Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comment
. 2017 Feb 22;15(2):e2001832.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2001832. eCollection 2017 Feb.

A new explanation for unexpected evolution in body size

Affiliations
Comment

A new explanation for unexpected evolution in body size

Loeske E B Kruuk. PLoS Biol. .

Abstract

Bigger is apparently frequently fitter, and body size is typically heritable, so why don't animals in wild populations evolve towards larger sizes? Different explanations have been proposed for this apparent "paradox of stasis." A new study of snow voles in the Swiss Alps finds higher survival in animals with larger body mass and heritability of body mass, but, surprisingly, a genetic decline in body mass is also indicated. The authors suggest a novel explanation for this observation: the appearance of positive phenotypic selection is driven by a confounding variable of the age at which a juvenile is measured, whereas the evolutionarily relevant selection actually acts negatively on mass via its association with development time. Thus, genes for larger mass are not actually "fitter" because they are associated with longer development times, and juvenile snow voles with longer development times run the risk of not completing development before the first winter snow. However, the genetic decline in body size is not apparent at the phenotypic level, presumably because of countervailing trends in environmental effects on the phenotype.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. The hypothesised associations between traits and fitness in snow voles.
“+ve” denotes a positive relationship; “-ve” denotes the negative relationship between development time and juvenile survival. Green boxes are traits that have been measured or (in the case of asymptotic mass) estimated; white boxes are “missing” traits. One-headed arrows imply direct effects; two-headed arrows represent covariance. Blue lines represent entirely nongenetic associations; red lines have some genetic basis. Solid lines represent estimated parameters; dashed lines represent inferred associations. Fitness is assessed by juvenile survival, relative to the population average. Φjuv,e is the nongenetic covariance between juvenile survival and observed mass; Φjuv,g is the additive genetic covariance (see Figure 3 in Bonnet et al. [1] for values). Photo copyright T. Bonnet.

Comment on

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bonnet T, Wanderler P, Glauco C, Postma E (2017) Bigger Is Fitter? Quantitative Genetic Decomposition of Selection Reveals an Adaptive Evolutionary Decline of Body Mass in a Wild Rodent Population. PLoS Biol 15: e1002592 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002592 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Merilä J, Sheldon BC, Kruuk LEB (2001) Explaining stasis: microevolutionary studies of natural populations. Genetica 112: 119–222. - PubMed
    1. Gotanda KM, Correa C, Turcotte MM, Rolshausen G, Hendry AP (2015) Linking macrotrends and microrates: Re-evaluating microevolutionary support for Cope's rule. Evolution 69: 1345–1354. 10.1111/evo.12653 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Essex: Longman.
    1. Morrissey MB, Kruuk LEB, Wilson AJ (2010) The danger of applying the breeder's equation in observational studies of natural populations. J Evolutionary Biology 23: 2277–2288. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources