Maternal effect in salinity tolerance of Daphnia–One species, various patterns?

Andrzej Mikulski; Danuta Mazurczak

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283546

. 2023 Apr 4;18(4):e0283546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283546

Maternal effect in salinity tolerance of Daphnia–One species, various patterns?

Andrzej Mikulski ^1,^*, Danuta Mazurczak ¹

Editor: Elena Gorokhova²

PMCID: PMC10072381 PMID: 37014884

Abstract

We experimentally tested the hypothesis that individuals from a single species but genetically different exposed to the same chemical stress factor are able to realize opposite life history strategies–they can invest more resources in current reproduction and release neonates well-prepared to harmful condition or they can invest in their own safety as well as future reproductions and release neonates of poor quality condition. In order to do this, we used the Daphnia-salinity model: we exposed Daphnia magna females originating from various ponds to two concentrations of sodium chloride, and then observed the key life histories parameters of their offspring exposed or not exposed to salinity stress. Our results confirmed the hypothesis. In a clone from one pond, Daphnia exposed to salinity stress produced neonates which were worse-prepared to the local conditions than those released by non-stressed females. In clones from the two other ponds, Daphnia released newborns similarly or better-prepared to cope with the salinity stress, depending on the concentration of salt and the duration of their exposure to salinity. Our results suggest that both longer (two-generational) and stronger (higher salt concentration) impacts of selective factors may be perceived by individuals as information indicating reduced chances of successful reproduction in the future and, thus, they may drive mothers to produce better-prepared descendants.

Introduction

Among the forces determining the phenotype of individual organisms and, in consequence, their fitness [1], population dynamics [2] and microevolutionary processes [3, 4], the role of maternal effect remains one of the key unsolved questions. Each form of influence of maternal phenotype or genotype on the phenotype of descendants is referred to as the maternal effect [5]. In this context, maternal effect is usually interpreted as an intergenerational phenotypic plasticity. Most studies of phenotypic plasticity are dedicated to investigate its adaptive role, enabling the interpretation of results in a broad evolutionary context. In consequence, adaptive maternal effect is, in fact, the most commonly studied of these. Additionally, researchers studying maternal effect have usually tried to find simple cases where mothers who were exposed to adverse environmental factors would produce offspring better prepared to deal with them [6–12]. Current insight into maternal effect requires analysing the intergenerational phenotypic plasticity within the context of maternal fitness, considering not only the fitness of particular descendants but also the number of descendants in subsequent broods or the whole-life reproductive success of mother [13]. Many offspring traits which were previously treated as maladaptive, may in this context be considered to be examples of strategy-increasing maternal fitness.

Generally, in the studies of maternal effect, two types of scenarios have usually been identified, depending on the degree of provisioning of offspring. In the first one, stressed mothers produce poor quality neonates, shifting the cost of living in adverse conditions to offspring [14] and/or they direct resources to the subsequent reproduction [15, 16]. The second scenario, so-called anticipatory maternal effect [17], i takes place when mothers exposed to an environmental threat produce neonates better-prepared to face such conditions than those released by females living in benign conditions. There is also another, until now overlooked, scenario. Stressed females can produce progenies of similar quality as non-stressed mothers (equally prepared to face stressful conditions), change the trade-off between the number and size of the neonates or compensate costs of living under unfavourable environmental conditions by impairing other life history traits (e.g. by delaying maturity).

The most intriguing question is what drives the maternal selection of a particular strategy. The likelihood of breeding again in the future is crucial for this ‘decision’–the existing strategies of semelparous and iteroparous organisms significantly differ in this aspect [18]. The chance of reproducing under better conditions in the future is another frequently-discussed issue [17]. It is interesting if the strategy is determined at the species level or it varies between genotypes within a species.

The ideal organismal model to be used in investigating such a problem would be an iteroparic, clonal animal able to adapt to local environmental conditions. This would allow to observe various maternal effect strategies in multiple clones within one species at controlled strength and duration of stress. The biology of the water flea Daphnia fully satisfies these demands. This organism is commonly used as a model in studies on phenotypic plasticity, including its intergenerational mode [19, 20]. The role of maternal effect in the expression of the phenotypic reaction of Daphnia to environmental factors has been extensively discussed [5, 21] and described in the context of predator-induced shifts in morphology [7], resting egg production induced by deteriorating environmental conditions [22–24] and enhanced tolerance to toxic cyanobacteria [25] and parasitic diseases [26]. Maternal contributions to predator-induced changes in Daphnia life history were also demonstrated by Mikulski and Pijanowska [24, 27].

The ideal environmental threat should be one that is common in nature and it should act as an effective selective factor acting proportionally to its concentration, from a small impairment of life history to a lethal effect. Salt seems to be a good choice for such studies. An excess of salinity leads to dehydration of tissues in aquatic organisms, which disturbs many life functions. This effect, as well as the complex mechanisms responsible for tolerance to salinity is well known in Daphnia [28]. LC50 (the median of a lethal concentration) of salinity for this cladoceran is about 5.5 g NaCl L^-1 [29, 30]. Increased Daphnia mortality caused by salinity was observed by many authors [29–32]. Under salinity stress, Daphnia growth rate [33] and size at first reproduction decrease [34–36], age at first reproduction increases [35, 37] and number of neonates significantly decreases [34, 35]. Daphnia demonstrate local adaptations to salinity [38] and salinity can strongly modify the effects of other adverse biotic [39, 40] and abiotic [41, 42] factors affecting Daphnia life history.

The main aim of the study was to test (using the Daphnia-salinity model) the hypothesis that individuals from one species but different genotypes exposed to the same chemical stress factor are able to realize opposite life history strategies–they can invest mostly in current reproduction and release neonates well-prepared to harmful condition or they can invest in their own safety as well as future reproductions and release neonates of poor quality.

Methods

In order to test our hypothesis, we aimed at assaying a broad spectrum of Daphnia strategies to deal with excessive salinity, and thus we used three clones of Daphnia magna from three habitats representing opposite extremes of crucial environmental gradients.

All studied clones were established by hatching resting eggs isolated from the natural environment. The first clone (C1) originated form Binnesee (north-west Germany), which is a large, brackish lake (area 47 790 000 m², max. depth 3 m) inhabited by fish and occasionally salted by inflow from the Baltic sea (salinity reached 2.5‰). The second clone (TO) was isolated from a small, freshwater, astatic Topiel pond located in Warsaw (area 4785 m², max. depth 0.45 m). The third clone (KS) originated from the Książęca pond, a larger, freshwater, astatic concreted pond located in Warsaw (area 808 m², max. depth 0.65 m).

Prior to the experiments, to eliminate the interclonal phenotypic differences that could be caused by a directional maternal effect, animals from all clones were cultured for three generations under constant conditions, the same as in the experiments–individually in 200 ml glass under constant dim light and at a temperature of 20°C; they were fed green algae Scenedesmus obliquus concentrated at 1 mg C_org. · L^-1 (the medium with food was changed daily). The base of the medium was lake water with a low salt content (conductivity below 400 μS/cm, chlorides bellow 60 mg/L), aerated for several weeks and filtered before use (filter size 0.2 μm). The use of natural salt-containing water in the experiment was intended to compare animals from particular treatments to control animals reared in comfortable salinity conditions. Neonates from the second clutch were used to establish the next generation. Neonates released by females from the second clutch of the third generation were split into three groups of 10 individuals each (Fig 1), and placed individually into 200 ml of the appropriate medium. Individuals from the first group were cultured in the control medium. Individuals from the second were cultured in a medium with an addition of low concentration of sodium chloride (3.5 g NaCl · L^-1). Those from the third group were cultured in a medium with an addition of low concentration of sodium chloride (4.5 g NaCl · L^-1). All females were transferred to the control medium shortly before releasing their eggs to the brood chambers. Next, neonates produced by three randomly selected females from each maternal treatment were randomly split into the same groups as the mothers (cultured without salt addition, with 3.5 and 4.5 g NaCl · L^-1). Consequently, nine groups of 10 individuals were obtained which differed in their combinations of maternal and daughter environments. Additionally, ten neonates from each maternal group were used to determine the initial weight of individuals from this generation (W₀). Crucial life history parameters were measured: size at birth to a 1 μm accuracy (using NIS-elements Nikon software), age at first reproduction as the age at the moment of releasing first-clutch neonates from the brood chamber (to a 1 hour accuracy), total dry mass at first reproduction of a single female, including mass of the first-clutch neonates (with 0.1 μg accuracy using Orion Cahn C-35 Ultra-Microbalance, Thermo Electron Corporation, USA), number of first-clutch neonates, dry mass of a single neonate in the first clutch (to a 0.1 μg accuracy), and total growth-rate including reproductive investment (i.e. mass of whole first clutch). Before weighing, Daphnia were individually placed into aluminium ‘boats’ and dried for 24 hours at 60°C. Growth rate G_j was calculated using the formula:

G_{j} = \frac{\ln W_{1} - \ln W_{0}}{t_{1} - t_{0}}

Where: W₀ –weight of newborn Daphnia

W₁ –weight of adult Daphnia (with first-clutch neonates—max. one hour after they have been released)

t₁ –t₀ time from birth to reach maturity

Juvenile growth rate G_j is a parameter used as a good proximation of fitness in Daphnia [43]. Unfortunately, mortality (often associated with toxicity) renders the connection between G_j and fitness less credible (fitness such expressed is overestimated when mortality occurs). In Daphnia, G_j may be still better measure of their coping with toxicity than r, because it is de facto the measure of net assimilation rate, therefore, it takes into account the direct costs arising from the toxicity. Parameter r is not adequate because it does not consider impairing of assimilation rate under toxicity and costs associated with detoxification. It is very important given that energetic reserves seem to be crucial for fitness under such conditions.

We limited our analysis to the first reproduction of offspring generation because (1) under unpredictable environmental impact, the first reproduction seems to be subjected to the precise optimization (it may be the only opportunity to reproduction), (2) we tried to connect analysis of life history parameters related to reproduction (e.g. age at first reproduction, number of neonates etc.) with analysis of G_j. Culturing experimental animals till the second reproduction would make G_j analysis more difficult, and (3) we tried to analyze the same reproduction episode in both generations. The effects of clone, maternal experience of salinity and direct effect of salinity on Daphnia life history parameters were tested using a MANOVA model. Next, maternal effect and direct effect of salinity on single Daphnia traits were tested using ANOVA with a T-Tukey test (for different N–e.g. Spjotvoll-Stoline test) as a post-hoc.

According to European low, for isolation of resting eggs from public lakes and for invertebrate experiments permits are not required.

Results

We observed variability in Daphnia survivorship during the experiment. Mortality seemed to be stochastic and did not obstruct the analysis of the results. The exception was the group of individuals from TO clone, exposed to the highest salt concentration for two generations, where mortality exceeded 50%. It makes the conclusions less credible in this particular case.

The clonal origin (MANOVA, Λ_{wilks (10,412)} = 0.03, P < 0.00001) as well as direct (via own experience) (MANOVA, Λ_{wilks (10,412)} = 0.26, P < 0.00001) and indirect (via mother’s experience) (MANOVA, Λ_{wilks (10,412)} = 0.66, P < 0.00001) effect of the salt concentration significantly affected key parameters of the Daphnia life history. We also found a very strong effect for the interactions between all combinations of these factors (MANOVA, Λ_{wilks (40,900)} = 0.57, P < 0.00001).

C1 clone

Maternal experience of salinity did not affect size at birth of Daphnia from clone C1 (ANOVA, F_(2,25) = 1.33, P = 0.28173, Fig 2A), but the direct exposure to salinity had a significant impact on most of the life history parameters.

Both: indirect (ANOVA, F_(2,71) = 2.58, P = 0.00003) and direct (ANOVA, F_(2,71) = 46.32, P < 0.00001) effects of salinity influenced Daphnia age at first reproduction in this clone. There was also a strong interaction between these two factors (ANOVA, F_(4,71) = 7.87, P = 0.00003). Experiencing salinity significantly delayed maturity only in animals released by females exposed to a high concentration of salt (Fig 2B).

Indirect (ANOVA, F_(2,71) = 21.49, P = 0.00002) and direct (ANOVA, F_(2,71) = 12.49, P < 0.00001) impacts of salinity affected total mass of Daphnia from the C1 clone during first reproduction. There was no interaction between these two factors (ANOVA, F_(4,71) = 2.04, P = 0.09785). Females exposed to high concentrations of salt and released by females exposed to salt were smaller than the others (Fig 2C).

Although maternal (ANOVA, F_(2,71) = 13.93, P < 0.00001) and direct (ANOVA, F_(2,71) = 12.62, P = 0.00001) experience of salinity affected the number of neonates released by Daphnia from the C1 clone, there was no interaction between these factors (ANOVA, F_(4,71) = 0.34, P = 0.84936). Both maternal and direct effect of salt similarly decreased the number of newborns released by females (Fig 2D).

None of the factors under study had an influence on the mass of single neonates (maternal effect: ANOVA, F_(2,71) = 0.21, P = 0.80937, direct effect of salinity: ANOVA, F_(2,71) = 1.28, P = 0.28409). There was, however, a significant interaction between the examined factors (ANOVA, F_(4,71) = 4.08, P = 0.00492, Fig 2E).

Maternal (ANOVA, F_(2,71) = 26.68, P < 0.00001) and direct (ANOVA, F_(2,71) = 48.96, P < 0.00001) effects of salt significantly influenced Daphnia growth rate from the C1 clone, but these two factors did not interact (ANOVA, F_(4,71) = 1.47, P = 0.21921). Likewise, in the case of the number of first-clutch neonates, both maternal and direct effect of salt similarly decreased the growth rate of females from this clone (Fig 2G).

TO clone

Maternal experience of salt had a significant impact on size at birth of females from the TO clone (ANOVA, F_(2,20) = 11.29, P = 0.00052). Daphnia released by females exposed to high salt concentrations were significantly larger at birth than others (Fig 2G). In relation to other life history traits, maternal effect seems to be much less visible in the TO clone than in the C1 clone.

In the TO clone, maternal experience of salinity did not affect Daphnia age at first reproduction (ANOVA, F_(2,65) = 1.68, P = 0.19485), and did not interact with the direct effect of this factor (ANOVA, F_(4,65) = 1.69, P = 0.16288). Direct effect was significant (ANOVA, F_(2,65) = 23.50, P < 0.00001) in delaying the reproduction of animals exposed to high concentrations of salt (it was significant only in the case of Daphnia born from non-stressed mothers–Fig 2H).

Similarly, maternal experience of salinity did not affect Daphnia mass at first reproduction (ANOVA, F_(2,65) = 3.06, P = 0.05360) and did not interact with direct effect of this factor (ANOVA, F_(4,65) = 0.25, P = 0.90637). However, direct effect was highly significant (ANOVA, F_(2,65) = 41.47, P < 0.00001). Daphnia exposed to high concentrations of salt were smaller than others (Fig 2I).

There was significant maternal effect (ANOVA, F_(2,65) = 3.78, P = 0.02793) and direct effect of salt concentration (ANOVA, F_(2,65) = 61.65, P < 0.00001) on number of neonates but there was no interaction between these factors (ANOVA, F_(4,65) = 0.71, P = 0.58763). High concentrations of salt caused nearly a twofold reduction in the number of neonates. Maternal experience of high salinity had a similar, albeit weaker, effect (Fig 2J).

There was a significant effect of maternal (ANOVA, F_(2,65) = 22.41, P < 0.00001) and direct (ANOVA, F_(2,65) = 56.52, P < 0.00001) effect of salinity on the mass of single neonates from the TO clone. There was also a significant interaction between these factors (ANOVA, F_(4,65) = 15.87, P < 0.00001, Fig 2K).

The direct effect of salt influenced the growth rate of Daphnia from TO clones (ANOVA, F_(2,65) = 60.64, P < 0.00001). Neonates released by females exposed to high concentrations of salt had a lower growth rate as compared to neonates from the control and low salt treatments (Fig 2). Although there was a weak effect of maternal experience of salinity on growth rate of neonates (ANOVA, F_(2,65) = 3.75, P = 0.02864), this was not reflected in any of the results of the post-hoc test (Fig 2L).

KS clone

Maternal experience of salinity strongly impacted size at birth of Daphnia from the KS clone (ANOVA, F_(2,25) = 21.50, P < 0.00001). Daphnia released by females exposed to high concentrations of salt were significantly larger at birth than others (Fig 2M). The maternal effect on other life history traits of Daphnia from this clone was more complex and strongly dependent on the concentration of salt to which the mothers were exposed.

Maternal (ANOVA, F_(2,74) = 11.89, P = 0.00003) and direct (ANOVA, F_(2,74) = 30.42, P < 0.00001) experience of salinity significantly influenced the age at first reproduction of Daphnia from the KS clone. There was also a significant interaction between maternal and direct effect (ANOVA, F_(4,74) = 6.14, P = 0.00025). Salinity delayed maturation in Daphnia exposed to low and high concentrations of salt, but this was significant only among those neonates released by mothers exposed to low salinity stress (Fig 2N).

Maternal (ANOVA, F_(2,74) = 19.26, P < 0.00001) and direct effect of salinity (ANOVA, F_(2,74) = 9.17, P = 0.00028) significantly influenced the weight of females at first reproduction, but there was no significant interaction between these factors (ANOVA, F_(4,74) = 1.63, P = 0.13578). The presence of salt in low concentrations caused the increase of the weight of reproducing females, but it was significant only among Daphnia released by females exposed to high concentrations of salt (Fig 2O).

Maternal effect did not influence the number of first-clutch neonates released by females from the KS clone (ANOVA, F_(2,74) = 2.03, P = 0.13805), but there was a significant interaction between the maternal and direct effects of salinity (ANOVA, F_(4,74) = 3.11, P = 0.02025). The direct effect of salinity was also significant (ANOVA, F_(2,74) = 20.80, P < 0.00001). Maternal experience of the presence of salt increased the number of neonates in non-stressed Daphnia (Fig 2P).

The weight of a single first-clutch neonate depended on both maternal (ANOVA, F_(2,74) = 20.76, P < 0.00001) and direct (ANOVA, F_(2,74) = 36.29, P < 0.00001) effects of salinity. There was also significant interaction between these factors (ANOVA, F_(4,74) = 9.55, P < 0.00001). Females exposed to high concentrations of salt released larger neonates. Larger neonates were released by both: highly stressed females and those confronted with low salinity, but born by highly stressed mothers (Fig 2R).

Maternal effect (ANOVA, F_(2,74) = 14.41, P < 0.00001), direct effect of salinity(ANOVA, F_(2,74) = 23.74, P < 0.00001) and their interaction between these factors (ANOVA, F_(4,74) = 5.09, P = 0.00112) influenced the total growth rate of Daphnia from the KS clone. Increased levels of salinity caused the reduction of the growth rate which was most visible among the Daphnia neonates released by females exposed to low concentrations of salt (Fig 2S), and were not visible in female neonates released by highly-stressed mothers (in these cases, there was no effect of salinity).

Discussion

The observed reaction of Daphnia to salinity was consistent with earlier published data. The mortality observed during the experiment is comparable with that described before under similar salt concentrations [29, 31]. Animals exposed to this stress factor mature later [35, 37] and are smaller at first reproduction [34–36]. They also release fewer neonates [34, 35], but the neonates are similar or larger than neonates released by not stressed females. Size of neonates is the only life history feature not impaired by salinity in our experiment (Fig 2E, 2K, 2R). This result is new and shows a peculiar ‘reluctance’ of Daphnia to transferring to offspring the costs of living under adverse conditions

As our results show, Daphnia has no universal mechanism of reacting to increased salinity. Each investigated clone reacted in its own, individual way.

In clone C1, from Binnensee (Fig 2, left panel), individuals from the first generation which were exposed to salinity showed no change in age at first reproduction nor in mass of first neonates, but their other characteristics were impaired: weight at maturity, number of first-clutch neonates and total growth rate decreased, most often in proportion to the strength of the stress factor. The reaction of animals from the next generation was stronger, and the impairment of their life history traits depended on the level of salinity experienced by the mothers. This was clearly visible in age at first reproduction (Fig 2B)–only neonates released by females exposed to salt delayed maturity when confronted with increased salinity themselves. Thus, in this clone, mothers presumably ‘transferred’ to offspring the costs of living in an uncomfortable environment.

A different scheme was employed by Daphnia from the Topiel pond (TO) (Fig 2 –central panel). Low concentrations of salt had no influence on their life history traits. In a similar manner to the C1 clone, high concentrations of salt caused a decrease in weight at the age of first reproduction, as well as a decrease in the number of first-clutch neonates and the growth rate. However, the contrary phenomenon was also observed–females exposed to high levels of salinity released larger neonates than others (Fig 2K). Generally, individuals released by stressed mothers were not impaired by salinity compared to those released by non-stressed animals. Their reaction to salinity was similar, with one exception: though Daphnia exposed for two generations to high salinity modified their reproductive strategy to ‘more K’–they limited the number of neonates they released, and produced much larger (almost twice as large) newborns. Apart from the last example, it can be concluded that mothers of TO clone exposed to salinity produce offspring of similar ‘quality’ to those of non-stressed females (they do not transfer the costs of living in a harmful environment to their offspring). Females giving birth to exceptionally large neonates when exposed to high levels of salinity stress for two generations sanctions the hypothesis that Daphnia are capable of releasing offspring better prepared to cope with high levels of salinity than those released by non-stressed mothers. High mortality (up to 60%) observed in this clone (among individuals exposed to the highest salt concentration for two generations) undermines this conclusion. However, the range of values of all measured life history parameters among surviving individuals consistently differed from other treatments which, again, validates this conlusion. Reaction to salinity in the clone from Książęca pond (KS) (Fig 2 –right panel) seems to be the most complex. In the first generation exposed to high levels of salinity, the cost of living in a salty environment was visible among Daphnia exposed to low concentrations of salt, delaying the age at first reproduction which, in consequence, resulted in decreased total growth rate. Daphnia exposed to high salinity tended to decrease the number and increase the size of their first-clutch neonates, so they react as individuals from clone TO exposed to salinity for one generation longer. Maternal effect also depends heavily on salt concentration. Daphnia released by females exposed to low concentrations of salt seemed to bear the costs of the maternal environment, in a similar way to the maternal generation, resulting in delayed maturation and thus a decrease in total growth rate. Daphnia released by females exposed to high levels of salinity did not bear such costs, although they prepared their offspring to face harmful conditions (individuals exposed to salinity produced larger neonates than the others, even those which were exposed to low concentrations of salt). Most importantly, salinity did not impair their growth rate (Fig 2S), so they seemed to be much better prepared for living in high salinity conditions than neonates released by females exposed to low concentrations of salt or not exposed to salt at all. Three different maternal strategies of Daphnia living under conditions of high salinity were observed in our study. In the first strategy, which was shown by Daphnia from the C1 clone, offspring bore the costs that their mothers incurred in harmful environments, being worse-prepared to current conditions than neonates released by non-stressed females. The second strategy was seen in the TO clone, and in those females from KS clone which were released by mothers exposed to low salinity. In this case, females did not transfer the costs of living in harmful environments to the next generation and produced offspring similarly prepared to the current conditions as those released by females living in salt-free conditions. In the third scenario, observed in the case of Daphnia from the KS clone exposed to high levels of salinity, mothers prepare offspring to adverse conditions and produce more fit descendants (which reproduce when achieving larger body sizes and then release larger neonates) than those released by non-stressed females. Choice of maternal strategy does not depend solely on genotype. In a single clone, different strategies may be realized depending on the degree of harmful threat encountered in the environment or the number of generations the organisms are exposed to this threat. The change of maternal strategy under two-generational exposure to high levels of salinity (environmental stress) is so far a poorly-described ecological phenomenon. Longer exposure to salinity stress drives a mother Daphnia to better prepare offspring—to living in adverse conditions, an effect similar to that shown by animals reacting to the highest concentrations of salt. Longer exposure to salinity stress and the intergenerational transfer of its costs may be a physiological equivalent of short term exposure to higher levels of a stress factor. On the other hand, long-term exposure can carry information about the persistence of environmental stress and may be perceived by individuals as a forecast of reduced chances for future reproduction (see [17]). As a consequence, longer exposure to abiotic stress may promote increased investment in current reproduction.

Increased investment in current reproduction in maternal strategy is also connected with increasing level of stress factors. Experiencing the sub-lethal salt concentration decreases the probability of survival until the next opportunity to reproduce and promotes greater investment in the quality of neonates from the current reproduction. This observation supports earlier identification of factors determining the adoption of particular strategies by mothers [17, 18].

A weak relationship was found between the size / weight and ‘quality’ of the offspring. Stressed females should release significantly larger (better equipped) newborns to ensure offspring resistance to stress similar to the resistance of offspring born by non-stressed females (the TO clone). Neonates of sizes similar to those neonates released by non-stressed females turned out to be unable to cope efficiently with increased levels of salinity. Size at birth is not always a good predictor of Daphnia fitness and maternal effect is not limited to determining the quantity of resources uploaded to eggs, but also in the transfer of information in the form of hormones and other transcription factors (see e.g. [5]) which can reprogram individual development and adjust it to current conditions.

The adaptive maternal effect was usually interpreted as a kind of “immunization” against specific selection factors which the females predict [6–12]. However, it is a mechanism implemented by mothers, which is hard to analyse properly abstracting from maternal fitness. The adaptive maternal strategy may result in no change in the fitness of a single offspring individual or even a decrease in its fitness. This creates a continuum of strategies involving energy allocation and using various mechanisms to influence the ontogenesis of offspring. Our results show that the choice of such a strategy is not necessarily determined genetically, but may itself be an element of phenotypic plasticity. It also shows the great complexity of optimization mechanisms related to reproduction and the weakness of fitness analyses that neglect the fate of the offspring.

Conclusions

Opposite maternal strategies–investing mostly in current reproduction and release neonates well-prepared to harmful condition or investing in own safety and future reproductions but releasing neonates of poor quality–may be realized in individuals exposed to the same stress factor and belonging to the same species, but genetically different or belonging to one genotype but exposed to different intensity of the stress factor.
Both longer (two-generational) and stronger (higher concentration) impacts of selective factors may be perceived by individuals as information indicating reduced chances of successful reproduction in the future and, thus, they may drive maternal strategies to produce first clutch descendants better-prepared to adverse conditions.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Joanna Pijanowska for her help at each stage of work on the manuscript and to Cleve Hicks for improving the language of the manuscript and valuable substantive comments. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments that led to an improved manuscript.

Data Availability

We have uploaded the dataset from our experiment to a public repository RepOD - https://doi.org/10.18150/KFMBPG.

Funding Statement

AM Grant No NN304138940 Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Prizak R, Ezard THG, Hoyle RB. Fitness consequences of maternal and grandmaternal effects. Ecol Evol 2014;4: 3139–3145. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Inchausti P, Ginzburg LR. Maternal effects mechanism of population cycling: a formidable competitor to the traditional predator-prey view. Phil Trans Roy Soc B 2009;364: 1117–1124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Uller T. Developmental plasticity and the evolution of parental effects. Trends Ecol Evol 2008;23: 432–438. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Badyaev AV, Uller T. Parental effects in ecology and evolution: mechanisms, processes and implications. Phil Trans Roy Soc B 2009;364: 1169–1177. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Mosseau TA, Fox CW. Maternal effect as adaptation. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford: 1998. [Google Scholar]
6.Fox CW, Thakar MS, Mousseau TA. Egg size plasticity in a seed beetle: An adaptive maternal effect. Am Nat 1997;149: 149–163. [Google Scholar]
7.Agrawal AA, Laforsch C, Tollrian R. Transgenerational induction of defences in animals and plants. Nature 1999;401: 60–63. [Google Scholar]
8.Agrawal AA. Transgenerational consequences of plant responses to herbivory: an adaptive maternal effect? Am Nat 2001;157: 555–569. doi: 10.1086/319932 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Agrawal AA. Herbivory and maternal effects: mechanisms and consequences of transgenerational induced plant resistance. Ecology 2002;83: 3408–3415. [Google Scholar]
10.Galloway LF. Parental environmental effects on life history in the herbaceous plant Campanula americana. Ecology 2001;82: 2781–2789. [Google Scholar]
11.Plaistow SJ, St Clair JJ, Grant J, Benton TG. How to put all your eggs in one basket, empirical patterns of offspring provisioning throughout mother’s lifetime. Am Nat 2007;170: 520–529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Keiser CN, Mondor EB. Transgenerational behavioral plasticity in a parthenogenetic insect in response to increased predation risk. J Insect Behav 2013;26: 603–613. [Google Scholar]
13.Sheriff MJ, Love OP. Determining the adaptive potential of maternal stress. Ecol Lett 2013;16: 271–280. doi: 10.1111/ele.12042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Eriksson-Wiklund AK, Sundelin B. Impaired reproduction in the amphipods Monoporeia affinis and Pontoporeia femorata as a result of moderate hypoxia and increased temperature MEPS 2001;222: 131–141. [Google Scholar]
15.Cunningham EJA, Russell AF. Egg investment is influenced by male attractiveness in the mallard. Nature 2000;404: 74–77. doi: 10.1038/35003565 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Uller T, Eklöf J, Andersson S. Female egg investment in relation to male sexual traits and the potential for transgenerational effects in sexual selection. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2005;57: 584–590. [Google Scholar]
17.Marshall DJ, Uller T. When is a maternal effect adaptive? Oikos 2007;116: 1957–1963. [Google Scholar]
18.Sopinka NM, Hinch SG, Middleton CT, Hills JA, Patterson DA, Stibor H. Mother knows best, even when stressed? Effects of maternal exposure to a stressor on offspring performance at different life stages in a wild semelparous fish. Oecologia 2014;175: 493–500. doi: 10.1007/s00442-014-2915-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Lampert W. Daphnia: model herbivore, predator and prey. Pol J Ecol 2006;54: 607–620. [Google Scholar]
20.Seda J, Petrusek A. Daphnia as a model organism in limnology and aquatic biology: introductory remarks. J Limnol 2011;70: 37–344. [Google Scholar]
21.Rossiter MC. Incidence and consequences if inherited environmental effects. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 1996;27: 451–476. [Google Scholar]
22.Alekseev V, Lampert W Maternal control of resting-egg production in Daphnia. Nature 2001;414: 899–901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.La Montagne JM, Mc Cauley E. Maternal effects in Daphnia: what mothers are telling their offspring and do they listen? Ecol Lett 2001;4: 64–71. [Google Scholar]
24.Mikulski A, Pijanowska J. Maternal experience can enhance production of resting eggs in Daphnia exposed to the risk of fish predation. Fund Appl Limnol 2009;174: 301–305. [Google Scholar]
25.Xiaodong J, Wei Y, Shiye Z, Huishuang L, Yunlong Z, Liqiao C, et al. Maternal effects of inducible tolerance against the toxic cyanobacterium Microcystis aeruginosa in the grazer Daphnia carinata. Environm Poll 2013;178: 142–146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Garbutt JS, Scholefield JA, Vale PF, Little TJ. Elevated maternal temperature enhances offspring disease resistance in Daphnia magna. Funct Ecol 2014;28: 424–431. [Google Scholar]
27.Mikulski A, Pijanowska J. When and how can Daphnia prepare their offspring for the threat of predation? Hydrobiologia 2010;643: 21–26. [Google Scholar]
28.Thabet R, Ayadi H, Koken M, Leignel V. Homeostatic responses of crustaceans to salinity changes. Hydrobiologia 2017;799: 1–20. [Google Scholar]
29.Martınez-Jeronimo F, Martınez-Jeronimo L. Chronic effect of NaCl salinity on a freshwater strain of Daphnia magna Straus, Crustacea: Cladocera: A demographic study. Ecotox Environm Saf 2007;67: 411–416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Santos MAPF, Vincensotti J, Monteiro RTR. Sensitivity of Four Test Organisms, Chironomus xanthus, Daphnia magna, Hydra attenuata and Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata. to NaCl: an Alternative Reference Toxicant. J Braz Soc Ecotoxicol 2007;2: 229–236. [Google Scholar]
31.Baillieut M, Selens M, Blust R. Scope for growth and fitness of Daphnia magna in salinity—stressed conditions. Funct Ecol 1996;10: 227–233. [Google Scholar]
32.Casey R, Scrimgeour G., Kendall S Effects of water temperature and treated pulp mill effluent on survival and growth of Daphnia magna, Cladocera: Daphnidae. and Taenionema, Plecoptera Taeniopterygidae. Alberta Environment Sustainable Forest Management Research Program, Final report. Pub no: T/678 2000. [Google Scholar]
33.Gonçalves AMM, Castro BB, Pardal MA Gonçalves F. Salinity effects on survival and life history of two freshwater cladocerans, Daphnia magna and Daphnia longispina. Ann Limnol Int J Limnol 2007;43: 13–20. [Google Scholar]
34.Arner M, Koivisto S. Effects of salinity on metabolism and life history characteristics of Daphnia magna. Hydrobiologia 259:69–77. [Google Scholar]
35.Teschner M (1995) Effects of salinity on the life history and fitness of Daphnia magna variability within and between populations. Hydrobiologia 1993;307: 33–41. [Google Scholar]
36.Hall CJ, Burns CW. Mortality and growth response of Daphnia carinata to increases in temperature and salinity. Freshwat Biol 2002;47: 451–458. [Google Scholar]
37.Grzesiuk M, Mikulski A. The effect of salinity on freshwater crustaceans. Pol J Ecol 2006;54: 669–674. [Google Scholar]
38.Latta LC, Weider LJ, Colbourne JK, Pfrender ME, Hessen D. The evolution of salinity tolerance in Daphnia: a functional genomics approach. Ecol Lett 2012;5: 794–802. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Bezirci G, Akkas SB, Rinke K, Yildirim F, Kalaylioglu Z, Severcan F et al. Impacts of salinity and fish-exuded kairomone on the survival and macromolecular profile of Daphnia pulex. Ecotoxicology 2012;21: 601–614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Hall MD, Vettiger A, Ebert D. Interactions between environmental stressors: the influence of salinity on host-parasite interactions between Daphnia magna and Pasteuria ramosa. Oecologia 2013;171: 789–796. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.De la Paz Gómez-Díaz M, Martínez-Jerónimo F. Modification of the acute toxic response of Daphnia magna Straus 1820 to Cr (VI) by the effect of varying saline concentrations, NaCl. Ecotoxicology. 2009;18: 81–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Liu X, Steiner CF. Ecotoxicology of salinity tolerance in Daphnia pulex: interactive effects of clonal variation, salinity stress and predation. J. Plankt. Res. 2017;39: 687–697. [Google Scholar]
43.Lampert W and Trubetskova I. Juvenile growth rate as a measure of fitness in Daphnia. Funct Ecol 1996;10: 631–635. [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283546.r001

Decision Letter 0

Elena Gorokhova

6 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-25971Maternal effect in salinity tolerance of Daphnia – one species, various patterns?PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mikulski,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please, consider the issues raised by Reviewer 2 concerning the study focus and its correspondence to the actual approach using the single-clone experiments. Also, address the methodological issues pointed out by both reviewers and broaden the discussion part.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 20 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Elena Gorokhova

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“AM Grant No NN304138940 Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education NO”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear author,

I read your manuscript with pleasure. It is well designed and very well evaluated and put into the relevant literature context. You describe a very interesting new aspect of maternal effects. However, I have a more conceptual question regarding the cultivation prior to the actual experiment, as this may have had a particular effect on the C1 clone. You describe that they cultured the different clones under constant conditions before applying the salt concentrations. Which culture medium was used here? Was it filtered lake water used or the 0 NaCl medium? And was the salt concentration of the other lakes also checked? Clone C1 is accustomed to salt concentrations (also fluctuating), so the medium without salt could also mean stress. This could also explain the increased number of offspring with 0 NaCl. But this is only a small remark which does not diminish the importance of the paper.

I still have a few smaller comments:

line 79: delete "known" after Daphnia

line 92: "their" instead of "your"

line 96-97: delete sentence

line 98: why did you use resting eggs?

line 106ff: was each individual cultivated single?

line 137: delete Lampert..... the number is enough

Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents an experiment that tests how salinity experienced by mothers influence responses to salinity in their offspring in three clones of Daphnia magna. As such, it contributes to the growing literature on transgenerational phenotypic plasticity. In general the experiment seem to be conducted in an appropriate way (except for some questions I have regarding mass measurements, see below), and my comments mostly relate to the presentation of the study.

First, I was a bit surprised by the way that the study is introduced. It presents the study as a test of a broad hypothesis about differences among populations in how life history strategies (investment in current vs. future reproduction) evolve. However, each of the three populations included in the experiment were represented by only a single clone, preventing conclusions about population differences (responses may well be equally different among clones within a population). Furthermore, no argument is given for why different responses would be predicted among these three populations. Testing a hypothesis requires an ability to reject it, but the present study would not be able to do this (i.e. if an absence of differences among populations had been observed this might well have been because of similar selective pressures in the three populations). As the authors state, the fact that the three clones showed different responses involves a bit of luck (ln. 97). I therefore think the paper would benefit from a rewriting of the introduction to more precisely present the context within which the experiment fits.

The method description was unclear. Particularly this relates to Ln. 112-118. How many individuals per group (ln 112)? Reared individually? Volumes used? How did they know in advance when eggs would be released to brood chambers (Ln. 115)? How many neonates were used from each mother (ln 116)?

For mass of adults and neonates (Ln. 122-125), were these wet masses? If so, how repeatable are such measurements (given that they have excess water on their bodies)? And additionally, the accuracy of the measurement is given as 10 mikrogram, which is on the same order of magnitude as the presented mean weights for neonates. I suspect measurement error is substantial here, particularly for the C1 clone where the mean neonate mass is smaller than the measurement accuracy, and where it is not surprising that the study is unable to find an effect of maternal treatment. Finally, it says that these are weights of “a single female” and a “single neonate”. This is unclear, really difficult to understand what the sample sizes are here. Growth rates are also based on these data, which makes me wonder how reliable these results are as well. In conclusion, I would be much more confident in the results of this study if it had removed these results and made their conclusions based on the more reliable data on length at birth, age at first reproduction and clutch sizes. Alternatively, the authors should discuss these issues and how they might have influenced their results and conclusions.

The discussion was mostly a repetition of their own results. It would be more interesting to see how their results relate to previous studies on salinity effects in daphnia, and potentially transgenerational plasticity in a broader sense.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Apr 4;18(4):e0283546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283546.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

3 Feb 2023

Reviewer #1: Dear author,

Thank you for this comment. Indeed, we did not express ourselves precisely. We wrote that the given amounts of sodium chloride in experiment are an additional element but this statement was obviously confusing. The base of the medium was lake water with a low salt content (conductivity below 400 µS/cm2). This information with broader explanation of reasons for application of such procedure has been added (lines 110-111).

“The base of the medium was lake water with a low salt content (conductivity below 400 µS/cm, chlorides bellow 60 mg/L), aerated for several weeks and filtered before use (filter size 0.2 µm). The use of natural salt-containing water in the experiment was intended to compare animals from particular treatments to control animals reared in comfortable salinity conditions.” (lines 106-110)

I still have a few smaller comments:

line 79: delete "known" after Daphnia

The word has been removed.

line 92: "their" instead of "your"

The word has been changed.

line 96-97: delete sentence

The sentence has been deleted.

line 98: why did you use resting eggs?

Isolating clones from active forms of Daphnia is difficult because the collected individuals may belong to the same clone. Also, the clones are likely to change over time (ageing?). In the case of clones obtained from resting eggs, we know their laboratory age and rearing conditions. We could standardize these conditions and eliminate their potentially differentiating effect on the compared clones.

line 106ff: was each individual cultivated single?

Yes. This information is given in line 107.

line 137: delete Lampert..... the number is enough

The link has been removed. We are very grateful for detecting our mistakes.

We agree with this statement. Indeed, the text may suggest that we hypothesize that local conditions influence the strategy of Daphnia females. Indeed, to verify such hypothesis, several clones from each location should be examined. Our hypothesis was supposed to be simpler and it is faithfully reflected in the title of the manuscript. It concerns the possibility of the existence of different maternal strategies related to copying with salinity stress within a single species. Selecting clones from environments with different salt regimes was intended only to increase the probability of getting the telling results with a small number of clones. It was important considering the fact that experiment was conducted with large attention (e.g. all important moments of ontogenesis were determined with 1 hour accuracy for each individual). Considering the significant ontogenetic discrepancies between animals exposed to different salt concentrations, the experiment was very absorbing. We were lucky to be able to show the expected differences using three clones only. Perhaps using other clones from the same locations would produce a different result. However, using these three clones enabled us to confirm our initial hypothesis. In order to dispel doubts, we have changed the text as suggested.

In Introduction, we changed sentence:

“It is interesting if the strategy is determined within the species or it may differ depending on the conditions experienced by local populations.”

to sentence:

“It is interesting if the strategy is determined at the species level or it varies between genotypes within a species” (lines 59-60)

Sentence:

“The main aim of the study was to test (using the Daphnia-salinity model) the hypothesis that individuals from one species but different local populations exposed to the same chemical stress factor are able to realize opposite life history strategies – they can invest mostly in current reproduction and release neonates well-prepared to harmful condition or they can invest in their own safety as well as future reproductions and release neonates of poor quality.”

to sentence:

“The main aim of the study was to test (using the Daphnia-salinity model) the hypothesis that individuals from one species but different genotypes exposed to the same chemical stress factor are able to realize opposite life history strategies – they can invest mostly in current reproduction and release neonates well-prepared to harmful condition or they can invest in their own safety as well as future reproductions and release neonates of poor quality.” (lines 85-89).

In Conclusions we changed the sentence:

“Opposite maternal strategies – investing mostly in current reproduction and release neonates well-prepared to harmful condition or investing in own safety as well as future reproductions and release neonates of poor quality – may be realized in individuals exposed to the same stress factor and belonging to one clone but different local population or belonging to one genotype but exposed to different intensity of this factor.”

to sentence:

“Opposite maternal strategies – investing mostly in current reproduction and release neonates well-prepared to harmful condition or investing in own safety and future reproductions but releasing neonates of poor quality – may be realized in individuals exposed to the same stress factor and belonging to the same species, but genetically different or belonging to one genotype but exposed to different intensity of the stress factor.” (lines 385-390)

In Abstract we changed the sentence:

“We experimentally tested the hypothesis that individuals from one species but different local populations exposed to the same chemical stress factor are able to realize opposite life history strategies”

to sentence:

“We experimentally tested the hypothesis that individuals from a single species but genetically different exposed to the same chemical stress factor are able to realize opposite life history strategies” (lines 11-13)

The method description was unclear. Particularly this relates to Ln. 112-118. How many individuals per group (ln 112)?

10 individuals - the information is now added (see below)

Reared individually?

YES - the information was added (see below)

Volumes used?

200 ml - the information was added:

“Neonates released by females from the second clutch of the third generation were split into three groups, 10 individuals each (Fig. 1) and placed individually into 200 ml of the appropriate medium.” (lines 111-113)

How did they know in advance when eggs would be released to brood chambers (Ln. 115)?

The release of offspring is preceded by changes in their morphology - in particular, two comma-shaped eyes merge into one growing spot. Additionally, female starts specific “perinatal movements”.

How many neonates were used from each mother (ln 116)?

10 individuals in the variant, i.e. 30 from a single mother. This information is available in lines 120-121:

“Consequently, nine groups of 10 individuals were obtained which differed in their combinations of maternal and daughter environments.”

For mass of adults and neonates (Ln. 122-125), were these wet masses? If so, how repeatable are such measurements (given that they have excess water on their bodies)?

It was dry mass. Information about this and about how animals were dried has been added (see below).

And additionally, the accuracy of the measurement is given as 10 mikrogram, which is on the same order of magnitude as the presented mean weights for neonates. I suspect measurement error is substantial here, particularly for the C1 clone where the mean neonate mass is smaller than the measurement accuracy, and where it is not surprising that the study is unable to find an effect of maternal treatment. Finally, it says that these are weights of “a single female” and a “single neonate”.

We are very grateful for pointing this error. It really does look absurd. However, the accuracy of Orion Cahn C-35 Ultra-Microbalance is 1/10 (0.1) µg, not 10 µg (http://www.triadscientific.com/en/products/potentiometric/1352/orion-cahn-c-35-microbalance-thermo-scientific/250293). We corrected the text:

“…total dry mass at first reproduction of a single female, including mass of the first-clutch neonates (with 0.1 µg accuracy using Orion Cahn C-35 Ultra-Microbalance, Thermo Electron Corporation, USA), number of first-clutch neonates, dry mass of a single neonate in the first clutch (to a 0.1 µg accuracy), and total growth-rate including reproductive investment (i.e. mass of whole first clutch). Before weighing, Daphnia were individually placed into aluminium ‘boats’ and dried for 24 hours at 60ºC.” (lines 126-131)

This is unclear, really difficult to understand what the sample sizes are here. Growth rates are also based on these data, which makes me wonder how reliable these results are as well. In conclusion, I would be much more confident in the results of this study if it had removed these results and made their conclusions based on the more reliable data on length at birth, age at first reproduction and clutch sizes. Alternatively, the authors should discuss these issues and how they might have influenced their results and conclusions.

All data were replicated 10 times. It was not, indeed, described precisely. We weighted ten neonates released by females from each maternal variant and estimated initial mass of daughters (W0). This is generally accepted procedure. All experimental females were dried and weighted soon after releasing next generation neonates. Also, these neonates were dried and weighted soon after being released. It allowed to obtain W1 mass individually for each female. So, Gj was calculated with as much precision as possible, individually for each female from all 9 experimental groups. Otherwise, the statistical analysis would be impossible.

We tried to improve the text. Among others, we added:

“Additionally, ten neonates from each maternal group were used to determine the initial weight of individuals from this generation (W0).” (lines 121-123)

We added a new paragraph and extended the discussion to place our results in a more general context (lines 374-383).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(25.2KB, docx)}