Social status regulates growth rate: Consequences for life-history strategies

The life-history strategies of organisms are sculpted over evolutionary time by the relative prospects of present and future reproductive success. As a consequence, animals of many species show flexible behavioral responses to environmental and social change. Here we show that disruption of the habitat of a colony of African cichlid fish, Haplochromis burtoni (Günther) caused males to switch social status more frequently than animals kept in a stable environment. H. burtoni males can be either reproductively active, guarding a territory, or reproductively inactive (nonterritorial). Although on average 25–50% of the males are territorial in both the stable and unstable environments, during the 20-week study, nearly two-thirds of the animals became territorial for at least 1 week. Moreover, many fish changed social status several times. Surprisingly, the induced changes in social status caused changes in somatic growth. Nonterritorial males and animals ascending in social rank showed an increased growth rate whereas territorial males and animals descending in social rank slowed their growth rate or even shrank. Similar behavioral and physiological changes are caused by social change in animals kept in stable environmental conditions, although at a lower rate. This suggests that differential growth, in interaction with environmental conditions, is a central mechanism underlying the changes in social status. Such reversible phenotypic plasticity in a crucial life-history trait may have evolved to enable animals to shift resources from reproduction to growth or vice versa, depending on present and future reproductive prospects.

Oxygen isotope ratios of PO4: An inorganic indicator of enzymatic activity and P metabolism and a new biomarker in the search for life

The distinctive relations between biological activity and isotopic effect recorded in biomarkers (e.g., carbon and sulfur isotope ratios) have allowed scientists to suggest that life originated on this planet nearly 3.8 billion years ago. The existence of life on other planets may be similarly identified by geochemical biomarkers, including the oxygen isotope ratio of phosphate (δ18Op) presented here. At low near-surface temperatures, the exchange of oxygen isotopes between phosphate and water requires enzymatic catalysis. Because enzymes are indicative of cellular activity, the demonstration of enzyme-catalyzed PO4–H2O exchange is indicative of the presence of life. Results of laboratory experiments are presented that clearly show that δ18OP values of inorganic phosphate can be used to detect enzymatic activity and microbial metabolism of phosphate. Applications of δ18Op as a biomarker are presented for two Earth environments relevant to the search for extraterrestrial life: a shallow groundwater reservoir and a marine hydrothermal vent system. With the development of in situ analytical techniques and future planned sample return strategies, δ18Op may provide an important biosignature of the presence of life in extraterrestrial systems such as that on Mars.

Loss of speciation rate will impoverish future diversity

Human activities have greatly reduced the amount of the earth's area available to wild species. As the area they have left declines, so will their rates of speciation. This loss of speciation will occur for two reasons: species with larger geographical ranges speciate faster; and loss of area drives up extinction rates, thus reducing the number of species available for speciation. Theory predicts steady states in species diversity, and fossils suggest that these have typified life for most of the past 500 million years. Modern and fossil evidence indicates that, at the scale of the whole earth and its major biogeographical provinces, those steady states respond linearly, or nearly so, to available area. Hence, a loss of x% of area will produce a loss of about x% of species. Local samples of habitats merely echo the diversity available in the whole province of which they are a part. So, conservation tactics that rely on remnant patches to preserve diversity cannot succeed for long. Instead, diversity will decay to a depauperate steady state in two phases. The first will involve deterministic extinctions, reflecting the loss of all areas in which a species can ordinarily sustain its demographics. The second will be stochastic, reflecting accidents brought on by global warming, new diseases, and commingling the species of the separate bio-provinces. A new kind of conservation effort, reconciliation ecology, can avoid this decay. Reconciliation ecology discovers how to modify and diversify anthropogenic habitats so that they harbor a wide variety of species. It develops management techniques that allow humans to share their geographical range with wild species.

Human-modified ecosystems and future evolution

Our global impact is finally receiving the scientific attention it deserves. The outcome will largely determine the future course of evolution. Human-modified ecosystems are shaped by our activities and their side effects. They share a common set of traits including simplified food webs, landscape homogenization, and high nutrient and energy inputs. Ecosystem simplification is the ecological hallmark of humanity and the reason for our evolutionary success. However, the side effects of our profligacy and poor resource practices are now so pervasive as to threaten our future no less than that of biological diversity itself. This article looks at human impact on ecosystems and the consequences for evolution. It concludes that future evolution will be shaped by our awareness of the global threats, our willingness to take action, and our ability to do so. Our ability is presently hampered by several factors, including the poor state of ecosystem and planetary knowledge, ignorance of human impact, lack of guidelines for sustainability, and a paucity of good policies, practices, and incentives for adopting those guidelines in daily life. Conservation philosophy, science, and practice must be framed against the reality of human-dominated ecosystems, rather than the separation of humanity and nature underlying the modern conservation movement. The steps scientists can take to imbed science in conservation and conservation in the societal process affecting the future of ecosystems and human well-being are discussed.

Declines of biomes and biotas and the future of evolution

Although panel discussants disagreed whether the biodiversity crisis constitutes a mass extinction event, all agreed that current extinction rates are 50–500 times background and are increasing and that the consequences for the future evolution of life are serious. In response to the on-going rapid decline of biomes and homogenization of biotas, the panelists predicted changes in species geographic ranges, genetic risks of extinction, genetic assimilation, natural selection, mutation rates, the shortening of food chains, the increase in nutrient-enriched niches permitting the ascendancy of microbes, and the differential survival of ecological generalists. Rates of evolutionary processes will change in different groups, and speciation in the larger vertebrates is essentially over. Action taken over the next few decades will determine how impoverished the biosphere will be in 1,000 years when many species will suffer reduced evolvability and require interventionist genetic and ecological management. Whether the biota will continue to provide the dependable ecological services humans take for granted is less clear. The discussants offered recommendations, including two of paramount importance (concerning human populations and education), seven identifying specific scientific activities to better equip us for stewardship of the processes of evolution, and one suggesting that such stewardship is now our responsibility. The ultimate test of evolutionary biology as a science is not whether it solves the riddles of the past but rather whether it enables us to manage the future of the biosphere. Our inability to make clearer predictions about the future of evolution has serious consequences for both biodiversity and humanity.