February 8th, 2010

Bioe 109

Winter 2010

Lecture 14

The adaptationist program

What is adaptation?

- the term “adaptation” has different meanings in different fields of biology.

1. Acclimatization.

- acclimatization refers to the physiological adjustment of individual organisms to different conditions (e.g., temperature, photoperiod).

- this definition clearly entails no genetic change.

- to evolutionary biologists, adaptation is used in two very different contexts.

1. The process of becoming adapted.

- this definition is synonymous with the process of natural selection.

- for the process of adaptation to occur there must exist genetic variation among individuals in the population.

- differences in fitness must also exist among the different genotypes to drive the selective process.

2. The state of being adapted.

- the second definition of adaptation is perhaps more widely used.

- it refers to the end-point of this process, i.e., the state of being adapted.

- individual characters of organisms are viewed as adaptations.

- all adaptations are assumed to have evolved by the process of natural selection.

- unlike the previous definition, however, we can not this process directly but must infer its past action.

- this is where difficulties arise - inferring the selective history of a trait can be difficult.

How do we study adaptations?

- there are two basic approaches:

1. The experimental approach

- hypotheses for the adaptive origins of traits are tested by experiments.

2. The comparative approach

- hypotheses for the adaptive origins or traits are tested by:

(a) performing comparisons among species

(b) making observations within species

1. Experimental approaches

- let’s use an example from the textbook to illustrate the power of experiments because it is a classic example.

- this is the study done by Erik Greene (now at the University of Montana) and his colleagues on the small tephretid fly, Zonosemata vittigera.

- the study involved testing a hypothesis for the origin of two rather peculiar features of the fly:

1. distinctive dark wing bands

2. wing-waving behavior (when threatened, the behavior of holding the wings perpendicular to the body and moving them up and down).

- this behavior was noted by entomologists to be similar to the territorial threat display of jumping spiders.

- why would this fly apparently mimic this threat display?

- the explanation initially given by entomologists was that the fly was using this display to avoid predation by a variety of different predators.

- since jumping spiders are extremely quick and have a rather nasty bite, predators would avoid tephretid flies performing this display.

- therefore, it may have evolved as an adaptation to deter predators that hunt tephretid flies.

- Greene et al. had an alternative explanation - that it evolved to intimidate the jumping spiders themselves.

- this idea that mimicry of a predator behavior by a prey had not been identified previously.

- to test this possibility a series of experiments were performed.

- the first step in doing any experiment is to formulate the question and generate a specific null hypothesis to test.

- in the example outlined here, the question tested was:

“Do the wing markings and behaviors used by the tephretid fly actually mimic the threat display of the jumping spider thus allowing them to escape predation by the spider?”

- Greene et al. considered three hypotheses that they were able to test by their experimental design:

H0: Does not mimic jumping spiders (null hypothesis).

H1: Mimics jumping spiders to avoid other predators.

H2: Mimics jumping spiders to avoid predation by jumping spiders.

- Greene et al. then set up five experimental groups to test these hypotheses.

- to test whether wing markings and wing wavings were involved in the mimicry they used normal houseflies which 1) do not markings and 2) do not wave their wings.

- they did an ingenious series of manipulations of the wings of these two flies to discriminate among the 3 alternative hypotheses.

- they cut and reglued the wings of Zonosemata vittigera and houseflies.

- in some treatments they replaced the tephretid wings back on the same individuals, in other treatments they swapped them with the wings of houseflies.

- five experimental groups were set up:

GroupABCDE

ZonosemataZonosemataZonosematahouseflyhousefly

Treatmentuntreatedown wingswith houseflywith Zon.untreated

Regluedwingswings

Effect testedwings markssurgerywingwingno wing marks

+ wavingswavingmarkingsor wavings

______

Hypothesis PredatorPredicted outcome (X = attack and/or killed)

______

H0 j. spiderXXXXX

otherXXXXX

(no mimicry)

H1 j. spiderXXXXX

otherleft aloneleft aloneXXX

(mimicry - deters other predators)

H2 j. spiderleft aloneleft aloneXXX

otherXXXXX

(mimicry - deters j. spiders)

______

- the experiment was performed in a test arena in which they introduced the experimental groups in random order to jumping spiders belonging to 11 different species that had been starved for 2 days.

- they also exposed experimental groups A, C, and E to an assortment of different predators (lizards, mantises, assassin bugs) and recorded who was captured and eaten.

- the results are unequivocal in their support of H2.

ABCDE

No. of spiders retreating:1515220

No. of spiders attacking/killing:55181820

- this study exemplifies the power of experiments.

- in setting up the experimental groups properly, Greene et al. were able to test and discriminate among alternative hypotheses.

- there is still a drawback with this approach that relates to the criticism I raised at the start of class.

- what is it?

- well, we still have no insights into whether the markings and wavings evolved explicitly for mimicking jumping spiders, or whether both traits evolved for a different reason and then were “coopted” for this new function.

- for example, what if some wing patterning and waving displays initially evolved as a courtship display by male Zonosemata.

- what if by chance, these courtship displays also happened to deter predation by jumping spiders on male flies.

- if a mutation occurred that now had female Zonosemata performing these behaviors they would also gain a significant advantage over females that did not.

- the precise pattern of wing markings and displays may have been “fine-tuned” over evolutionary time periods to confer an ever improving mimicry.

- how can we examine whether this scenario is true?

- one way would be to examine wing patterns, wing waving displays and courtship behavior in Zonosemata with that of related species of tephretid flies.

2. The comparative method

- how do we go about proving that a trait is an adaptation?

- in asking this question, we are really interested in obtaining evidence that the trait under consideration has evolved by natural selection and not some alternative.

- there are three steps in carrying out the so-called “adaptationist program”:

1. Observe or describe some organism trait.

2. Formulate an adaptive hypothesis for the evolution of that trait.

3. Test hypothesis by experiment or by collecting additional data.

- one must be careful in carrying out these steps.

A. Comparisons among different species – the evolution of testes size in fruit bats

- the comparative method commonly involves comparisons among different species to test hypotheses of adaptation.

- up until very recently, it was undertaken without a proper appreciation of the phylogeny of the group under study.

- now, one cannot undertake comparisons among species and publish it in a reputable scientific journal without using a test that corrects for the lack of independence.

- let’s go over the example in the book involving testes size in bats.

- bats are like many mammals in showing a substantial variation in testes size among different species.

- one of the most popular explanations for this variation is that it reflects the outcome of sperm competition.

- this is a form of sexual selection that occurs among males.

- when females of a species mate with multiple males in a single breeding period there is competition among the male’s sperm over who fertilizes the female’s egg(s).

- one strategy to increase male reproductive success is to increase ejaculate size since this can either physically displace, or simply substantially increase, a male’s probability of successfully fertilizing eggs.

- in bats, variation also exists among species in the typical roost size.

- in species that form larger roosts, the opportunity for sperm competition may be greater.

- thus we might expect greater male testes size to be correlated with mean colony size.

- in this example, a strong positive relationship exists between mean testes size and mean group size that is consistent with the prediction made by the sperm competition hypothesis.

- there is a problem here - namely that our comparisons may have been strongly affected by the phylogeny of the group.

- suppose we compared six bat species.

- suppose that the phylogeny of the group showed two groups of three closely-related species.

- both groups may have inherited their large or small testes sizes from common ancestors (not independently).

- the evidence is now compromised - the species can no longer be treated as independent data points because they may have inherited testes size and group size from common ancestors.

- to undertake statistical comparisons it is necessary to correct for this lack of independence.

- the textbook outlines how one of these methods works - that of Felsenstein’s method of independent contrasts.

B. Comparisons among individuals of the same species – the case of the polar bear

- polar bears are white.

- because they are unique among bears in being white, we can reasonably assume that this is derived trait.

- in other words, polar bears evolved from a brown ancestor.

- since polar bears live in the arctic, where they spend much of their time silhouetted against a background of snow, we might venture an hypothesis that their white pelt is an adaptation to life in the arctic.

- in formulating this hypothesis, we are postulating an adaptive explanation for the evolution of the white pelt of polar bears.

- what could have been the selective advantage of a white coat?

- one reasonable guess would be that it represents an adaptation to hunting.

- polar bears hunt seals, and being white against a white background facilitates the hunting of seals in this environment.

- this may be termed the camouflage hypothesis.

- we can test the camouflage hypothesis by testing one, or more, predictions that it makes.

- one simple prediction is that polar bears should hunt seals in a manner that should take advantage of their camouflaged pelt.

- sometimes they do.

- for example, a paper by Sterling (1974) described the hunting strategies of 288 polar bears.

- here’s the breakdown:

1 “sneak and pounce”

54 “jump and crush”

233 “sit and wait”

- the “sneak and pounce” strategy is consistent with the camouflage hypothesis.

- in the “jump and crush” strategy, the bear would use its keen sense of smell to detect the presence of a seal in an under snow lair.

- the bear would then rush from 50-100 meters downwind, leap into the air and crush the seal to death by landing on it with its great weight.

- in 233 of the 288 bears observed by Sterling, the animal simply waited motionless by a breathing hole and waited for a seal to surface.

- the “sit and wait” and “jump and crush” strategies seem to depend little on the camouflage strategy.

- is there another adaptive hypothesis for why polar bears should be white?

- one clue when polar bears are photographed under UV light they turn out to be black.

- in other words, polar bear coats absorb UV light.

- examined very closely, the individual hairs on the polar bear pelt are not white at all but are clear.

- polar bear hairs simply lack the pigment found in the core of the hair in most other mammals.

- a study was conducted by R.E. Trojan and colleagues on the optical properties of polar bear fur.

- they found that the hairs function to trap incident light and reflect it back towards the animals skin.

- in other words, the white pelt appears to function as a “solar heat collector”.

- therefore, we have another working hypothesis which can be called the “solar heat collector” hypothesis.

- it is not particularly effective, however, only trapping about 16% of the light back towards the skin.

- the rest of the light is scattered and reflected and this makes the bear look white.

- we now have a second alternative adaptive explanation for the whiteness of polar bears.

- this hypothesis has not been definitely tested.

- the example of the polar bear points out the obvious fact that we must be careful in carrying out the adaptations program.

- it is not simply enough to uncritically accept a hypothesis because it is plausible.

- it is necessary to subject these hypotheses to further tests and consider the likelihood of alternative explanations.