Fundamental insights into ontogenetic growth from theory and fish

The fundamental features of growth may be universal, because growth trajectories of most animals are very similar, but a unified mechanistic theory of growth remains elusive. Still needed is a synthetic explanation for how and why growth rates vary as body size changes, both within individuals over their ontogeny and between populations and species over their evolution. Here we use Bertalanffy growth equations to characterize growth of ray-finned fishes in terms of two parameters, the growth rate coefficient, K, and final body mass, m∞. We derive two alternative empirically testable hypotheses and test them by analyzing data from FishBase. Across 576 species, which vary in size at maturity by almost nine orders of magnitude, K scaled as m_∞^(-0.23). This supports our first hypothesis that growth rate scales as m_∞^(-0.25) as predicted by metabolic scaling theory; it implies that species which grow to larger mature sizes grow faster as juveniles. Within fish species, however, K scaled as m_∞^(-0.35). This supports our second hypothesis which predicts that growth rate scales as m_∞^(-0.33) when all juveniles grow at the same rate. The unexpected disparity between across- and within-species scaling challenges existing theoretical interpretations. We suggest that the similar ontogenetic programs of closely related populations constrain growth to m_∞^(-0.33) scaling, but as species diverge over evolutionary time they evolve the near-optimal m_∞^(-0.25) scaling predicted by metabolic scaling theory. Our findings have important practical implications because fish supply essential protein in human diets, and sustainable yields from wild harvests and aquaculture depend on growth rates.

Plastic and evolutionary responses to heat stress in a temperate dung fly: negative correlation between basal and induced heat tolerance?

Extreme weather events such as heat waves are becoming more frequent and intense. Populations can cope with elevated heat stress by evolving higher basal heat tolerance (evolutionary response) and/or stronger induced heat tolerance (plastic response). However, there is ongoing debate about whether basal and induced heat tolerance are negatively correlated and whether adaptive potential in heat tolerance is sufficient under ongoing climate warming. To evaluate the evolutionary potential of basal and induced heat tolerance, we performed experimental evolution on a temperate source 4 population of the dung fly Sepsis punctum. Offspring of flies adapted to three thermal selection regimes (Hot, Cold and Reference) were subjected to acute heat stress after having been exposed to either a hot-acclimation or non-acclimation pretreatment. As different traits may respond differently to temperature stress, several physiological and life history traits were assessed. Condition dependence of the response was evaluated by exposing juveniles to different levels of developmental (food restriction/rearing density) stress. Heat knockdown times were highest, whereas acclimation effects were lowest in the Hot selection regime, indicating a negative association between basal and induced heat tolerance. However, survival, adult longevity, fecundity and fertility did not show such a pattern. Acclimation had positive effects in heat-shocked flies, but in the absence of heat stress hot-acclimated flies had reduced life spans relative to nonacclimated ones, thereby revealing a potential cost of acclimation. Moreover, body size positively affected heat tolerance and unstressed individuals were less prone to heat stress than stressed flies, offering support for energetic costs associated with heat tolerance. Overall, our results indicate that heat tolerance of temperate insects can evolve under rising temperatures, but this response could be limited by a negative relationship between basal and induced thermotolerance, and may involve some but not other fitness-related traits.