by Carl
Zimmer, New York Times, 3/27/29
Most species
undergo metamorphosis, but scientists aren’t sure why the process evolved. One new
theory: Metamorphosis gives animals greater access to food.
The tadpole
of the paradoxical frog, or shrinking frog, can be up to four times larger than
the adult form.
As a child
growing up in the Netherlands, Hanna ten Brink spent many days lingering by a
pond in her family’s garden, fascinated by metamorphosis.
Tadpoles
hatched from eggs in the pond and swam about, sucking tiny particles of food
into their mouths. After a few weeks, the tadpoles lost their tails, sprouted
legs and hopped onto land, where they could catch insects with their new
tongues.
Eventually
Dr. ten Brink became an evolutionary biologist. Now science has brought her
back to that childhood fascination.
Eighty
percent of all animal species experience metamorphosis — from frogs to flatfish
to butterflies to jellyfish. Scientists are deeply puzzled as to how it became
so common.
What
evolutionary path could lead to a caterpillar — an admirably adapted
leaf-eating machine — to tear down its body and rebuild it as a butterfly?
In the May
issue of American Naturalist, Dr. ten Brink, now a postdoctoral researcher at
the University of Zurich, and her colleagues lay out a road map for the
evolution of metamorphosis. It has appeared, they argue, as a way for
a species to eat more food.
The path to
that feast is hard to travel, and metamorphosis has only arisen a few times in
history. But once it does, the scientists also find, it rarely disappears.
Dr. ten
Brink, Andre M. de Roos of the University of Amsterdam, and Ulf Dieckmann of
the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria created
complex mathematical equations that captured some of the fundamentals of animal
life — how much food they eat, how fast they grow, how many offspring they had
and so on.
The
researchers began by considering animals that didn’t go through metamorphosis.
Keeping the same body through their lives, they are well adapted to one kind of
food.
But what if
their environment contained a second food, one that they could consume as
adults if they evolved a different anatomy? Natural selection would prevent the
animals from adding the second food to their diet, the researchers found.
In this
case, evolution favors specialists: If animals evolve to eat the second food,
their offspring will become worse at consuming the original diet when they’re
young. More of them will die before they can mature.
“The obvious
solution to the problem is to evolve metamorphosis,” said Dr. ten Brink. Young
animals stay well adapted to the original food, while adults switch to the new
food with a rebuilt body.
But animals
pay a steep price to go through metamorphosis. They burn a lot of calories to
tear apart the old anatomy and develop a new one. There’s a chance that this
complicated process will go awry, leaving them with defects.
Metamorphosis
also takes time, leaving animals vulnerable to predators and parasites. In many
cases, Dr. ten Brink and her colleagues found, the cost of metamorphosis is too
high for it to be favored by natural selection.
“You have to
get back something really good,” she said.
Natural
selection will favor metamorphosis if adult animals are rewarded with an
abundant supply of food — enough to make up for the cost and to allow them to
have lots of offspring.
IIn early
stages of this shift, the adults will start out poorly adapted to the new food.
But there’s so much for them to eat that they still get a decent meal.
“I like the
concept — I like that they tried to look for the ultimate cause,” said Joanna
Wolfe, a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard. But she wondered if food is the
only reward that can help drive the evolution of metamorphosis.
Some species
might benefit in other ways. Adults might take on bodies that allowed them to
find mates more successfully, for instance. Larvae in the ocean might change
their forms in order to be carried far away by the currents, expanding their
range.
“I would
like to see some things added to their model,” she said.
Dr. ten
Brink agreed that the new study is a foundation for more detailed ones. “This
paper is really the start of something,” she said.
If animals
so rarely evolve metamorphosis, why is it so common? One reason may be that
once metamorphosis arises, it’s very hard for a species to lose it.
It’s easy
enough to imagine a situation where giving up metamorphosis would be a benefit.
Imagine an outbreak wiping out the food that adults eat. For the species, it
would be advantageous for individuals to remain larval and survive on what food
remains.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You only need to enter your comment once! Comments will appear once they have been moderated. This is so as to stop the would-be comedian who has been spamming the comments here with inane and often offensive remarks. You know who you are!