Evolution in stressful environments II: adaptive value and costs of plasticity in response to low light in Sinapis arvensis

Abstract Plants possess a remarkable capacity to alter their phenotype in response to the highly heterogeneous light conditions they commonly encounter in natural environments. In the present study with the weedy annual plant Sinapis arvensis, we (a) tested for the adaptive value of phenotypic plasticity in morphological and life history traits in response to low light and (b) explored possible fitness costs of plasticity. Replicates of 31 half‐sib families were grown individually in the greenhouse under full light and under low light (40% of ambient) imposed by neutral shade cloth. Low light resulted in a large increase in hypocotyl length and specific leaf area (SLA), a reduction in juvenile biomass and a delayed onset of flowering. Phenotypic selection analysis within each light environment revealed that selection favoured large SLA under low light, but not under high light, suggesting that the observed increase in SLA was adaptive. In contrast, plasticity in the other traits measured was maladaptive (i.e. in the opposite direction to that favoured by selection in the low light environment). We detected significant additive genetic variance in plasticity in most phenotypic traits and in fitness (number of seeds). Using genotypic selection gradient analysis, we found that families with high plasticity in SLA had a lower fitness than families with low plasticity, when the effect of SLA on fitness was statistically kept constant. This indicates that plasticity in SLA incurred a direct fitness cost. However, a cost of plasticity was only expressed under low light, but not under high light. Thus, models on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity will need to incorporate plasticity costs that vary in magnitude depending on environmental conditions.

[1]  Roy,et al.  Effects of environmental stress on leaf hair density and consequences for selection , 1999 .

[2]  Johanna Schmitt,et al.  A Test of the Adaptive Plasticity Hypothesis Using Transgenic and Mutant Plants Disabled in Phytochrome-Mediated Elongation Responses to Neighbors , 1995, The American Naturalist.

[3]  O. Björkman Responses to Different Quantum Flux Densities , 1981 .

[4]  ADAPTIVE DIVERGENCE IN PLASTICITY IN NATURAL POPULATIONS OF IMPATIENS CAPENSIS AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR PERFORMANCE IN NOVEL HABITATS , 2001, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[5]  Hendrik Poorter,et al.  The role of biomass allocation in the growth response of plants to different levels of light, CO2, nutrients and water: a quantitative review , 2000 .

[6]  M. Pigliucci,et al.  Manipulative Approaches to Testing Adaptive Plasticity: Phytochrome‐Mediated Shade‐Avoidance Responses in Plants , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[7]  B A Roy,et al.  EVOLUTION IN STRESSFUL ENVIRONMENTS. I. PHENOTYPIC VARIABILITY, PHENOTYPIC SELECTION, AND RESPONSE TO SELECTION IN FIVE DISTINCT ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSES , 2000, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[8]  L. Poorter,et al.  Growth and carbon partitioning of tropical tree seedlings in contrasting light environments. , 1998 .

[9]  D. Wilson,et al.  Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. , 1998, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[10]  C. Weinig DIFFERING SELECTION IN ALTERNATIVE COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENTS: SHADE‐AVOIDANCE RESPONSES AND GERMINATION TIMING , 2000, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[11]  Alastair H. Fitter,et al.  Environmental physiology of plants , 1982 .

[12]  Q. Kay,et al.  The genetics of incompatibility in Sinapis arvensis L. , 1985, Heredity.

[13]  David W. Lee,et al.  Irradiance and Spectral Quality Affect Asian Tropical Rain Forest Tree Seedling Development , 1995 .

[14]  S. Sultan Evolutionary Implications of Phenotypic Plasticity in Plants , 1987 .

[15]  G. Evans,et al.  The quantitative analysis of plant growth , 1972 .

[16]  Pigliucci,et al.  Genes affecting phenotypic plasticity in Arabidopsis: pleiotropic effects and reproductive fitness of photomorphogenic mutants , 1999 .

[17]  T. Mitchell-Olds,et al.  REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF NATURAL SELECTION: STATISTICAL INFERENCE AND BIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION , 1987, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[18]  J. A. León Plasticity in Fluctuating Environments , 1993 .

[19]  S. A. Dudley DIFFERING SELECTION ON PLANT PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS IN RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL WATER AVAILABILITY: A TEST OF ADAPTIVE HYPOTHESES , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[20]  S. Adolph,et al.  Plastic inducible morphologies are not always adaptive: The importance of time delays in a stochastic environment , 2005, Evolutionary Ecology.

[21]  Hans Lambers,et al.  Plant Physiological Ecology , 1998, Springer New York.

[22]  S. Avramov,et al.  Testing the adaptive plasticity of Iris pumila leaf traits to natural light conditions using phenotypic selection analysis , 1998 .

[23]  Johanna Schmitt,et al.  Testing the Adaptive Plasticity Hypothesis: Density-Dependent Selection on Manipulated Stem Length in Impatiens capensis , 1996, The American Naturalist.

[24]  M. Pigliucci,et al.  SHADE‐INDUCED PLASTICITY AND ITS ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE IN WILD POPULATIONS OF ARABIDOPSIS THALIANA , 2002 .

[25]  Harry Smith 9 – ADAPTATION TO SHADE , 1981 .

[26]  R. Lande,et al.  EVOLUTION OF PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY , 1985 .

[27]  B. Stojković,et al.  Shade avoidance syndrome in Picea omorika seedlings: a growth‐room experiment , 2001 .

[28]  Mark Westoby,et al.  The Time Value of Leaf Area , 2000, The American Naturalist.

[29]  S. Sultan Phenotypic plasticity and plant adaptation , 1995 .

[30]  Carl D. Schlichting,et al.  The Evolution of Phenotypic Plasticity in Plants , 1986 .

[31]  N. Moran The Evolutionary Maintenance of Alternative Phenotypes , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[32]  E. H. Pyle,et al.  EVIDENCE OF ADAPTIVE DIVERGENCE IN PLASTICITY: DENSITY‐ AND SITE‐DEPENDENT SELECTION ON SHADE‐AVOIDANCE RESPONSES IN IMPATIENS CAPENSIS , 2000, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[33]  H. Mooney,et al.  Relationships Among Leaf Construction Cost, Leaf Longevity, and Light Environment in Rain-Forest Plants of the Genus Piper , 1989, The American Naturalist.

[34]  Johanna Schmitt,et al.  Effects of Red to Far‐Red Ratio and Plant Density on Biomass Allocation and Gas Exchange in Impatiens capensis , 1999, International Journal of Plant Sciences.

[35]  R. F. Lyman,et al.  The genetics of phenotypic plasticity I. Heritability , 1989 .

[36]  Hendrik Poorter,et al.  Is inherent variation in RGR determined by LAR at low irradiance and by NAR at high irradiance? A review of herbaceous species , 1998 .

[37]  Lourens Poorter,et al.  Growth responses of 15 rain‐forest tree species to a light gradient: the relative importance of morphological and physiological traits , 1999 .

[38]  T. DeWitt Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity: Tests with predator‐induced morphology and life history in a freshwater snail , 1998 .

[39]  COSTS OF PLASTICITY IN FORAGING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLONAL PLANT RANUNCULUS REPTANS , 2000, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[40]  E D Brodie,et al.  Visualizing and quantifying natural selection. , 1995, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[41]  D. Berrigan,et al.  THE GENETICS OF PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY. VIII. THE COST OF PLASTICITY IN DAPHNIA PULEX , 1998, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[42]  C. Schlichting,et al.  Reaction norms of Arabidopsis. I. Plasticity of characters and correlations across water, nutrient and light gradients , 1995 .

[43]  M. Wade,et al.  THE CAUSES OF NATURAL SELECTION , 1990, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[44]  B. Shipley Plasticity in relative growth rate and its components following a change in irradiance , 2000 .

[45]  W. Corré GROWTH AND MORPHOGENESIS OF SUN AND SHADE PLANTS I. THE INFLUENCE OF LIGHT INTENSITY , 1983 .

[46]  P. V. van Tienderen,et al.  EVOLUTION OF GENERALISTS AND SPECIALISTS IN SPATIALLY HETEROGENEOUS ENVIRONMENTS , 1991, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[47]  Charles J. Goodnight,et al.  A Bootstrap Comparison of Genetic Covariance Matrices , 1997 .

[48]  Ph. Van GENERALISTS, SPECIALISTS, AND THE EVOLUTION OF PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY IN SYMPATRIC POPULATIONS OF DISTINCT SPECIES. , 1997 .

[49]  S. Sultan,et al.  PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY IN POLYGONUM PERSICARIA. I. DIVERSITY AND UNIFORMITY IN GENOTYPIC NORMS OF REACTION TO LIGHT , 1993, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[50]  M. Stanton,et al.  Asymmetry of wild mustard, Sinapis arvensis (Brassicaceae), in response to severe physiological stresses , 1999 .

[51]  H. Huber,et al.  Differential effects of light quantity and spectral light quality on growth, morphology and development of two stoloniferous Potentilla species , 1998, Oecologia.

[52]  S. J. Arnold,et al.  THE MEASUREMENT OF SELECTION ON CORRELATED CHARACTERS , 1983, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[53]  M. Rausher THE MEASUREMENT OF SELECTION ON QUANTITATIVE TRAITS: BIASES DUE TO ENVIRONMENTAL COVARIANCES BETWEEN TRAITS AND FITNESS , 1992, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[54]  PLASTICITY TO LIGHT CUES AND RESOURCES IN ARABIDOPSIS THALIANA: TESTING FOR ADAPTIVE VALUE AND COSTS , 2000, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.