Brain evolution: How constrained is it?

2001 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 296-297
Author(s):  
Georg F. Striedter
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Brain Evolution ◽  
Developmental Constraints ◽  
Similar Body ◽  
Taxonomic Groups

Allometric analyses suggest that there are some developmental constraints on brain evolution. However, when one compares animals of similar body size, these constraints do not appear to be very tight. Moreover, the constraints often differ between taxonomic groups. Therefore, one may ask not only what causes developmental constraints but also how (and why) these constraints might be altered (or circumvented) during the course of evolution.

scholarly journals Brain evolution and development: adaptation, allometry and constraint

2016 ◽  
Vol 283 (1838) ◽  
pp. 20160433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen H. Montgomery ◽  
Nicholas I. Mundy ◽  
Robert A. Barton
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Brain Evolution ◽  
Phenotypic Traits ◽  
Functional Constraints ◽  
Developmental Constraints ◽  
Functional Systems ◽  
Evolution And Development ◽  
Developmental Mechanisms

Phenotypic traits are products of two processes: evolution and development. But how do these processes combine to produce integrated phenotypes? Comparative studies identify consistent patterns of covariation, or allometries, between brain and body size, and between brain components, indicating the presence of significant constraints limiting independent evolution of separate parts. These constraints are poorly understood, but in principle could be either developmental or functional. The developmental constraints hypothesis suggests that individual components (brain and body size, or individual brain components) tend to evolve together because natural selection operates on relatively simple developmental mechanisms that affect the growth of all parts in a concerted manner. The functional constraints hypothesis suggests that correlated change reflects the action of selection on distributed functional systems connecting the different sub-components, predicting more complex patterns of mosaic change at the level of the functional systems and more complex genetic and developmental mechanisms. These hypotheses are not mutually exclusive but make different predictions. We review recent genetic and neurodevelopmental evidence, concluding that functional rather than developmental constraints are the main cause of the observed patterns.

Structural adaptations of bovine ungulates modern agrocenosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (11) ◽  
pp. 6-15
Author(s):  
Sergey V. Posyabin ◽  
◽  
Elena N. Borkhunova ◽  
Vladislav V. Belogurov ◽  
Mikhail D. Kachalin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Forest Soils ◽  
Distal Part ◽  
Static Load ◽  
High Weight ◽  
Morphometric Characteristics ◽  
Structural Adaptation ◽  
Solid Soil ◽  
Similar Body ◽  
Structural Adaptations

The article presents the results of studies of anatomical, histological and morphometric characteristics of bovine ungulates aimed at identifying signs of structural adaptation of the distal part of the limb to anthropogenically modeled content conditions. The factors that the hoof experiences are the predominance of static load, the high weight of the animal, and the support on solid soil. As a morphological control, elk is considered as a parrotfish animal with similar body size and weight, located in the conditions of natural biotsenose and moving on forest soils. It is shown that constant presence of cattle in conditions of hypokinesia on hard floors leads to change of limb setting and change of hoof shape, which is reflected in change of hoof shape, increase of hoof angle, ratio of plantar and dorsal hoof surfaces length. At the same time, the biomechanical load is redistributed between parts of the hoof so that the load on the wall increases and on the ball decreases. This may be a factor predisposing the hoof to the appearance of microtraumas, later manifested by laminites.

scholarly journals Allometry unleashed: an adaptationist approach of brain scaling in mammalian evolution

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romain Willemet
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Allometric Scaling ◽  
Species Differences ◽  
Brain Size ◽  
Brain Evolution ◽  
Neural Systems ◽  
Selection Pressures ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
Functional Consequences ◽  
Main Factor

The idea that allometry in the context of brain evolution mainly result from constraints channelling the scaling of brain components is deeply embedded in the field of comparative neurobiology. Constraints, however, only prevent or limit changes, and cannot explain why these changes happen in the first place. In fact, considering allometry as a lack of change may be one of the reasons why, after more than a century of research, there is still no satisfactory explanatory framework for the understanding of species differences in brain size and composition in mammals. The present paper attempts to tackle this issue by adopting an adaptationist approach to examine the factors behind the evolution of brain components. In particular, the model presented here aims to explain the presence of patterns of covariation among brain components found within major taxa, and the differences between taxa. The key determinant of these patterns of covariation within a taxon-cerebrotype (groups of species whose brains present a number of similarities at the physiological and anatomical levels) seems to be the presence of taxon-specific patterns of selection pressures targeting the functional and structural properties of neural components or systems. Species within a taxon share most of the selection pressures, but their levels scale with a number of factors that are often related to body size. The size and composition of neural systems respond to these selection pressures via a number of evolutionary scenarios, which are discussed here. Adaptation, rather than, as generally assumed, developmental or functional constraints, thus appears to be the main factor behind the allometric scaling of brain components. The fact that the selection pressures acting on the size of brain components form a pattern that is specific to each taxon accounts for the peculiar relationship between body size, brain size and composition, and behavioural capabilities characterizing each taxon. While it is important to avoid repeating the errors of the “Panglossian paradigm”, the elements presented here suggests that an adaptationist approach may shed a new light on the factors underlying, and the functional consequences of, species differences in brain size and composition.

scholarly journals WHATEVER YOU WANT: INCONSISTENT RESULTS IS THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION, IN THE STUDY OF PRIMATE BRAIN EVOLUTION

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Wartel ◽  
Patrik Lindenfors ◽  
Johan Lind
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Brain Evolution ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Scientific Rigor ◽  
Explanatory Variables ◽  
Primate Brain ◽  
Residual Variation ◽  
The Many ◽  
Brain Data

AbstractPrimate brains differ in size and architecture. Hypotheses to explain this variation are numerous and many tests have been carried out. However, after body size has been accounted for there is little left to explain. The proposed explanatory variables for the residual variation are many and covary, both with each other and with body size. Further, the data sets used in analyses have been small, especially in light of the many proposed predictors. Here we report the complete list of models that results from exhaustively combining six commonly used predictors of brain and neocortex size. This provides an overview of how the output from standard statistical analyses changes when the inclusion of different predictors is altered. By using both the most commonly tested brain data set and a new, larger data set, we show that the choice of included variables fundamentally changes the conclusions as to what drives primate brain evolution. Our analyses thus reveal why studies have had troubles replicating earlier results and instead have come to such different conclusions. Although our results are somewhat disheartening, they highlight the importance of scientific rigor when trying to answer difficult questions. It is our position that there is currently no empirical justification to highlight any particular hypotheses, of those adaptive hypotheses we have examined here, as the main determinant of primate brain evolution.

scholarly journals Quantitative genetic analysis of brain size variation in sticklebacks: support for the mosaic model of brain evolution

2015 ◽  
Vol 282 (1810) ◽  
pp. 20151008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina Noreikiene ◽  
Gábor Herczeg ◽  
Abigél Gonda ◽  
Gergely Balázs ◽  
Arild Husby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Brain Size ◽  
Additive Genetic Variance ◽  
Genetic Correlations ◽  
Relative Size ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Brain Evolution ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Independent Evolution ◽  
Mosaic Model

The mosaic model of brain evolution postulates that different brain regions are relatively free to evolve independently from each other. Such independent evolution is possible only if genetic correlations among the different brain regions are less than unity. We estimated heritabilities, evolvabilities and genetic correlations of relative size of the brain, and its different regions in the three-spined stickleback ( Gasterosteus aculeatus ). We found that heritabilities were low (average h 2 = 0.24), suggesting a large plastic component to brain architecture. However, evolvabilities of different brain parts were moderate, suggesting the presence of additive genetic variance to sustain a response to selection in the long term. Genetic correlations among different brain regions were low (average r G = 0.40) and significantly less than unity. These results, along with those from analyses of phenotypic and genetic integration, indicate a high degree of independence between different brain regions, suggesting that responses to selection are unlikely to be severely constrained by genetic and phenotypic correlations. Hence, the results give strong support for the mosaic model of brain evolution. However, the genetic correlation between brain and body size was high ( r G = 0.89), suggesting a constraint for independent evolution of brain and body size in sticklebacks.

scholarly journals Rethinking the Effects of Body Size on the Study of Brain Size Evolution

2019 ◽  
Vol 93 (4) ◽  
pp. 182-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrique Font ◽  
Roberto García-Roa ◽  
Daniel Pincheira-Donoso ◽  
Pau Carazo
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Brain Size ◽  
Size Variation ◽  
Brain Evolution ◽  
Scaling Effects ◽  
Selection Pressures ◽  
Body Tissues ◽  
Relative Brain Size ◽  
Functional Components ◽  
The Brain

Body size correlates with most structural and functional components of an organism’s phenotype – brain size being a prime example of allometric scaling with animal size. Therefore, comparative studies of brain evolution in vertebrates rely on controlling for the scaling effects of body size variation on brain size variation by calculating brain weight/body weight ratios. Differences in the brain size-body size relationship between taxa are usually interpreted as differences in selection acting on the brain or its components, while selection pressures acting on body size, which are among the most prevalent in nature, are rarely acknowledged, leading to conflicting and confusing conclusions. We address these problems by comparing brain-body relationships from across >1,000 species of birds and non-avian reptiles. Relative brain size in birds is often assumed to be 10 times larger than in reptiles of similar body size. We examine how differences in the specific gravity of body tissues and in body design (e.g., presence/absence of a tail or a dense shell) between these two groups can affect estimates of relative brain size. Using phylogenetic comparative analyses, we show that the gap in relative brain size between birds and reptiles has been grossly exaggerated. Our results highlight the need to take into account differences between taxa arising from selection pressures affecting body size and design, and call into question the widespread misconception that reptile brains are small and incapable of supporting sophisticated behavior and cognition.

scholarly journals Mosaic Evolution of Brainstem Motor Nuclei in Catarrhine Primates

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seth D. Dobson ◽  
Chet C. Sherwood
Keyword(s):  
Brain Evolution ◽  
Motor Nucleus ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Facial Nucleus ◽  
Developmental Constraints ◽  
Catarrhine Primates ◽  
Facial Motor Nucleus ◽  
Motor Nuclei ◽  
Additional Support ◽  
Nucleus Volume

Facial motor nucleus volume coevolves with both social group size and primary visual cortex volume in catarrhine primates as part of a specialized neuroethological system for communication using facial expressions. Here, we examine whether facial nucleus volume also coevolves with functionally unrelated brainstem motor nuclei (trigeminal motor and hypoglossal) due to developmental constraints. Using phylogenetically informed multiple regression analyses of previously published brain component data, we demonstrate that facial nucleus volume is not correlated with the volume of other motor nuclei after controlling for medulla volume. Our results show that brainstem motor nuclei can evolve independently of other developmentally linked structures in association with specific behavioral ecological conditions. This finding provides additional support for the mosaic view of brain evolution.

Reproductive patterns of European pond turtles differ between sites: a small scale scenario

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 339-349
Author(s):  
Marco A.L. Zuffi ◽  
Elena Foschi
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Egg Production ◽  
Shell Height ◽  
The Body ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Central Mediterranean ◽  
Population Structures ◽  
Body Sizes ◽  
Reproductive Females ◽  
Similar Body

From 1996 to 2002, we studied the body size, measures of reproductive strategy (relative clutch mass and delayed reproduction at sexual maturity), and reproductive output (clutch frequency and annual egg production) of female European Pond turtles,Emys orbicularis, at two sites separated by 12 km in central Mediterranean Tuscany (San Rossore and Camp Darby, central northern Italy). Females did not reproduce at the first appearance of external sexual characters, but reproduced at larger sizes, probably as older turtles. Among years, reproductive females were more common than were non-reproductive females, yet both groups had similar body sizes. Body size (carapace length and width, plastron length and width, shell height and body mass) varied between localities and among years. Body size differed between reproductive and non reproductive females in Camp Darby, but not in San Rossore females. Shell volume did not vary among years, nor between localities, nor between reproductive status. Reproductive females had higher body condition indices (BCI) than did non-reproductive females, while BCI did not differ between females laying one clutch and females laying multiple clutches. Clutch size did not vary among years. One clutch per year was much more frequent than multiple clutches, and multiple clutches were more frequent in Camp Darby than in San Rossore females, likely due to differences in population structures between sites.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document