| Literature DB >> 26559495 |
Sin-Yeon Kim1, Neil B Metcalfe2, Alberto Velando1.
Abstract
The environment can play an important role in the evolution of senescence because the optimal allocation between somatic maintenance and reproduction depends on external factors influencing life expectancy. The aims of this study were to experimentally test whether environmental conditions during early life can shape senescence schedules, and if so, to examine whether variation among individuals or genotypes with respect to the degree of ageing differs across environments. We tested life-history plasticity and quantified genetic effects on the pattern of senescence across different environments within a reaction norm framework by using an experiment on the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus, Linnaeus) in which F1 families originating from a wild annual population experienced different temperature regimes. Male sticklebacks that had experienced a more benign environment earlier in life subsequently reduced their investment in carotenoid-based sexual signals early in the breeding season, and consequently senesced at a slower rate later in the season, compared to those that had developed under harsher conditions. This plasticity of ageing was genetically determined. Both antagonistic pleiotropy and genetic variation in the rate of senescence were evident only in the individuals raised in the harsher environment. The experimental demonstration of genotype-by-environment interactions influencing the rate of reproductive senescence provides interesting insights into the role of the environment in the evolution of life histories. The results suggest that benign conditions weaken the scope for senescence to evolve and that the dependence on the environment may maintain genetic variation under selection.Entities:
Keywords: G × E; animal model; disposable soma; phenotypic plasticity; random regression; trade-off
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26559495 PMCID: PMC4991295 DOI: 10.1111/1365-2656.12468
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anim Ecol ISSN: 0021-8790 Impact factor: 5.091
Figure 1Comparisons of male traits between the control and warm winter groups. Mean ± SE (a) date at which red ornamentation was first detected, (b) maximum value over the season for relative area of red coloration and (c) time taken to reach maximum red coloration, calculated as the time from when red coloration was first detected.
Figure 2Temporal change in relative red area with respect to the winter temperature treatment. (a) Changes in mean ± SE relative red area over the reproductive season from 26 March 2014 to 21 August 2014. For illustrative purpose, adjusted splines are also presented. (b) The average values before and after the onset of senescence (1st–9th week and 11th–21st week, respectively).
Results from the minimum adequate linear mixed models of relative size of red nuptial colour area (percentage of the total lateral body area) and body condition (mass‐standard length residuals) of male sticklebacks. Random effects: fish identity nested within growth tank and family
| Fixed effects | Relative red area | Body condition | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate ± SE | d.f. |
|
| Estimate ± SE | d.f. |
|
| |
| Intercept | 14·763 ± 2·109 | 1868 | 7·001 | <0·001 | 5·262 ± 1·149 | 1866 | 4·579 | <0·001 |
| Treatment (warm) | −1·040 ± 0·355 | 80 | −2·932 | 0·004 | −0·622 ± 1·390 | 80 | −0·447 | 0·656 |
| Time | 0·370 ± 0·045 | 1868 | 8·274 | <0·001 | −0·503 ± 0·037 | 1866 | −13·508 | <0·001 |
| Time2 | −0·025 ± 0·002 | 1868 | −13·754 | <0·001 | 0·005 ± 0·000 | 1866 | 13·058 | <0·001 |
| Hatching date | – | NS | − | NS | ||||
| Competition (strong) | −0·874 ± 0·221 | 1868 | −3·959 | <0·001 | − | NS | ||
| Date of red (DR) | −0·029 ± 0·006 | 95 | −5·030 | <0·001 | −0·010 ± 0·003 | 94 | −3·253 | 0·002 |
| Treatment × time | 0·059 ± 0·020 | 1868 | 2·885 | 0·004 | 0·201 ± 0·047 | 1866 | 4·233 | <0·001 |
| Treatment × time2 | – | NS | −0·001 ± 0·001 | 1866 | −2·229 | 0·026 | ||
| Treatment × DR | – | 0·001 ± 0·003 | 94 | 0·263 | 0·793 | |||
| Time × DR | – | 0·001 ± 0·000 | 1866 | 7·618 | <0·001 | |||
| Treatment × time × DR | – | NS | −0·000 ± 0·000 | 1866 | −3·292 | 0·001 | ||
N = 2081 observations, N = 209 individuals.
Date at which red ornamentation was first detected.
NS, non‐significant.
Results from the univariate random regression animal model analyses of relative red area from the onset of senescence (9th week onward) in the control and warm winter treatment groups. V I is the between‐individual variance in relative red area and V A is the additive genetic variance. PE × T and G × T denote the permanent environment and additive genetic variances in the rate of senescence. The significance of each variance component was tested by comparing between different hierarchical models (a) based on a likelihood ratio test. For example, V I was tested based on the comparison between model 1 and model 2. The REML estimated variances and covariances between elevation and slope of the best‐fit models are given with their SEs in brackets
| Model selection | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Tested component | d.f. | Control | Warm winter | ||||
| LogL | χ2 |
| LogL | χ2 |
| |||
| 1 | – | −1181·88 | −1196·11 | |||||
| 2 |
| 1 | −1077·55 | 208·66 | <0·001 | −1055·04 | 282·14 | <0·001 |
| 3 |
| 1 | −1074·27 | 6·56 | 0·010 | −1052·47 | 5·14 | 0·023 |
| 4 | PE × T ( | 2 | −1024·69 | 99·16 | <0·001 | −985·22 | 134·50 | <0·001 |
| 5 | G × T ( | 2 | −1019·43 | 10·52 | 0·005 | −984·16 | 2·128 | 0·345 |
Model 1: T = μ + timeF + compF + ɛ
Model 2: T = μ + timeF + compF + f(ind 0 ,t) + ɛ
Model 3: T = μ + timeF + compF + f(pe 0 ,t) + f(a 0 ,t) + ɛ
Model 4: T = μ + timeF + compF + f(pe 1 ,t) + f(a 0 ,t) + ɛ
Model 5: T = μ + timeF + compF + f(pe 1 ,t) + f(a 1 ,t) + ɛ
Figure 3Reaction norm plots of the trajectories for red coloration over time since the onset of senescence (9th week onwards) of individual male sticklebacks from the (a) control and (b) warm winter temperature treatments (control: N = 104 individuals; warm winter: N = 105). Each line represents the predicted trajectory of a single individual either at the permanent environment (pe) or additive genetic (a) level. Trajectories are based on the fixed effects (average trait and ageing rate) and individual‐specific elevation and slope from the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) values of model 5 in Table 2. BLUPs are used here to merely illustrate the PE × T × E and G × T × E patterns, but were not used in the statistical analyses.