ADAPTATION AND THE COST OF COMPLEXITY

Abstract.— Adaptation is characterized by the movement of a population toward a many‐character optimum, movement that results in an increase in fitness. Here I calculate the rate at which fitness increases during adaptation and describe the curve giving fitness versus time as a population approaches an optimum in Fisher's model of adaptation. The results identify several factors affecting the speed of adaptation. One of the most important is organismal complexity—complex organisms adapt more slowly than simple ones when using mutations of the same phenotypic size. Thus, as Fisher foresaw, organisms pay a kind of cost of complexity. However, the magnitude of this cost is considerably larger than Fisher's analysis suggested. Indeed the rate of adaptation declines at least as fast as n‐1, where n is the number of independent characters or dimensions comprising an organism. The present results also suggest that one can define an effective number of dimensions characterizing an adapting species.

[1]  R. Punnett,et al.  The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection , 1930, Nature.

[2]  G. Vermeij Adaptation, Versatility, and Evolution , 1973 .

[3]  P. Feldman Evolution of sex , 1975, Nature.

[4]  M. Kimura The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution: Introduction , 1983 .

[5]  B. Charlesworth The cost of phenotypic evolution , 1984, Paleobiology.

[6]  Ingo Rechenberg,et al.  The Evolution Strategy. A Mathematical Model of Darwinian Evolution , 1984 .

[7]  Günter P. Wagner,et al.  The influence of variation and of developmental constraints on the rate of multivariate phenotypic evolution , 1988 .

[8]  T. Ohta THE NEARLY NEUTRAL THEORY OF MOLECULAR EVOLUTION , 1992 .

[9]  H. A. Orr,et al.  The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[10]  D. McShea,et al.  EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE IN THE MORPHOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY OF THE MAMMALIAN VERTEBRAL COLUMN , 1993, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[11]  R. Lenski,et al.  Dynamics of adaptation and diversification: a 10,000-generation experiment with bacterial populations. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  L. Altenberg,et al.  PERSPECTIVE: COMPLEX ADAPTATIONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLVABILITY , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[13]  D. Hartl,et al.  Compensatory nearly neutral mutations: selection without adaptation. , 1996, Journal of theoretical biology.

[14]  D. McShea PERSPECTIVE METAZOAN COMPLEXITY AND EVOLUTION: IS THERE A TREND? , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[15]  G. Wagner,et al.  Adaptive Inertia Caused by Hidden Pleiotropic Effects , 1997 .

[16]  Genetics and the evolution of plant form: an example from maize. , 2006, Cold Spring Harbor symposia on quantitative biology.

[17]  J. Doebley,et al.  Genetics and the evolution of plant form: an example from maize. , 2006, Cold Spring Harbor symposia on quantitative biology.

[18]  TOWARDS A THEORY OF EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION , 1998 .

[19]  Daniel W. McShea,et al.  Possible largest-scale trends in organismal evolution : Eight live hypotheses , 1998 .

[20]  H. A. Orr,et al.  THE POPULATION GENETICS OF ADAPTATION: THE DISTRIBUTION OF FACTORS FIXED DURING ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION , 1998, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[21]  P. Keightley,et al.  Inference of genome-wide mutation rates and distributions of mutation effects for fitness traits: a simulation study. , 1998, Genetics.

[22]  S. Elena,et al.  EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS OF FITNESS RECOVERY FROM THE DEBILITATING EFFECTS OF MULLER'S RATCHET , 1998, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[23]  T. Jukes,et al.  The neutral theory of molecular evolution. , 2000, Genetics.