1. Patterns
• How and why of particular transitions
How and why did endothermic vertebrates evolve from ectothermic ancestors?
Evolutionary physiologytopics
Endothermy versus ectothermy
Advantages of endothermy:
• Stenothermy
• Aerobic metabolism
• Independent of environment
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
mammals
Passerine birds
reptiles
metabolism (Wg-1day-1)
0.1g 10g 1kg 100kg 1000kg
Endothermy versus ectothermy
Advantages of ectothermy:
• Low energy requirements
Low food habitats Fluctuating food habitats
Endothermy versus ectothermy
Advantages of ectothermy:
• Low energy requirements
Low food habitats Fluctuating food habitats Small body dimensions
Endothermy versus ectothermy
Advantages of ectothermy:
• Low energy requirements
Low food habitats Fluctuating food habitats Small body dimensions Elongate body forms
Endothermy versus ectothermy
Advantages of ectothermy:
• Low energy requirements
Low food habitats Fluctuating food habitats Small body dimensions Elongate body forms Low water habitats
Endothermy versus ectothermy
Advantages of ectothermy:
• Low energy requirements
Low food habitats Fluctuating food habitats Small body dimensions Elongate body forms Low water habitats Low oxygen habitats
• Thermoregulation first physiological version
Synapsida evolve from small ectotherms
increase in size(30-100 kg)
become inertial homeotherms
evolve insulation
Tb constant,physiological benefits
decrease in size
increased metabolismimproved insulation
McNab 1978. Am. Nat. 112: 1-21.
• Thermoregulation first brain version
Synapsida evolvefrom small ectotherms
increase in sizeincrease in size(30-100 kg)(30-100 kg)
become inertial become inertial homeotherms homeotherms
evolve evolve insulationinsulation
Tb constant,physiological benefits
evolve larger, morecomplex brains
Hulbert 1980.
• Thermoregulation first ecological version
Synapsida evolvefrom small ectotherms
increase in sizeincrease in size(30-100 kg)(30-100 kg)
become inertial become inertial homeothermshomeotherms
evolve evolve insulationinsulation
Tb constant,physiological advantages
evolve nocturnalhabits
Crompton et al. 1978. Nature 272: 333-336.
• Aerobic capacity first sustained ativity version
Ruben 1995 Ann. Rev. Physiol. 57: 69-95.
small change inbasal metabolic rate
minimal effect on thermoregulatory capacity
large effect onmaximal aerobic metabolic rate
• Aerobic capacity first parental care version
Koteja 2000 Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 267: 479-484
small change in basal metabolic rate
minieme verandering inthermoregulatie-capaciteit
large effect onmaximal aerobic metabolic rate
necessary for locomotor costs related to parental care
1. Patterns
• How and why of particular transitions• Testing a-priori-hypotheses
plastic responses are adaptive
Evolutionary physiologytopics
Dicerandra linearifolia
Winn A.A. 1999. J. Evol. Biol. 12: 306-313.
• leaf length• leaf thickness• density of stomata
winter summer
Leaf
leng
th (
mm
)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
winter summer
Lea
f thi
ckne
ss (
mm
)
0.140
0.145
0.150
0.155
0.160
0.165
winter summer
Den
sity
of s
tom
ata
(m
m-2
)
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
Winn A.A. 1999. J. Evol. Biol. 12: 306-313.
Winn A.A. 1999. J. Evol. Biol. 12: 306-313.
winter summer
Se
lect
ion
gra
dië
nt f
or
lea
ve le
ng
th
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
winter summer
Se
lect
ion
gra
dië
nt f
or
leav
e th
ickn
ess
-0.04
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
winter summer
Se
lect
ion
gra
dië
nt f
or
stom
ata
de
nsity
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Escherichia coli
Leroi et al. 1994.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91: 1917-1921.
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Escherichia coli
37°
32°
32°
competition
41.5°
41.5°
>
>
Leroi et al. 1994.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91: 1917-1921.
32°
41.5°
acclimation
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Bicyclus anynana Geister T.L. & Fischer 2007. Behav. Ecol. 18: 658-664.
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
20°
27°
developmentlarvae
20,20°
20,27°
27,27°
27,20°
20,20°
20,27°
27,27°
27,20°
20°
27°
27°
20°
acclimation
Marion Island,Prince Edward Islands
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
10°
acclimation7 days
5°
0°
15°
Halozetes marinus
Halozetes marionensis
Halozetes belgicae
Halozetes fulvus
Podacarus auberti
Locomotor tests -5° up to 35°
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
Halozetes marinus
Halozetes marionensis
Halozetes belgicae
Halozetes fulvus
Podacarus auberti
deleterious acclimation
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
15°C10°C5°C0°C
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
Halozetes marinus
Halozetes marionensis
Halozetes belgicae
Halozetes fulvus
Podacarus auberti
deleterious acclimation
beneficial acclimation
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
15°C10°C5°C0°C
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
Halozetes marinus
Halozetes marionensis
Halozetes belgicae
Halozetes fulvus
Podacarus auberti
colder is better
deleterious acclimation
beneficial acclimation
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
15°C10°C5°C0°C
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
Halozetes marinus
Halozetes marionensis
Halozetes belgicae
Halozetes fulvus
Podacarus auberti geen plasticiteit
geen plasticiteit
colder is better
deleterious acclimation
beneficial acclimation
Beneficial acclimation hypothesis
Deere J.A. & Chown S.L. 2006. Am. Nat. 168: 630-644.
15°C10°C5°C0°C
1. Patterns
• How and why of particular transitions• Testing a-priori-hypotheses
plastic responses are adaptive phenotypic plasticity ~ environmental variability
Evolutionary physiologytopics
• 14 small islands• 10 clutches < 20-50 eggs• depth pools• variability drying / island• lab: 4 tadpoles / container• 2 regimes: Constant & Drying
• developmental time ~ regime (D<C)• developmental time ~ island• phenotypic plasticity ~ variability island
Lind & Johansson 2006. J. Evol. Biol. 20: 1288-1297
constant
drying
developmental time
28
17
island 1(homo)
plasticity=11
28
10
island 2(hetero)
plasticity=18
• devolopmental time ~ regime (D<C)• developmental time ~ island• phenotypic plasticity ~ variability island
1. Patterns
• How and why of particular transitions• Testing a-priori-hypotheses
plastic responses are adaptive phenotypic plasticity ~ environmental variability a jack-of-all-trades is a master of none
Evolutionary physiologytopics
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
6 8 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38
sprint speed‘specialist’
‘generalist’
lichaamstemperatuur
sprint speed
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
18 22 26 30 34 38 42
Laudakia stellio
lichaamstemperatuur
rank
Huey R.B. & Hertz P.E. 1984. Evolution 38:441-444.
Huey R.B. & Hertz P.E. 1984. Evolution 38:441-444.
Amoeba
0
1
2
3
4
5
10 15 20 25 30 38lichaamstemperatuur
rank
Escherichia coli
Hughes et al. 2007. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 80: 406-421.
5.3
6.3
7.0
7.8
2000 generations
non-active
Escherichia coli
Hughes et al. 2007. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 80: 406-421.
5.3
6.3
7.0
7.8
2000 generations
non-activeC > P in constant and fluctuating environments
Escherichia coli
Hughes et al. 2007. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 80: 406-421.
5.3
6.3
7.0
7.8
2000 generations
non-activeR > P in some fluctuating and constant environments
Escherichia coli
Hughes et al. 2007. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 80: 406-421.
5.3
6.3
7.0
7.8
2000 generations
non-activeB > P in fluctuating environments, but not in 7.8
Escherichia coli
Hughes et al. 2007. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 80: 406-421.
5.3
6.3
7.0
7.8
2000 generations
non-activeA > P in constant, not in fluctuating environments
Escherichia coli
Hughes et al. 2007. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 80: 406-421.
(1) adaptation to cycling pH, randomly changing pH and constante pH follows different patterns
(2) in variable environments generalists evolve, in constant environments specialists evolve;
(3) in variable environments the ‘cycling’ lines have a higher fitness than the ‘random changes’ lines;
(4) an acclimation benefit (BAH) was not always detected.
Goodman et al. 2007. Evol. Ecol. Res. 9: 527-546.
• 18 Lygosominae• sprinting, jumping, clinging, climbing
1. Patterns
• How and why of particular transitions• Testing a-priori-hypotheses
plastic responses are adaptive phenotypic plasticity ~ environmental variability a jack-of-all-traits is a master of none symmorphosis: design satisfies need
Evolutionary physiologytopics
V02max
mitochondriain muscle cells
capillary design(volume, surface)
hematocrite
heartstroke volume
surface pulmonary vesiclesdiffusion capacity membrane
Weibel et al. 1991. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88: 10357-10361
performancevariation
fitnessvariation
design variation
geneticvariation ???? ??
performance gradient fitness gradient
quantitativegenetics
physiologymorphologybiochemistrykinematics
biomechanics
ecologybehavioral biology
LeGalliard et al. 2004. Nature 432: 502-505.
Zootoca vivipara
juvenile survival
initial endurance
limited food supply
abundant food supply
1. Patterns
2. Processes• natural selection• sexual selection
• intrasexual selection (male-male combat)• intersexual selection (female choice)
Evolutionary physiologytopics
deCarvalho et al. 2004. Anim. Behav. 68: 473-482.Neriene litigiosa
Time (min)
Join
t m
ale
en
erg
y u
se (
EW
)
1200
1200
800
600
400
200
00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3 Locomotion
X 3.5
X 7.4
X 11.5
Necora puber Uca lactea
Thorpe et al. 1995. Anim. Behav. 50: 1657-1666
Matsuma & Murai 1995. Anim. Behav. 69: 569-577
anaerobic respiration
Top Related