Life
History Patterns
.
| Just
as in the previous classes where we discussed the of selection of a particular
allele, we can also discuss how particular life history patterns could evolve.
Obviously selection at this level must be a more complicated and slower
process as it would involve a suite of changes to occur including physiological,
morphological and developmental. We know that such selection is possible
as we view the variability of life styles around us.
What life history or developmental patterns are we talking about? patterns that involve all the below: Size: how big should an organism grow? should their growth be continuous or stop at a particular age? size? |
|
|
Size Competitive edge: the larger the organism the more likely it is to out compete other of the same or of differing species Surface area to volume ratio is better in large organisms ins terms of heat containment; we know from the class on energy class that small organism lose more heat as a results of greater surface to volume ratios. Bigger organisms are less likely in nature [omitting humanity] to be predated upon Larger organism generally live longer. Why this positive correlation? all the above, or is this just a converse argument - organisms that live longer [ longer senescence have a longer time to grow?] We know
that the sizes of individuals can vary from single celled creatures to
those as big as a whale or redwood. What are some of the pros and cons
of growing bigger? |
Cons: |
The
larger the organisms the more apparent it is and the more likely to be hit
[ as with lightning for trees] or be challenged [ as with alpha
males]
The individual must support its mass with more food. Not all cells are involved in obtaining food, and many must be supported by those which can. Large herbivores spend most of their time grazing for food; trees have higher light compensation levels. The correlate between large size and longevity means that there is less flexibility for the species to genetically respond to a changing environment. Reproductive investment is higher with larger offspring which take more food and develop more slowly. From the previous chapter we know about the -3/2 law; the relationship between density of plants and size [ review]. If we we extend this notion, the larger the organism the less than can be supported, and if environmental changes occur which leads to fluctuations in population size, it is more likely that these species will be hardest hit. This has become a problem in terms of human induced extinctions as we tend to hit the bigger species |
|
Metamorphosis & diapause: Most of us can come up with several examples of organisms that go through one or more life stages: frogs, insects, various parasites and so on. What does a species win or lose with multiple life stages? |
|
|
|
The
different stages may offer a species the opportunity to use different habitats
when their productivity is highest. In spring aquatic conditions are good
with spring overturn but generally bad in summer with nutrient depletion
and low oxygen levels. Frogs can use both areas in their p rime time. Insects
can feed on leaves in spring and flowers in summer.
Organisms can escape [on a large scale] when conditions go bad... larvae are stuck in one area but not moths, flies or butterflies which can readily move out. Different stages with differing motility's allow genetic dispersal and recombination. Larval plankton can are formed by mass sperm/egg laying but once an adult in sessile form have limited abilities to recombine. |
Cons |
Metamorphosis
involves complex genetic/physiological changes involving complex regulatory
mechanisms. Mutations or incorrect environmental signaling can mess up the
stages.
Its probably expensive to produce a new body - although some of the nutrients are reabsorbed, energy investment in tissue development is required. |
| Diapause is the genetically determined resting stage during which development, protein synthesis is put on hold. Many examples exist in plants->seeds; fungal and bacterial spores. There are also resting periods which do not require a new structural form, as in hibernation. | |
| The
obvious, survival during bad periods. Without it the organisms would die.
As with metamorphosis, spores and seeds may be more readily dispersed than the nonresting phase allowing them to move to new habitats. |
|
Cons: |
The obvious, expense. This is terms of structural costs and time not in production. |
|
Senescence: Degenerative changes that result in a increased expected mortality with age. The problem here relates to the question of whether we are talking about ramets or genets. In noncloning species [ such as humans ?} the ramet is the genet, as our offspring contain only half of us genetically; both 'die' simultaneously. However with clonal plants, certain fungi, corals, where the genotype may continue on for hundreds to thousands of years as in creosote bush and other desert plants, only aging sections die off. Thus the concept of senescence is a bit more complicated. |
|
|
|
Long life without tissue degeneration- however, probably not totally true as mutations will occur and the load will accumulate. |
Con: |
If the environment changes and you are stuck with the original genotype established earlier, you are out of luck |
|
Going back to non-clonal organisms, there are at least 2 hypotheses to explain the necessity of dying... Mutation accumulation: UV, toxins, oxygen radicals, viruses etc. can and will degrade cells and cause mutations; this accumulated damage results in decreased survivorship/ Evolution of senescence: mutations that are not expressed till after reproduction escape selection as genes passed through reproduction are now part of the future. This is especially likely if the genes are pleiotropic - have more than one effect, and the earlier effect was positive. There is increasing evidence that cell death really is programmed in at least one organism studied, every time the cell divides a portion of the CH is modified, thus limiting how more times it can divide. Please read the information give below on telomeres.... On an evolutionary level why should death be programmed? |
|
| As stated
with the mutation accumulation hypothesis, to reduce the genetic load in
the population by cleansing out those with too heavy a load. Those with
a load may be a burden for the population through reduced service, by chance
they will reproduce and contribute their genes, or by denying a more adapted
individual from prospering.
Older individuals, especially nonreproductive ones can no longer contribute to population growth. Not a problem in successful populations, but those on decreasing end can be a problem. Older individuals may be laden with parasites, act as parasites sources for spread or just general problems in terms of resource use better used by younger individuals. |
|
Con: |
Although
an individual is well adapted or has rich experience base, it has no choice
and will die, and with it that genotype or body of knowledge is now lost
to the population.
Loss of invested biomass; energy used in body production and use of resources is now lost. |
|
Reproduction: Today
we won't deal with the question of whether to be sexual or not, whether
to be hermaphroditic or not... we'll reserve that for later in the week.
Our major consideration today is how many offspring to have and when to have sex, given a population is sexually oriented. Does it make sense to have many offspring or few? |
|
|
|
If
the environment is tough on young individuals, then it makes sense to have
extra.
If the environment is tough on adults that is makes sense to have them young and many at a time, given you may not have a second opportunity. |
Cons: |
Many
studies show that to many offspring leads to death of some or slower development
for all if they all survive. Too much energy to support more and a greater
probability that they will be sited and eaten by predators.
Maternal and paternal if both involved in young support, leads to increased decrease in adult health. The cost of additional food gathering, reproductive health costs are greater. |
| When to reproduce? | ||
| The earlier you start the more generations you can fit in. That is why the Chinese have outlawed early marriages. | ||
Con: |
Younger,
smaller reproducing adults cannot produce the quality or quantity of offspring
that older, more experienced adults can.
Younger adults are more likely to physically impacted by early birthing. |
|
|
Please read the short abstract below> Fisheries in US & Canada: Is overfishing or habitat destruction the key culprit in fishery depletion along the east coast? How big a problem? US 40% of fish stocks are over exploited Why? 1. Over fishing models predicted early on that large catches would threaten populations but managers who awarded permits and regulations wanted to maintain relationship with fishermen. This resulted in 60% actual removal of adults over the 20% recommended by modelers. 2. Predation by seals which were increasing in number with protection 3. Cold seawater changes due to climatic changes whether human or naturally induced 4. Reduction in forage fish for cod.
5. Poor production of young
cod to replace declining adults: research indicated that age of
sexual maturity dropped in cod from 6-7 year to 2.78-5.08 years
dependent on site sampled. Smaller younger fish produce less eggs
( 370 K relative 1.6 million eggs a older, larger cod can produce).
The eggs themselves are smaller reducing the probability of survival,
combined with less eggs results in less offspring making it to juvenile
stages. Also, fewer spawning periods were noted. From text should reflect
that this is a perfect example of compensatory response: as
population lost adults, younger individuals who could reproduce
were selected since they are they only ones who could contribute
thief genes to the next generation. This contains a genetic selection
connotation - we have selected for r -types in a species which was
previously more K-type. I suppose the good news was the species
was "genetically plastic or variable to make this transition.
* Telomere functions
In the figure on the right, the horizontal black arrows show the direction
that the replication forks are moving. Wherever the replication fork of
a strand is moving towards the 3' end, the newly-synthesized DNA (red)
begins as Okazaki fragments (red dashes).
Telomeres and Cellular Aging |
||