
4,990 citations
Book•
01 Jan 2003
4,928 citations
"Between-individual differences in b..." refers background in this paper
...…intense study in a diverse range of biological disciplines including animal behaviour, animal physiology and evolutionary ecology (Schlichting & Pigliucci 1998; West-Eberhard 2003; DeWitt & Scheiner 2004; Pfennig et al. 2010; Moczek et al. 2011; Piersma & van Gils 2011; Taborski & Oliveira 2012)....
[...]
...Phenotypic plasticity has been demonstrated for a large array of traits including behavioural, life history, morphological and physiological traits (West-Eberhard 2003; Pigliucci 2005; Nussey et al. 2007; Sih 2011)....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 1978
TL;DR: In this paper, natural selection and life histories are modeled in behavioural ecology evolution of life histories human behavioural ecology, and exploitation of resources is discussed in terms of competition for resources interactions between predators and prey.
Abstract: Part 1 Natural selection and life histories: evolutionary models in behavioural ecology evolution of life histories human behavioural ecology Part 2 Exploitation of resources: decision-making competition for resources interactions between predators and prey Part 3 Sexual selection and reproductive strategies: sexual selection parental investment mating systems Part 4 Co-operation and conflict: co-operative breeding in birds and mammals conflict and co-operation in insects communication
3,259 citations