August 07, 2009
First Comes Global Warming, Then An Evolutionary Explosion
In 1997, Arthur Weis found himself with an extra bucket of seeds. Weis, who was teaching at the University of California at Irvine at the time, had dispatched a student, Sheina Sim, to gather some field mustard seeds for a study. When Sim was done with her research, Weis was left with a lot of leftover seeds. For no particular reason, he decided not to throw the bucket out. “We just tossed it in a cold, dry incubator,” said Weis.
Weis is glad they did. When a severe drought struck southern California, Weis realized that he could use the extra bucket of seeds for an experiment. In 2004 he and his colleagues collected more field mustard seeds from the same sites that Sim had visited seven years earlier. They thawed out some of the 1997 seeds and then reared both sets of plants under identical conditions. The newer plants grew to smaller sizes, produced fewer flowers, and, most dramatically, produced those flowers eight days earlier in the spring. The changing climate had, in other words, driven the field mustard plants to evolve over just a few years. “It was serendipity that we had the seeds lying around,” says Weis.
Weis is convinced that his experiment is just a harbinger of things to come. Global warming is projected to drastically raise the average global temperature, as well as producing many other changes to the world’s climate, such as more droughts in California. And in response, Weis and other researchers contend, life will undergo an evolutionary explosion.
“Darwin thought evolution was gradual, and that it would take longer than the lifetime of a scientist to observe even the slightest change,” says Weis, who is now at the University of Toronto. “That might be the average case, but evolution can also be very rapid under the right conditions. Climate change is going to be one of those things where the conditions are met.”
Posted by Robin Varghese at 05:58 PM | Permalink






















Comments
Rather than assume on-demand-Lamarkian-evolution, I would think the simpler hypothesis would have been to assume an epigenetic effect in all these examples. I don't see that they considered that possibility or tested for it —by, say, continuing to propagate the seeds from those two sets of mustard plants and seeing if the identical conditions resulted in the subsequent generations retaining the differences seen in their parents, and to what degree.
It's also a little odd that Zimmer didn't cover this angle.
Posted by: Carlos | Aug 7, 2009 7:30:45 PM
First, it's not Lamarkian evolution. Second, they grew the plants in identical conditions (apart from the freezing process, obviously). Third, Zimmer talked about it:
One is known as plasticity. In many plant species, genetically identical individuals will grow short in windy conditions and tall in calm ones. [...] Plasticity can help animals and plants thrive as conditions change. Insects, for example, emerge from cocoons in the spring as they sense the days getting longer. Their clock is genetically encoded, but they are also plastic enough to emerge ahead of schedule if the plants they feed on start growing sooner.
Actually, here's their paper. A relevant paragraph:
If we had simply observed that [the flowering time] was earlier in 2004 than it was in 1997, we would have been unable to determine whether this change represented a plastic response of individuals to new conditions or a genetically based evolutionary shift. Our experimental design ‘‘resurrected’’ dormant ancestors and raised them side-by-side with their descendants. Thus, by holding environmental conditions constant, this design allowed phenotypic differences between the generations to be attributed to evolutionary (i.e., genetic) change. Including hybrids in the design provided some information on the genetic architecture underlying evolutionary change.
Posted by: billy | Aug 7, 2009 11:20:16 PM
Yeah, I read the article Billy, but plasticity (affecting only the organism, not its heirs) is not what I meant. Thanks for the link to the paper though. At least I was able to glean that Zimmer didn't leave this out on his own.
So still concerned.
Climate change funding is so much easier to get these days. I just hope it isn't coming with strings (in the form of expectations of dramatic outcomes) attached.
Here's a example of an environmentally triggered epigenetic change that persists over several generations before fading away. No genomes were modified, just the way the genes were expressed.
Carlos
Posted by: Carlos | Aug 9, 2009 9:42:32 PM
Wow, I think I might agree with you, Carlos. Amazing.
Posted by: billy | Aug 10, 2009 9:48:53 AM
I recall that Lysenko, Stalin's favored geneticist, experimented with freezing seeds as a way of producing cold-resistant strains of wheat, because such a result would support Lamarkian evolution, which he deemed to be more consistent with Marxist theory.
Actually, I think that epigenetics does indeed make Lamarkian evolution possible, why do you conclude otherwise, Billy ?
Posted by: aguy109 | Aug 12, 2009 3:30:31 PM
Post a comment