Pub Date : 2018-07-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0008
R. Bauer
Seasonal and life cycle migrations are mass movements in which individuals move horizontally for long distances to encounter favorable conditions for reproduction and development. Such migrations have been best studied in larger mobile decapod crustaceans, many of which are commercially important. Some decapod shrimps and brachyuran crabs are dependent on productive estuaries for completion of life cycles. In these species, planktonic larvae develop in oceanic waters. Postlarval stages utilize currents and appropriate behaviors to enter estuaries via selective tidal stream transport (STST). After growth, juveniles and subadults leave for the adult oceanic habitats, again using STST. Many subtropical and temperate zone neritic species make seasonal offshore migrations into deeper waters during the winter, with return nearshore in the spring; some high latitude species make these migrations but with seasons reversed. Numerous freshwater shrimps are amphidromic, that is, they live and reproduce in streams and rivers, but their planktonic larvae drift or are released directly into the sea for development and dispersal. Postlarvae find the mouths of streams, and then make spectacular mass migrations as juveniles back upstream to the adult habitat. Adults of terrestrial crabs live inland, but brooding females move into the littoral zone during new or full moon periods to hatch out larvae into high amplitude tides that carry the larvae out to sea for development and dispersal.
{"title":"Life Cycle and Seasonal Migrations","authors":"R. Bauer","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"Seasonal and life cycle migrations are mass movements in which individuals move horizontally for long distances to encounter favorable conditions for reproduction and development. Such migrations have been best studied in larger mobile decapod crustaceans, many of which are commercially important. Some decapod shrimps and brachyuran crabs are dependent on productive estuaries for completion of life cycles. In these species, planktonic larvae develop in oceanic waters. Postlarval stages utilize currents and appropriate behaviors to enter estuaries via selective tidal stream transport (STST). After growth, juveniles and subadults leave for the adult oceanic habitats, again using STST. Many subtropical and temperate zone neritic species make seasonal offshore migrations into deeper waters during the winter, with return nearshore in the spring; some high latitude species make these migrations but with seasons reversed. Numerous freshwater shrimps are amphidromic, that is, they live and reproduce in streams and rivers, but their planktonic larvae drift or are released directly into the sea for development and dispersal. Postlarvae find the mouths of streams, and then make spectacular mass migrations as juveniles back upstream to the adult habitat. Adults of terrestrial crabs live inland, but brooding females move into the littoral zone during new or full moon periods to hatch out larvae into high amplitude tides that carry the larvae out to sea for development and dispersal.","PeriodicalId":387876,"journal":{"name":"Life Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129887981","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0012
Linda C. Weiss, R. Tollrian
The capacity of an organism with a given genotype to respond to changing environmental conditions by the expression of an alternative phenotype is a fascinating biological phenomenon. Plasticity enables organisms to cope with environmental challenges by altering their morphology, behavior, physiology, and life history. Especially, predation is a major factor driving plasticity in response to seasonal fluctuations of predator populations. Therefore, many taxa have evolved strategies to adapt to this environmental challenge, including morphological defenses, life history shifts, and behavioral adaptations. The evolution of inducible defenses is dependent on 4 factors: a selective agent, a reliable cue, associated costs, and the resulting benefit. Ecologically, predator-induced defenses are of general importance because they reduce predation rates and hence dampen the dynamics of predator-prey systems to stabilize food webs. We analyze the defensive strategies in many crustacean taxa and describe how they can act in concert to reduce predation risk. Additionally, prey species may perform predation risk assessment and reduce defense expression when conspecifics are dense. With increasing numbers of conspecifics, the individual predation risk is reduced due to prey dilution, predator confusion, and increased handling times. Consequently, the need to develop a strong defense is reduced and costs for the full defenses expression can be saved.
{"title":"Predator-Induced Defenses in Crustacea","authors":"Linda C. Weiss, R. Tollrian","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0012","url":null,"abstract":"The capacity of an organism with a given genotype to respond to changing environmental conditions by the expression of an alternative phenotype is a fascinating biological phenomenon. Plasticity enables organisms to cope with environmental challenges by altering their morphology, behavior, physiology, and life history. Especially, predation is a major factor driving plasticity in response to seasonal fluctuations of predator populations. Therefore, many taxa have evolved strategies to adapt to this environmental challenge, including morphological defenses, life history shifts, and behavioral adaptations. The evolution of inducible defenses is dependent on 4 factors: a selective agent, a reliable cue, associated costs, and the resulting benefit. Ecologically, predator-induced defenses are of general importance because they reduce predation rates and hence dampen the dynamics of predator-prey systems to stabilize food webs. We analyze the defensive strategies in many crustacean taxa and describe how they can act in concert to reduce predation risk. Additionally, prey species may perform predation risk assessment and reduce defense expression when conspecifics are dense. With increasing numbers of conspecifics, the individual predation risk is reduced due to prey dilution, predator confusion, and increased handling times. Consequently, the need to develop a strong defense is reduced and costs for the full defenses expression can be saved.","PeriodicalId":387876,"journal":{"name":"Life Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125752281","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0010
Melissa Hughes, Whitney L. Heuring
Territoriality is a special case of resource defense, in which space is actively defended for exclusive use. As active defense is likely to be costly, territoriality is expected only when the benefits of exclusivity outweigh these costs. In most territorial species of noncrustacean taxa, the defended space includes resources critical for reproduction or food. These resources are not only critical for reproductive success, but also are vulnerable to “looting”, that is, the value of these resources may be reduced through short-term intrusions, even without loss of ownership, thus providing an advantage for active defense of exclusive space. Many crustaceans defend space, particularly burrows or other shelters that are refuges from predation or environmental stressors. While protection is obviously a critical resource, it is not a resource that necessarily requires exclusivity; indeed, many crustaceans that depend upon shelters for protection do not defend them for exclusive use. Nonetheless, many crustacean taxa aggressively defend exclusive access to their shelters. Crustaceans, then, may be especially suitable for testing alternative hypotheses of territoriality, including the potential benefits of interindividual spacing rather than defense of space per se. It is also worth considering a null hypothesis for territoriality: aggressive defense of space in crustaceans may be an artifact of relatively sedentary species with high intraspecific aggression favored in other contexts, rather than aggression favored for defense of particular resources. In addition to these questions, much remains to be learned about territorial behaviors in crustaceans. Most notably, the boundaries of defended space are unknown in many taxa. Understanding the boundaries of defended space is important for understanding the ecological consequences of territoriality, as well as aspects of territory acquisition and the roles of neighbor relationships and territorial advertisement signals in territory defense. Many crustacean territories appear to differ from those described for other animals, especially terrestrial species; it is not clear, however, whether these differences are due to differences in function or habitat, or rather result from our incomplete knowledge of crustacean territoriality.
{"title":"Uncharted Territories: Defense of Space in Crustacea","authors":"Melissa Hughes, Whitney L. Heuring","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0010","url":null,"abstract":"Territoriality is a special case of resource defense, in which space is actively defended for exclusive use. As active defense is likely to be costly, territoriality is expected only when the benefits of exclusivity outweigh these costs. In most territorial species of noncrustacean taxa, the defended space includes resources critical for reproduction or food. These resources are not only critical for reproductive success, but also are vulnerable to “looting”, that is, the value of these resources may be reduced through short-term intrusions, even without loss of ownership, thus providing an advantage for active defense of exclusive space. Many crustaceans defend space, particularly burrows or other shelters that are refuges from predation or environmental stressors. While protection is obviously a critical resource, it is not a resource that necessarily requires exclusivity; indeed, many crustaceans that depend upon shelters for protection do not defend them for exclusive use. Nonetheless, many crustacean taxa aggressively defend exclusive access to their shelters. Crustaceans, then, may be especially suitable for testing alternative hypotheses of territoriality, including the potential benefits of interindividual spacing rather than defense of space per se. It is also worth considering a null hypothesis for territoriality: aggressive defense of space in crustaceans may be an artifact of relatively sedentary species with high intraspecific aggression favored in other contexts, rather than aggression favored for defense of particular resources. In addition to these questions, much remains to be learned about territorial behaviors in crustaceans. Most notably, the boundaries of defended space are unknown in many taxa. Understanding the boundaries of defended space is important for understanding the ecological consequences of territoriality, as well as aspects of territory acquisition and the roles of neighbor relationships and territorial advertisement signals in territory defense. Many crustacean territories appear to differ from those described for other animals, especially terrestrial species; it is not clear, however, whether these differences are due to differences in function or habitat, or rather result from our incomplete knowledge of crustacean territoriality.","PeriodicalId":387876,"journal":{"name":"Life Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122786584","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0011
M. Laidre
Burrows represent a prominent example of animal architecture that fundamentally alters the surrounding physical environment, often with important consequences for social life. Crustaceans, in particular, offer a model system for understanding the adaptive functions of burrows, their ecological costs and benefits, and their long-term evolutionary impacts on sociality. In general, burrows are central to the life history of many species, functioning as protective dwellings against predators and environmental extremes. Within the refuge of a burrow, one or multiple inhabitants can feed, molt, grow, mate, and raise offspring in relative safety. Depending on the substratum, substantial construction costs can be incurred to excavate a burrow de novo or enlarge a preexisting natural crevice. This investment has been evolutionarily favored because the benefits afforded by the burrow outweigh these costs, making the burrow an “extended phenotype” of the architect itself. Yet even after a burrow is fully constructed, the architect must incur continued costs over its life history, both in maintenance and defense, if it is to reap further benefits of its burrow. Indeed, because burrows accumulate value based on the work involved in their construction, they can attract conspecific intruders who seek to shortcut the cost of construction by evicting an existing occupant and usurping its burrow. Consequently, a burrowing lifestyle can lead to escalating social competition, with many crustaceans evolving elaborate weapons and territorial signals to resolve conflicts over burrow ownership. Some burrows even outlast the original architect as an “ecological inheritance,” serving as a legacy that impacts social evolution among subsequent generations of kin and nonkin. Comparative studies, using cutting-edge technology to dig deeper into the natural history of crustacean burrows, can provide powerful tests of general theoretical models of animal architecture and social evolution, especially the extended phenotype and niche construction.
{"title":"Evolutionary Ecology of Burrow Construction and Social Life","authors":"M. Laidre","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0011","url":null,"abstract":"Burrows represent a prominent example of animal architecture that fundamentally alters the surrounding physical environment, often with important consequences for social life. Crustaceans, in particular, offer a model system for understanding the adaptive functions of burrows, their ecological costs and benefits, and their long-term evolutionary impacts on sociality. In general, burrows are central to the life history of many species, functioning as protective dwellings against predators and environmental extremes. Within the refuge of a burrow, one or multiple inhabitants can feed, molt, grow, mate, and raise offspring in relative safety. Depending on the substratum, substantial construction costs can be incurred to excavate a burrow de novo or enlarge a preexisting natural crevice. This investment has been evolutionarily favored because the benefits afforded by the burrow outweigh these costs, making the burrow an “extended phenotype” of the architect itself. Yet even after a burrow is fully constructed, the architect must incur continued costs over its life history, both in maintenance and defense, if it is to reap further benefits of its burrow. Indeed, because burrows accumulate value based on the work involved in their construction, they can attract conspecific intruders who seek to shortcut the cost of construction by evicting an existing occupant and usurping its burrow. Consequently, a burrowing lifestyle can lead to escalating social competition, with many crustaceans evolving elaborate weapons and territorial signals to resolve conflicts over burrow ownership. Some burrows even outlast the original architect as an “ecological inheritance,” serving as a legacy that impacts social evolution among subsequent generations of kin and nonkin. Comparative studies, using cutting-edge technology to dig deeper into the natural history of crustacean burrows, can provide powerful tests of general theoretical models of animal architecture and social evolution, especially the extended phenotype and niche construction.","PeriodicalId":387876,"journal":{"name":"Life Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125433713","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0015
Juan Antonio Baeza, E. H. Ocampo, T. Luppi
In the subphylum Crustacea, species from most major clades have independently evolved symbiotic relationships with a wide variety of invertebrate and vertebrate hosts. Herein, we review the life cycle disparity in symbiotic crustaceans. Relatively simple life cycles with direct or abbreviated development can be found among symbiotic decapods, mysids, and amphipods. Compared to their closest free-living relatives, no major life cycle modifications were detected in these clades as well as in most symbiotic cirripeds. In contrast, symbiotic isopods, copepods, and tantulocarids exhibit complex life cycles with major differences compared to their closest free-living relatives. Key modifications in these clades include the presence of larval stages well endowed for dispersal and host infestation, and the use of up to 2 different host species with dissimilar ecologies throughout their ontogeny. Phylogenetic inertia and restrictions imposed by the body plan of some clades appear to be most relevant in determining life cycle modifications (or the lack thereof) from the “typical” ground pattern. Furthermore, the life cycle ground pattern is likely either constraining or favoring the adoption of a symbiotic lifestyle in some crustacean clades (e.g., in the Thecostraca).
{"title":"The Life Cycle of Symbiotic Crustaceans","authors":"Juan Antonio Baeza, E. H. Ocampo, T. Luppi","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0015","url":null,"abstract":"In the subphylum Crustacea, species from most major clades have independently evolved symbiotic relationships with a wide variety of invertebrate and vertebrate hosts. Herein, we review the life cycle disparity in symbiotic crustaceans. Relatively simple life cycles with direct or abbreviated development can be found among symbiotic decapods, mysids, and amphipods. Compared to their closest free-living relatives, no major life cycle modifications were detected in these clades as well as in most symbiotic cirripeds. In contrast, symbiotic isopods, copepods, and tantulocarids exhibit complex life cycles with major differences compared to their closest free-living relatives. Key modifications in these clades include the presence of larval stages well endowed for dispersal and host infestation, and the use of up to 2 different host species with dissimilar ecologies throughout their ontogeny. Phylogenetic inertia and restrictions imposed by the body plan of some clades appear to be most relevant in determining life cycle modifications (or the lack thereof) from the “typical” ground pattern. Furthermore, the life cycle ground pattern is likely either constraining or favoring the adoption of a symbiotic lifestyle in some crustacean clades (e.g., in the Thecostraca).","PeriodicalId":387876,"journal":{"name":"Life Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126198142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0001
J. Olesen
Crustacea (or Pancrustacea) have explored virtually all possible milieus in different parts of their life cycle, including freshwater, marine, and terrestrial habitats, and even the air (pterygote insects). Many crustacean taxa display complex life cycles that involve prominent shifts in environment, lifestyle, or both. In this chapter, the overwhelming diversity of crustacean life cycles will be explored by focusing on changes in the life cycles, and on how different phases in a life cycle are adapted to their environment. Shifts in crustacean life cycles may be dramatic such as those seen in numerous decapods and barnacles where the development involves a change from a pelagic larval phase to an adult benthic phase. Also, taxa remaining in the same environment during development, such as holoplanktonic Copepoda, Euphausiacea, and Dendrobranchiata, undergo many profound changes in feeding and swimming strategies. Numerous taxa shift from an early larval naupliar (anterior limbs) feeding/swimming system using only cephalic appendages to a juvenile/adult system relying almost exclusively on more posterior appendages. The chapter focuses mainly on nondecapods and is structured around a number of developmental concepts such as anamorphosis, metamorphosis, and epimorphosis. It is argued that few crustacean taxa can be characterized as entirely anamorphic and none as entirely metamorphic. Many taxa show a combination of the two, even sometimes with two distinct metamorphoses (e.g., in barnacles), or being essentially anamorphic but with several distinct jumps in morphology during development (e.g., Euphausiacea and Dendrobranchiata). Within the Metazoa the Crustacea are practically unrivalled in diversity of lifestyles involving, in many taxa, significant changes in milieu (pelagic versus benthic, marine versus terrestrial) or in feeding mode. Probably such complex life cycles are among the key factors in the evolutionary success of Crustacea.
{"title":"Crustacean Life Cycles—Developmental Strategies and Environmental Adaptations","authors":"J. Olesen","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"Crustacea (or Pancrustacea) have explored virtually all possible milieus in different parts of their life cycle, including freshwater, marine, and terrestrial habitats, and even the air (pterygote insects). Many crustacean taxa display complex life cycles that involve prominent shifts in environment, lifestyle, or both. In this chapter, the overwhelming diversity of crustacean life cycles will be explored by focusing on changes in the life cycles, and on how different phases in a life cycle are adapted to their environment. Shifts in crustacean life cycles may be dramatic such as those seen in numerous decapods and barnacles where the development involves a change from a pelagic larval phase to an adult benthic phase. Also, taxa remaining in the same environment during development, such as holoplanktonic Copepoda, Euphausiacea, and Dendrobranchiata, undergo many profound changes in feeding and swimming strategies. Numerous taxa shift from an early larval naupliar (anterior limbs) feeding/swimming system using only cephalic appendages to a juvenile/adult system relying almost exclusively on more posterior appendages. The chapter focuses mainly on nondecapods and is structured around a number of developmental concepts such as anamorphosis, metamorphosis, and epimorphosis. It is argued that few crustacean taxa can be characterized as entirely anamorphic and none as entirely metamorphic. Many taxa show a combination of the two, even sometimes with two distinct metamorphoses (e.g., in barnacles), or being essentially anamorphic but with several distinct jumps in morphology during development (e.g., Euphausiacea and Dendrobranchiata). Within the Metazoa the Crustacea are practically unrivalled in diversity of lifestyles involving, in many taxa, significant changes in milieu (pelagic versus benthic, marine versus terrestrial) or in feeding mode. Probably such complex life cycles are among the key factors in the evolutionary success of Crustacea.","PeriodicalId":387876,"journal":{"name":"Life Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131652397","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0003
D. S. Glazier
In this chapter, I show how clutch mass, offspring (egg) mass, and clutch size relate to body mass among species of branchiopod, maxillipod, and malacostracan crustaceans, as well as how these important life history traits vary among major taxa and environments independently of body size. Clutch mass relates strongly and nearly isometrically to body mass, probably because of physical volumetric constraints. By contrast, egg mass and clutch size relate more weakly and curvilinearly to body mass and vary in inverse proportion to one another, thus indicating a fundamental trade-off, which occurs within many crustacean taxa as well. In general, offspring (egg) size and number and their relationships to body mass appear to be more ecologically sensitive and evolutionarily malleable than clutch mass. The body mass scaling relationships of egg mass and clutch size show much more taxonomic and ecological variation (log-log scaling slopes varying from near 0 to almost 1 among major taxa) than do those for clutch mass, a pattern also observed in other animal taxa. The curvilinear body mass scaling relationships of egg mass and number also suggest a significant, size-related shift in how natural selection affects offspring versus maternal fitness. As body size increases, selection apparently predominantly favors increases in offspring size and fitness up to an asymptote, beyond which increases in offspring number and thus maternal fitness are preferentially favored. Crustaceans not only offer excellent opportunities for furthering our general understanding of life history evolution, but also their ecological and economic importance warrants further study of the various factors affecting their reproductive success.
{"title":"Clutch Mass, Offspring Mass, and Clutch Size: Body Mass Scaling and Taxonomic and Environmental Variation","authors":"D. S. Glazier","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"In this chapter, I show how clutch mass, offspring (egg) mass, and clutch size relate to body mass among species of branchiopod, maxillipod, and malacostracan crustaceans, as well as how these important life history traits vary among major taxa and environments independently of body size. Clutch mass relates strongly and nearly isometrically to body mass, probably because of physical volumetric constraints. By contrast, egg mass and clutch size relate more weakly and curvilinearly to body mass and vary in inverse proportion to one another, thus indicating a fundamental trade-off, which occurs within many crustacean taxa as well. In general, offspring (egg) size and number and their relationships to body mass appear to be more ecologically sensitive and evolutionarily malleable than clutch mass. The body mass scaling relationships of egg mass and clutch size show much more taxonomic and ecological variation (log-log scaling slopes varying from near 0 to almost 1 among major taxa) than do those for clutch mass, a pattern also observed in other animal taxa. The curvilinear body mass scaling relationships of egg mass and number also suggest a significant, size-related shift in how natural selection affects offspring versus maternal fitness. As body size increases, selection apparently predominantly favors increases in offspring size and fitness up to an asymptote, beyond which increases in offspring number and thus maternal fitness are preferentially favored. Crustaceans not only offer excellent opportunities for furthering our general understanding of life history evolution, but also their ecological and economic importance warrants further study of the various factors affecting their reproductive success.","PeriodicalId":387876,"journal":{"name":"Life Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128344757","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0016
M. Walsh, Michelle Packer, Shannon M. Beston, Collin Funkhouser, M. Gillis, J. Holmes, Jared M. Goos
Much research has shown that variation in ecological processes can drive rapid evolutionary changes over periods of years to decades. Such contemporary adaptation sets the stage for evolution to have reciprocal impacts on the properties of populations, communities, and ecosystems, with ongoing interactions between ecological and evolutionary forces. The importance and generality of these eco-evolutionary dynamics are largely unknown. In this chapter, we promote the use of water fleas (Daphnia sp.) as a model organism in the exploration of eco-evolutionary interactions in nature. The many characteristics of Daphnia that make them suitable for laboratory study in conjunction with their well-known ecological importance in lakes, position Daphnia to contribute new and important insights into eco-evolutionary dynamics. We first review the influence of key environmental stressors in Daphnia evolution. We then highlight recent work documenting the pathway from life history evolution to ecology using Daphnia as a model. This review demonstrates that much is known about the influence of ecology on Daphnia life history evolution, while research exploring the genomic basis of adaptation as well as the influence of Daphnia life history traits on ecological processes is beginning to accumulate.
{"title":"Daphnia as a Model for Eco-evolutionary Dynamics","authors":"M. Walsh, Michelle Packer, Shannon M. Beston, Collin Funkhouser, M. Gillis, J. Holmes, Jared M. Goos","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0016","url":null,"abstract":"Much research has shown that variation in ecological processes can drive rapid evolutionary changes over periods of years to decades. Such contemporary adaptation sets the stage for evolution to have reciprocal impacts on the properties of populations, communities, and ecosystems, with ongoing interactions between ecological and evolutionary forces. The importance and generality of these eco-evolutionary dynamics are largely unknown. In this chapter, we promote the use of water fleas (Daphnia sp.) as a model organism in the exploration of eco-evolutionary interactions in nature. The many characteristics of Daphnia that make them suitable for laboratory study in conjunction with their well-known ecological importance in lakes, position Daphnia to contribute new and important insights into eco-evolutionary dynamics. We first review the influence of key environmental stressors in Daphnia evolution. We then highlight recent work documenting the pathway from life history evolution to ecology using Daphnia as a model. This review demonstrates that much is known about the influence of ecology on Daphnia life history evolution, while research exploring the genomic basis of adaptation as well as the influence of Daphnia life history traits on ecological processes is beginning to accumulate.","PeriodicalId":387876,"journal":{"name":"Life Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124783207","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0002
P. Maszczyk, Tomasz Brzeziński
Crustaceans present a remarkable variety of forms that differ greatly in body size and growth strategies (determinate or indeterminate). This diversity reflects the long evolutionary history of this group and the variety of environments a crustacean may inhabit. It is rooted in a wide array of internal (physiological, structural) growth constraints and different extrinsic ecological factors determining the extent to which the body size of an individual crustacean attains its upper limit. We briefly review the combined effects of these factors with a focus on the effects of food quality and quantity, predation, and temperature on life histories in the context of an individual, as well as at the population and community levels. We discuss the discrepancy between the possible and the attained body size in an attempt to resolve the extent to which the observed pattern (1) is genetically based, (2) reflects the adaptive plasticity of the phenotype, and (3) is driven by global environmental changes.
{"title":"Body Size, Maturation Size, and Growth Rate of Crustaceans","authors":"P. Maszczyk, Tomasz Brzeziński","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"Crustaceans present a remarkable variety of forms that differ greatly in body size and growth strategies (determinate or indeterminate). This diversity reflects the long evolutionary history of this group and the variety of environments a crustacean may inhabit. It is rooted in a wide array of internal (physiological, structural) growth constraints and different extrinsic ecological factors determining the extent to which the body size of an individual crustacean attains its upper limit. We briefly review the combined effects of these factors with a focus on the effects of food quality and quantity, predation, and temperature on life histories in the context of an individual, as well as at the population and community levels. We discuss the discrepancy between the possible and the attained body size in an attempt to resolve the extent to which the observed pattern (1) is genetically based, (2) reflects the adaptive plasticity of the phenotype, and (3) is driven by global environmental changes.","PeriodicalId":387876,"journal":{"name":"Life Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115181830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-12DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0004
Ø. Varpe, M. J. Ejsmond
Diversity in reproduction schedules is a central component of life history variability, with life span and age at maturity as key traits. Closely linked is the number of reproductive attempts and if organisms reproduce only once followed by death (semelparity) or spread reproduction over multiple and separated episodes during the reproductive lifespan (iteroparity). Amphipoda and Isopoda are two crustacean groups with many semelparous species, but semelparity is also part of other groups such as Decapoda, Copepoda, and Lepostraca. We briefly review theories posited for the evolution of semelparity and iteroparity, covering models on demography in both deterministic and fluctuating environments, and examine models on optimal resource allocation. We provide predictions of these theories, a guide on how to test them in crustaceans, and illustrate how theory can help us understand the diversity within this major taxon. We also point out a few shortcomings of these theories. One is that immediate recruitment is usually assumed in studies of semelparity, which is a poor assumption for the many crustaceans that form egg banks with prolonged recruitment. Another is the lack of models where iteroparity versus semelparity emerge as a consequence of life history trade-offs, rather than the more common approach that assumes demographic parameters. Furthermore, we argue that treating semelparity and iteroparity as a dichotomy is sometimes problematic and that viewing these strategies as a continuum can be useful. We discuss life history correlates and the particularly relevant links between the semelparity-iteroparity axis and capital breeding and seasonality, parental care, and terminal molts. We also discuss some of the indirect methods used to conclude if a crustacean is semelparous or not, such as a rapid drop in adult abundance after reproduction or signs of growth or storage after reproduction. A central message in the chapter is the high value of life history theory as a guide when formulating explanations and projecting evolutionary changes in reproductive lifespan of crustaceans.
{"title":"Semelparity and Iteroparity","authors":"Ø. Varpe, M. J. Ejsmond","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190620271.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"Diversity in reproduction schedules is a central component of life history variability, with life span and age at maturity as key traits. Closely linked is the number of reproductive attempts and if organisms reproduce only once followed by death (semelparity) or spread reproduction over multiple and separated episodes during the reproductive lifespan (iteroparity). Amphipoda and Isopoda are two crustacean groups with many semelparous species, but semelparity is also part of other groups such as Decapoda, Copepoda, and Lepostraca. We briefly review theories posited for the evolution of semelparity and iteroparity, covering models on demography in both deterministic and fluctuating environments, and examine models on optimal resource allocation. We provide predictions of these theories, a guide on how to test them in crustaceans, and illustrate how theory can help us understand the diversity within this major taxon. We also point out a few shortcomings of these theories. One is that immediate recruitment is usually assumed in studies of semelparity, which is a poor assumption for the many crustaceans that form egg banks with prolonged recruitment. Another is the lack of models where iteroparity versus semelparity emerge as a consequence of life history trade-offs, rather than the more common approach that assumes demographic parameters. Furthermore, we argue that treating semelparity and iteroparity as a dichotomy is sometimes problematic and that viewing these strategies as a continuum can be useful. We discuss life history correlates and the particularly relevant links between the semelparity-iteroparity axis and capital breeding and seasonality, parental care, and terminal molts. We also discuss some of the indirect methods used to conclude if a crustacean is semelparous or not, such as a rapid drop in adult abundance after reproduction or signs of growth or storage after reproduction. A central message in the chapter is the high value of life history theory as a guide when formulating explanations and projecting evolutionary changes in reproductive lifespan of crustaceans.","PeriodicalId":387876,"journal":{"name":"Life Histories","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125594551","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：