Abstract
Temperature and photoperiod regulate key fitness traits in plants and animals. However, with temperature increase due to global warming, temperature cue thresholds are experienced at shorter photoperiods, disrupting the optimal seasonal timing of physiological, developmental and reproductive events in many species. Understanding the mechanisms of adaptation to the asynchrony between temperature and photoperiod is key to inform our understanding of how species will respond to global warming. Here, we studied the transgenerational mechanisms of responses of the cyclical parthenogen Daphnia magna to different photoperiod lengths co-occurring with warm temperature thereby assessing the impact of earlier spring warming on its fitness. Daphnia uses temperature and photoperiod cues to time dormancy, and to switch between sexual and asexual reproduction. Daphnia life cycle offers the opportunity to measure the relative contribution of plastic and genetic responses to environmental change across generations and over evolutionary time. We use transgenerational common garden experiments on three populations ‘resurrected’ from a biological archive experiencing temperature increase over five decades. Our results suggest that response to early spring warming evolved underpinned by a complex interaction between plastic and genetic mechanisms while a positive maternal contribution at matching environments between parental and offspring generation was also observed.
Introduction
Organisms respond to changing environments by shifting their distribution, via genetic adaptation or through plasticity of fitness related traits1. Plasticity is expected to play a key role in rapidly changing environments, especially when genetic adaptation may be constrained under predicted global change2,3. So far, within-generation plasticity (WGP) is advocated as the main mechanism of response to environmental change, allowing for rapid adjustments to novel environmental conditions4–6. Yet this consensus is subject to a scarcity of studies on the mechanisms of genetic adaptation to environmental change, because of the significant challenges at identifying the genetic elements underpinning adaptive phenotypic trait variation in nature1,3,7. Moreover, it is unclear how plasticity impacts long-term evolutionary responses to environmental change, as plasticity can either help8,9 or hinder10 evolutionary responses. Obtaining evidence that identifies the relative contribution of genetic adaptation and plasticity in the wild represents an ongoing challenge6.
Plasticity experienced within a generation may influence the response of following generations via non-genetic or epigenetic processes. This form of plasticity is known as transgenerational plasticity (TGP) and occurs when the environment that individuals experience influences the expression of traits in their offspring11–13. TGP is especially relevant to understand the impact of environmental change that persists across generations. Currently, the term TGP is loosely used to include any non-genetic effects that are observed in the offspring generation, which is associated with exposure of a previous generation to a new environmental condition14. However, TGP may also be adaptive, enhancing offspring performance, by buffering populations against the immediate effects of environmental change and providing time for genetic adaptation to happen in the longer term15. Adaptive transgenerational plasticity, mediated by parental effects, maximizes offspring fitness when the parental and the offspring environments are matched12,13. Examples of adaptive transgenerational plasticity include the effect of maternal environment on the timing of seed germination16 and shade-avoidance in plants17. Understanding the role of adaptive transgenerational plasticity is key to predict the consequences of parental effects on population dynamics, and to inform our understanding of how species will respond to rapid environmental change18. Presently, the prevalence and strength of TGP in natural systems remains controversial13.
Temperature and photoperiod are two pivotal cues that regulate key fitness traits in plants and animals (e.g. flowering time and dormancy). However, whereas climate is changing, photoperiod is stable across latitudes19,20. The asynchronous change of temperature and photoperiod cues has disrupted the optimal seasonal timing of physiological, developmental and reproductive events in many species21–23. Therefore, many organisms have experienced a decline in fitness when preparing to develop, reproduce, hibernate, enter dormancy, or migrate at seasonally inappropriate times22. Parthenogenetic zooplankton species (e.g. daphniids, rotifers) use both temperature and photoperiod cues to time life history events such as male production and dormancy21,24. Generally, short photoperiod and low temperatures induce a switch from the production of clonal (parthenogenetic) females to the parthenogenetic generation of males and to initiating sexual reproduction, which culminates in dormant embryos25. Conversely, long photoperiod and high temperatures are cues for the termination of dormancy in spring21,22. Dormant embryos are early stage embryos that arrest their development to overwinter; dormant embryos at the water-sediment interface hatch during the following growing season contributing to the genetic diversity of the local population26–28. A proportion of these embryos becomes buried in the sediment missing the opportunity to hatch thereby creating biological archives, which represent an excellent resource to investigate population dynamics in natural systems over evolutionary time29–31. Because of the changes in water temperature due to global warming, the temperature cue thresholds are experienced by some parthenogenetic zooplankers at shorter photoperiods altering population-level investment in dormancy and male formation32,33. However, the impact of persistent asynchrony between temperature and photoperiod across generations is poorly understood. Understanding the transgenerational impact of this asynchrony is helpful to predict how rapidly these species, and the community which they sustain, may track climatic change.
Here, we study the impact of the asynchrony between temperature and photoperiod on the fitness of the freshwater crustacean Daphnia magna. Daphnia are keystone species central to the food-web of lentic freshwater ecosystems worldwide34,35. We study within-generation plastic and genetic responses, as well as the cross-generational responses of fitness-linked life history traits to environmental conditions that mimic early spring warming (warm temperature and short photoperiod) as compared to a typical spring environment (warm temperature and long photoperiod).
Studies that investigate mechanisms of response to environmental change face two main limitations. If genetically diverse species are studied, the same genotype or a diversity of genotypes cannot be replicated across environmental exposures and transgenerational responses to environmental change are confounded by genetic variation. Conversely, if clonal species are used and genotypes are replicated across experiments, genetic diversity is not representative of sexually reproducing species. Daphnia’s life cycle overcomes these limitations to reveal the relative contribution of plastic and genetic responses to environmental change across generations and over extended time periods36,37. Daphnia alternates sexual recombination with asexual (clonal) reproduction. Sexual recombination results in early stage embryos that can be ‘resurrected’ and propagated indefinitely as clonal lineages in the laboratory38. These properties and a short life cycle provide the advantages of clonal species while retaining the natural genetic diversity. Taking full advantage of these properties, we measured transgenerational fitness changes in three populations of dormant embryos previously resurrected from the biological archive of Lake Ring and spanning 50 years39. We quantified WGP and TGP as changes in trait values of fitness-linked life history traits between environments and across generations. We quantified genetic responses to photoperiod as mean trait differences among populations and as genetic divergence at 15 candidate genes, previously linked to environmentally driven local adaptation40,41. We also performed a gene-traits association analysis between the life history traits measured in the parental generation and the 15 candidate genes in an effort to identify the genetic basis of fitness-linked life history traits responding to photoperiod and temperature cues. Our study provides important insights into the transgenerational mechanisms of response to early spring warming in a freshwater keystone species.
Methods
Experimental design
We investigate the impact of temperature and photoperiod cues on three populations of D. magna separated in time and previously revived from a biological archive of Lake Ring, a shallow mixed lake (maximum depth is 5 m) in Jutland, Denmark (55°57′51.83″N, 9°35′46.87″E)42. According to historical records43 and paleolimnological analyses30,36,38, the lake experienced a steadily, even if modest (∼1 °C), increase in temperature over the last five decades36. Further, changes in water chemistry and transparency occurred over time because of eutrophication and agricultural land use. These changes are described in detail elsewhere39 and summarized in Supporting Information Data 1. The populations are hereafter referred to as: P1: population resurrected from layers of sediment dated >1999; P2: population resurrected from layers of sediment dated 1975–1985; P3: population resurrected from layers of sediment dated 1960–1970.
Daphnia reproduces parthenogenetically in the laboratory, allowing experiments across generations. Several parthenogenetic broods are produced in each generation (up to eight) allowing the same genotype to be used in parallel experiments. Between nine and eleven genotypes per population (Table S1; N = 30) were used in a common garden experiment over two parthenogenetic generations (Fig. 1). The sample size per population was chosen based on a previous study that determined the threshold sample size required to assess genetic diversity in Daphnia populations30. According to this study, 10–15 genotypes capture the genetic diversity of natural populations both in space and time.
Figure 1.

Experimental design. Daphnia magna dormant embryos previously revived from three populations separated in are: P1 (blue): population resurrected from layers of sediment dated > 1999; P2 (red): population resurrected from layers of sediment dated 1975–1985; P3 (green): population resurrected from layers of sediment dated 1960–1970. Clonal lineages established from the resurrected genotypes were maintained in common garden conditions for two generations to reduce interference from maternal and grandmaternal effect. After two generations in common garden conditions, two randomly selected genetically identical copies of each genotype from the second or following broods are assigned to either long photoperiod (LP; 14:10 h light: dark regime, orange) or short photoperiod (SP; 10:14 h light: dark regime, green) for two generations (G1 and G2). A suite of life history traits is measured in both generations.
Prior to the experiment, clonal lines established from the thirty genotypes were maintained for two generations in common garden conditions (20 °C, 12:12 h light: dark regime; fed ad libitum with 0.8 mg Carbon/L of Chlorella vulgaris CCAP strain no. 211/11B) to reduce potentially confounding maternal and grandmaternal effects (Fig. 1). Individual juveniles of 24 h from the second or following broods were randomly selected to establish experimental generations and assigned to experimental conditions. Different broods from the same generation were used to ensure developmental synchrony among clonal lineages in the experiment. Experimental clonal lineages were kept in individual jars of 100 ml, filled with filtered borehole water, which was refreshed every second day, and fed daily 0.8 mg Carbon/L of Chlorella vulgaris.
After two generations in common garden conditions, 24 h old individual juveniles from the second or following broods were randomly assigned to the experimental conditions for two generations (G1, G2): short photoperiod (SP; 10:14 h light: dark regime) and long photoperiod (LP; 14:10 h light: dark regime) (Fig. 1). The temperature for both photoperiods was 20 °C, so that changes in photoperiod could be studied in a typical spring environment (warm temperature and long photoperiod), acting as a control, and in conditions that mimicked early spring warming (warm temperature and short photoperiod).
The following fitness-linked life history traits were measured in G1 and G2: size at maturity (the distance between the head and the base of the tail spine), age at maturity (first time parthenogenetic eggs are released in the brood pouch), fecundity (number of juveniles across 8 broods), interval between broods (time interval between each pair of broods averaged across eight broods), proportion of male offspring across 8 broods, and mortality. For size at maturity, all animals were measured after releasing their first brood into the brood pouch using imageJ software (https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/index.html).
The experimental design is not full factorial because of the number of genotypes and conditions tested in parallel. However, because genotypes were fixed across experimental conditions and generations, we were able to control for confounding factors e.g. genetic changes occurring from one generation to the next and genetic variation among experimental exposures, enabling WGP and TGP effects to be studied in isolation.
Life history traits: genetic and plastic responses to photoperiod and temperature cues
We assessed evolutionary mechanisms (genetic changes, WGP, TGP, and their interactions) of response to early spring warming on life history traits using linear mixed models (LMMs) in the “lme4” package in R v.3.3.344. We quantified the effects of Generation, Population, Treatment and their interactions on individual life history traits. Genotype was fit as a random effect nested within population. Prior to the analyses, all variables were tested for normality. Except for male proportion (a binomial variable), all life history trait measurements followed a Gaussian distribution. Because the populations separated in time originate from the same genetic pool and because genetic drift is negligible30, a significant population term indicates genetic differences among populations. Differences in mean trait values between photoperiods, after controlling for maternal effects, are the expression of WGP, an environmental effect. Differences in mean trait values between generations are the expression of TGP. If the effect of the treatment (photoperiod) differed significantly among populations (genetic effect), we would have evidence of a Pop (population) × Pht (photoperiod) interaction. Similarly, if the effect of the treatment (photoperiod) differed significantly among generations, we would have evidence of Gen (generation) × Pht (photoperiod) interaction. If population means varied by generation, we would have evidence of a Gen (generation) × Pop (population) interaction. We also measured the three-way interaction term (Gen × Pop × Pht). All evidence of interactions or main effects were assessed via Type II analysis of deviance tables using the Anova function in the “car” package (R v.3.3.3)45. We visualized the main effects of population (P1, P2 and P3), treatment (SP and LP) and generation (G1 and G2) plus their interaction terms on individual life history traits through reaction norms, which describe the pattern of phenotypic expression of each population across treatments and generations46.
We performed a principal component analysis (PCA) to quantify the principal modes of variation and covariation among life history traits within generation using the ‘prcomp’ function in the R “stats” package. The PCA plots were obtained using the “ggbiplot” (R v.3.3.344). Prior to the PCA analysis, the life history traits variables were log transformed.
Mortality rates per population were calculated with a survival model fit via the “psm” function in the rms R package V.3.3.344. A separate model was fitted to each treatment and generation, in which the day of mortality and the mortality event were combined as the dependent variables (e.g. censoring) and population was treated as fixed effect. All mortality curves were plotted using the “survplot” function form “rms” package in R v.3.3.344.
Candidate gene analysis: genetic responses to temperature and photoperiod cues
The genome of the 30 genotypes used in this study has been sequenced and will be published elsewhere. Here, we use the sequenced genome to identify SNP polymorphisms at 15 candidate genes previously associated with environmentally driven local adaptation, including male formation and the induction of sexual reproduction40,41 by mapping the sequences of the candidate genes against the reference genome of D. magna 2.4 (NBCI: LRGB00000000.1). The panel of SNPs at the 15 candidate genes is shown in Table S2. Methods used for mapping and variant calling are in Supporting Data 1.
To assess whether the candidate genes were under selection in the populations studied here, we used measures of genetic differentiation (FST) and neutrality tests. Previous results identified a small yet significant proportion of neutral genetic divergence among the D. magna populations studied here (1%)30. Larger divergence among populations at the 15 candidate genes would identify genes under divergent selection, whereas a smaller divergence at the candidate loci would suggest balancing selection. In the former, different polymorphic sites at the same genes are found in different populations, resulting in higher divergence than at neutral loci. Conversely, balancing selection reduces population differentiation, because of moderate to intermediate frequencies of polymorphic sites47.
We quantified pairwise population differentiation as FST, using MSA Analyser48, and the partitioning of genetic variance within and among populations (AMOVA) using Arlequin49. The two hierarchical levels used in the analysis are (i) among populations and (ii) within populations. Statistically significant values (P < 0.001) were calculated with permutation tests (10,000 permutations). Further, we performed neutrality tests on the candidate genes to quantify departure from neutrality using DnaSP50. Typically, these tests are affected by demography. In our study, the three populations are snapshots of the same genetic pool at different time points across five decades. Therefore, demographic confounding factors are negligible.
To assess whether the candidate genes were associated with life history traits showing responses to photoperiod, we performed a gene-trait association analysis between the candidate gene polymorphisms and life history traits measured in G1, using Mixed Linear Models in TASSEL51 with the following criteria: minor allele frequency (MAF) > 0.05 and Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) > 0.001, applying a false discovery rate of FDR = 0.05 to correct for multiple testing. We investigated significant association between gene polymorphisms at the 15 candidate genes and the life history traits in long and short photoperiod, separately. We also quantified association between the gene polymorphisms and the plastic change in life history traits as delta values between long and short photoperiod within G1.
Results
Life history traits: genetic and plastic responses to photoperiod and temperature cues
We investigated the impact of photoperiod and temperature cues on fitness-linked life history traits in D. magna. Short photoperiod at 20 °C mimicked early spring warming, whereas long photoperiod at 20 °C mimicked a typical spring environment, acting as reference.
We quantified the effects of Generation, Population, Treatment and their interactions on individual life history traits using an analysis of variance. The three-way interaction term (Generation × Population × Photoperiod) was significant for the proportion of male offspring (Table 1). The effect of photoperiod varied significantly between generations in four of the five life history traits (Table 1; Gen × Pht). The effect of photoperiod did not vary significantly by population, except for the proportion of male offspring (Table 1; Pop × Pht). A significant interaction term between generation and population was only observed for the proportion of male offspring (Table 1; Gen × Pop). We detected no difference among populations in trait means, except for fecundity (Table 1; Pop). All mean trait values differed significantly between generations (Table 1; Gen). The effect of photoperiod was significant on fecundity, size at maturity and time elapsing between broods (Table 1; Pht). Mortality was negligible in all experimental conditions (Table 1; Fig. S2).
Table 1.
Analysis of variance.
| Fecundity | Size at maturity | Age at maturity | Male proportion | Average interval between broods | Mortality | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Df | Chisq | p-value | Df | Chisq | p-value | Df | Chisq | p-value | Df | Chisq | p-value | Df | Chisq | p-value | Df | Chisq | p-value | |
| Generation (Gen) | 1 | 0.48 | <0.001 | 1 | 23.09 | <0.001 | 1 | 13.33 | 0.001 | 1 | 114.60 | <0.001 | 1 | 19.15 | 0.001 | 1 | 2.04 | 0.15 |
| Population (Pop) | 2 | 10.52 | 0.005 | 2 | 0.11 | 0.94 | 2 | 0.21 | 0.90 | 2 | 3.89 | 0.14 | 2 | 0.96 | 0.62 | 2 | 5.35 | 0.07 |
| Photoperiod (Pht) | 1 | 31.89 | <0.001 | 1 | 20.71 | <0.001 | 1 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 1 | 1.31 | 0.25 | 1 | 41.23 | 0.001 | 1 | 2.30 | 0.13 |
| Pop x Pht | 2 | 1.47 | 0.48 | 2 | 4.21 | 0.12 | 2 | 0.03 | 0.98 | 2 | 39.55 | <0.001 | 2 | 2.41 | 0.30 | 2 | 5.27 | 0.07 |
| Pop x Gen | 2 | 2.86 | 0.24 | 2 | 0.83 | 0.66 | 2 | 4.32 | 0.11 | 2 | 18.82 | <0.001 | 2 | 1.39 | 0.50 | 2 | 4.78 | 0.09 |
| Pht x Gen | 1 | 16.64 | <0.001 | 1 | 12.25 | <0.001 | 1 | 13.55 | 0.001 | 1 | 4.80 | 0.028 | 1 | 2.02 | 0.15 | 1 | 2.04 | 0.15 |
| Pop x Pht x Gen | 2 | 0.38 | 0.83 | 2 | 0.13 | 0.94 | 2 | 0.69 | 0.71 | 2 | 26.70 | <0.001 | 2 | 2.00 | 0.37 | 2 | 4.75 | 0.09 |
Univariate ANOVAs per single life history traits (fecundity over the life span of the genotypes, size at maturity (mm), age at maturity (days), proportion of males offspring over the life span of the genotypes, the time elapsed between broods averaged over eight broods (Av. time interval between broods, days) and mortality are shown. Generation (Gen), Population (Pop), Photoperiod (PhT), and their interaction terms are shown. Significant P-values are in bold.
Short photoperiod caused a decrease in size and in the time elapsing between parthenogenetic broods in the first experimental generation (Fig. 2; G1). In the second generation (G2), short photoperiod induced increase in fecundity, smaller size at maturation, and longer time elapsing between parthenogenetic broods (Fig. 2; G2). Male proportion varied with generation and population (Fig. S1), showing both genetic and plastic responses (Fig. 2).
Figure 2.
Life history traits response to changes in photoperiod. Population reaction norms based on population means (N = 9–11) and SE measured in long photoperiod (LP) and short photoperiod (SP) for generation 1 (G1; continuous lines) and generation 2 (G2; dotted lines). The life history traits measured are: fecundity, age at maturity (days), size at maturity (mm); proportion of male offspring, and average interval between broods (days). The populations are colour coded as in Fig. 1: P1 – blue; P2 – red; P3 – green. Statistical analyses supporting the reaction norms are in Table 1.
We observed a clear difference in the trait trade-offs between generations and experimental conditions (Fig. 3). In G1, PC1 was positively correlated with average time elapsing between broods (PC1: 52%) and negatively correlated with age and size at maturity (PC1age: −53%; PC1size: −62%). PC2 was positively correlated with fecundity (PC2: 48%) and negatively with the proportion of male offspring (PC2: −71%). PC3 was positively correlated with fecundity (PC3: 87%) and negatively with size and age at maturity (PC3size: −16%; PC3age: −30%) (Fig. 3A). In G2, PC1 was positively correlated with age and size at maturity (PC1age: 70%; PC1size: 65%), whereas PC2 negatively correlated with fecundity, the proportion of male offspring and the time elapsing between broods (PC2fecundity: −62%; PC2male: −41%; PC2av. interval: −58%). In this generation, PC3 was negatively correlated with the proportion of male offspring (PC3: 89%) and positively correlated with fecundity and average time elapsing between broods (PC3fecundity: 21%; PC3av. interval: 39%) (Fig. 3B).
Figure 3.
Principal component analysis. PCA plots showing phenotypic plasticity at five fitness-linked life history traits measured in (A) generation 1 (G1) and (B) generation 2 (G2) in long photoperiod (LP, 14:10 h light: dark regime; orange) and short photoperiod (SP, 10:14 h light: dark regime; green). Patterns are given for PC1 and PC2 and PC1 and PC3. The life history traits are the same as in Table 1: age at maturity, size at maturity, fecundity, male proportion and average interval between broods.
Candidate gene analysis: genetic responses to temperature and photoperiod cues
The genetic divergence among populations was higher at neutral loci than at the candidate genes in presence of negligible drift (Table 2, Table S3). The neutrality test on the candidate genes identified nine out of fifteen genes as putatively under selection; at least two independent tests supported departure from neutrality in these genes (Table 3). The candidate genes showed significant association with fecundity and male offspring proportion both in short and long photoperiod (Table S4; SP, LP). Fecundity showed significant association with the histone deacetylase complex subunit SAP18 (Table S4). The proportion of male offspring showed significant association with Amino-oxidase, SAP18, Phosphotyrosine (PTB), and Aldo/keto reductase (Table S4). In addition, the candidate genes showed significant association with plastic changes in all traits (Table S4; Delta). Plastic changes in age at maturity were significantly associated with the rhodopsin g-protein coupled receptor; plastic changes in fecundity were significantly associated with the Histone deacetylase complex subunit SAP18; variation in male offspring proportion was significantly associated with Amino-oxidase, SAP18, Phosphotyrosine (PTB), and Aldo/keto reductase; plastic change in size at maturity was significantly associated with Pyridine nucleotide-disulphide oxidoreductase, PTB, SAP18, and an RNA binding protein (Table S3).
Table 2.
Analysis of molecular variance.
| Among populations | Within populations | |
|---|---|---|
| Neutral µsat | 1.08* | 98.92* |
| Candidate genes | 0 | 100* |
AMOVA analysis showing the partitioning of genetic variance within and among populations at neutral microsatellite loci and at the 15 candidate genes. The data for the microsatellite loci are from30. The two hierarchical levels used in the analysis are (i) among populations and (ii) within populations. Statistically significant values (*P < 0.001) are based on permutation tests (10,000 permutations).
Table 3.
Neutrality tests.
| GeneID | ScaffoldID | Start | End | S | Pi | θ | Gene function | Ref | Tajima’s D | Fu&Li’s D | Fu&Li’s F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dapma7bEVm001004t1 | scaffold00027 | 2877 | 6078 | 23 | 0.36 | 0.21 | Serine arginine-rich splicing factor 7 | Reisser et al.40 | 2.13* | 1.76** | 2.25** |
| Dapma7bEVm005301t1 | scaffold00848 | 96321 | 97283 | 5 | 0.29 | 0.21 | Aldo-keto reductase family 1, member C4 | Reisser et al.40 | 0.8 | 1.08 | 1.16 |
| Dapma7bEVm002245t1 | scaffold02003 | 35289 | 35935 | 2 | 0.3 | 0.21 | Poly-U-binding splicing factor Half Pint | Reisser et al.40 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.84 |
| Dapma7bEVm015923t3 | scaffold02003 | 213333 | 214454 | 48 | 0.45 | 0.22 | Cytochrome P450 314 family | Reisser et al.40 | 3.62*** | 2.03** | 3.14** |
| NA | scaffold02569 | 3227 | 4315 | 7 | 0.39 | 0.21 | Zinc transporter zip11 | Reisser et al.40 | 2.14* | 1.23 | 1.79* |
| Dapma7bEVm006598t1 | scaffold02569 | 9179 | 10907 | 12 | 0.3 | 0.21 | Zinc transporter zip9 | Reisser et al.40 | 1.19 | 1.48* | 1.63 |
| Dapma7bEVm008171t1 | scaffold02569 | 35151 | 44725 | 91 | 0.42 | 0.22 | SOX-9-like transcription factor | Reisser et al.40 | 3.07** | 2.18** | 3.02** |
| Dapma7bEVm002217t1 | scaffold02569 | 218892 | 220701 | 4 | 0.36 | 0.21 | DnaJ homolog dnaj-5 | Reisser et al.40 | 1.44 | 0.99 | 1.32 |
| Dapma7bEVm028519t1/Dapma7bEVm010615t1 | scaffold02569 | 334258 | 337000 | 79 | 0.21 | 0.22 | Broad-complex | Reisser et al.40 | −0.19 | 2.15** | 1.5 |
| Dapma7bEVm004407t1 | scaffold02569 | 340469 | 342584 | 20 | 0.21 | 0.21 | Transformer2 | Reisser et al.40 | −0.01 | 1.70** | 1.3 |
| Dapma7bEVm000710t1 | scaffold02569 | 76814 | 79370 | 19 | 0.42 | 0.21 | Protein SPT2 homolog | Reisser et al.40 | 2.92** | 2.92** | 2.52** |
| Dapma7bEVm007919t1 | scaffold02569 | 228772 | 229714 | 7 | 0.45 | 0.21 | Histone deacetylase complex subunit sap18 | Reisser et al.40 | 2.83** | 1.23 | 2.06** |
| Dapma7bEVm005463t1 | scaffold02723 | 1124 | 6033 | 37 | 0.31 | 0.22 | Epidermal growth factor receptor kinase | Reisser et al.40 | 1.33 | 1.95** | 2.05** |
| Dapma7bEVm001751t1 | scaffold03156 | 4200 | 8559 | 40 | 0.27 | 0.21 | Lysine-specific histone demethylase 1A | Reisser et al.40 | 0.89 | 1.96** | 1.87* |
| Dapma7bEVm015675t1 | scaffold01036 | 708969 | 713276 | 64 | 0.37 | 0.22 | Rhodopsin | Roulin et al.41 | 2.32* | 2.10** | 2.61** |
Statistics testing for departure from neutrality of 15 candidate genes previously associated with environmental driven local adaptation and partial sex determination. For each candidate gene (GeneID), the scaffold location (ScaffoldID), start and end position of the gene, nucleotide diversity (S), theta per site (θ), gene function and bibliographic reference are shown. For each gene, the result of Tajima’s D77, Fu&Li D and F tests78 are shown. Significant values, calculated with a FDR = 0.05, are marked with an asterisk (*).
Discussion
Investigating both plasticity and genetic adaptation across generations enables to establish a link between evolutionary potential (either additive genetic variation or genotype by environment interactions) and TGP52–54. We used transgenerational common garden experiments on resurrected D. magna populations separated in time to study the mechanisms of response – genetic, plastic (WGP, TGP) or a combination thereof - to earlier spring warming. Resurrection ecology provided us with the unique advantage of following evolution in situ across decades by studying genetic differences among populations that evolved from an initial genetic pool in response to environmental selection55,56. The use of genetically distinct clonal lineages across generations enabled us to perform the concurrent analysis of plastic and genetic mechanisms of adaptation to environmental change within and across generations minimizing confounding factors.
We observed significant difference in the plastic response to spring warming between generations, made evident from a significant generation term and a significant interaction term Generation × Photoperiod in the ANOVA. Trade-offs among life history traits clearly differed between generations. In G1 the time elapsing between parthenogenetic reproductions showed trade-offs with age and size at maturity, and fecundity showed trade-offs with the proportion of male offspring. In G2, size and age at maturation showed trade-offs with all other life history traits; moreover, the investment in male offspring came at a cost of fecundity and time elapsing between parthenogenetic reproductions.
Theory predicts that highly plastic traits show strong maternal effect variance and little to no genetic variance, because highly plastic traits can be influenced by the environment, including parental environment, and because additive genetic variance may be masked by high environmental variation57. For example, elytron length in seed beetles, a highly plastic trait, is strongly influenced by parental effects and has no detectable genetic variance58; body and offspring size in stickleback is strongly influenced by the parental environment but does not show high genetic variance59. Our results suggest a positive maternal effect on earlier spring warming when the offspring environment perfectly matches the maternal one. This effect is evident from fecundity, which is higher in G2 than G1, and from size at maturity that does not change significantly in G2 but significantly decreases in G1 in short photoperiod. However, a full factorial design measuring the anticipatory maternal effect in matching and not matching environments is needed to confirm positive maternal effect in matching environments13. In addition, the photoperiod cue experienced by the second generation during fertilization may have influenced the phenotypic response of the offspring generation, result of developmental plasticity. The timing at which the second generation directly experience the parental environment has been shown to influence offspring response in matching environments60,61. In particular, exposure during fertilization and early juvenile development may strongly affect offspring response to parental environments2. Follow up experiments, in which the parental generation is exposed for different lengths of the life cycle to early spring warming, is needed to exclude whether exposure during fertilization influenced offspring response to early spring warming.
We observe a strong role of WGP in response to earlier spring warming, made evident from significant photoperiod effect on the majority of life history traits. The effect of photoperiod resulted in smaller size at maturation, delayed maturation and a decrease in the time lapse between parthenogenetic reproductions in G1, whereas it resulted in higher fecundity, and an increase in the time between parthenogenetic reproductions in G2.
We observe genetic responses to early spring warming quantified as genetic differences among populations in fecundity. Moreover, we observe a lower than neutral genetic divergence at the candidate loci, which were significantly departing from neutrality expectations. The lake from which the Daphnia populations were sampled has a documented increase in average ambient temperature and recurrence of heat waves over time36. Previous studies on these populations showed evidence for temporal evolution of the critical thermal maximum (CTmax), the upper temperature at which animals lose motor function62, in presence of warming as a single stress63. Here, we observe significant evolutionary differences among populations to early spring warming cues (G1). These evolutionary differences indicate that the most recent population evolved to be less fecund than the historical populations. This may be the result of maladaptation or of evolutionary responses to multiple stressors. It is possible that multiple stressors documented in Lake Ring (e.g changes in water transparency and lake chemistry39) have influenced adaptive responses of the population over time64. Indeed, in a previous study on the populations of Lake Ring, higher CTmax in the most recent population was observed in presence of warming alone, whereas it was no longer observed in presence of multiple stressors63.
In the presence of stable neutral genetic diversity over time30, the candidate genes show a departure from neutrality and a lower divergence among populations than neutral markers. These patterns are expected when balancing selection affects the frequency of gene polymorphism across populations47. The candidate genes putatively under selection in the studied populations have been previously linked to functions in crustaceans and insects relevant in the context of dormancy, sexual reproduction, male formation and general stress responses: Rhodopsin has been associated with dormancy in Daphnia41; SAP18 has been associated with embryonic development and environmental stress response in insects65,66; PTB (epidermal growth factor receptor kinase) has been linked to sexual differentiation in insects and crustaceans67,68; MF, a catalyser for the methyl farnesoate and a putative juvenile hormone in daphniids, and AKR (aldo-keto reductase) have been linked to the propensity to form male offspring69,70. In the MF pathway, the AKR family catalyses the conversion of farnesal to farnesol, and mutations in the AKR gene have been shown to reduce MF production in favour of the juvenile hormone, resulting in higher male production70,71. The function of these genes and their significant association with life history traits in the population studied here suggest their potential role in the response to photoperiod and temperature cues. However, it is possible that other environmental stressors, which have been documented in Lake Ring, may have contributed to the observed response at the candidate genes and/or that additional genes not investigated here are contributing to modulate the life history traits analysed. Indeed, all traits showed significant association with multiple candidate genes suggesting epistasis among genes underpinning the life history traits. Furthermore, single genes showed association with multiple traits, suggesting extensive pleiotropy. It is expected that multiple genes regulate complex fitness-linked life history traits. In a follow up experiment, we generated further evidence supporting this expectation (Supporting Data 1). We used three genotypes that showed divergent patterns in male offspring proportion between photoperiods (Fig. S1) and a reference genotype, which never produces male broods under all tested experimental conditions to date (P-IT, Institute of Ecosystem study, CNR Verbania, Italy)72. We focused on the propensity to form males because some of the candidate genes studied here have been previously associated with this trait40,69,70. Fixed polymorphisms among the strains with divergent propensity to form male offspring would suggest that the candidate genes are underpinning this trait. Lack of evidence for fixed polymorphisms at the candidate genes would suggest that other genes underpin male offspring formation. We found that the divergent patterns in propensity to form male offspring in the four genotypes did not correspond to fixed polymorphisms at the 15 candidate genes, confirming pleiotropy and the need to investigate genome-wide patterns to identify the genes underpinning complex fitness traits (Supporting Data 1).
Overall, our results point to an adaptive potential for a keystone zooplankter Daphnia to evolve in response to early spring warming mediated by a complex interaction between plastic and genetic mechanisms. The results also suggest a positive maternal effect in presence of matching environments between parental and offspring generations. A positive maternal effect at a life history trait indicates accelerated rates of microevolution that can facilitate adaptation73. However, a full factorial design is needed to assess whether non-matching environments provide different responses.
We identified extensive pleiotropy in candidate genes underpinning life history traits responsive to early spring warming. Pleiotropy is commonly observed in complex environments with multifarious selection pressures acting on multiple aspects of the phenotypes, resulting in trade-offs among competing functions74–76. This finding supports previous experimental results showing that populations in complex environments can overcome fitness cost exhibiting synergistic pleiotropy74.
Supplementary information
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the NERC highlights grant NE/N016777/1 awarder to LO and JKC. We are thankful to Steven Kissane for assistance with the genome sequencing and to Ian Sewell for technical support during the laboratory exposures. KT was supported by JSPS Oversea Research Fellowships. AS was supported by the PhD program in Evolutionary Biology and Ecology (University of Ferrara, agreement with University of Firenze and University of Parma).
Author Contributions
K.T. designed and performed the CGE. A.S. performed the validation experiment and sequenced the reference strain P-IT. K.T. and M.C.C. performed statistical analysis. V.D. performed the gene-environment association analysis and the selection tests. V.R. contributed to data analysis L.O. conceived the study, coordinated data analysis, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. J.K.C. and all authors contributed to manuscript writing.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Maria Cambronero Cuenca and Vignesh Dhandapani contributed equally.
Supplementary information
Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1038/s41598-019-40946-3.
References
- 1.Hoffmann AA, Sgro CM, Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature. 2011;470:479–485. doi: 10.1038/nature09670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Donelson JM, Salinas S, Munday PL, Shama LNS. Transgenerational plasticity and climate change experiments: Where do we go from here? Global Change Biol. 2018;24:13–34. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13903. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Merilä J. Evolution in response to climate change: in pursuit of the missing evidence. BioEssays. 2012;34:811–818. doi: 10.1002/bies.201200054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hendry, A. P. Key Questions on the Role of Phenotypic Plasticity in Eco-Evolutionary Dynamics. J Hered, 10.1093/jhered/esv060 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed]
- 5.Hendry AP, Farrugia TJ, Kinnison MT. Human influences on rates of phenotypic change in wild animal populations. Mol Ecol. 2008;17:20–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294x.2007.03428x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Merilä J, Hendry AP. Climate change, adaptation, and phenotypic plasticity: the problem and the evidence. Evol Appl. 2014;7:1–14. doi: 10.1111/eva.12137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Jansen M, et al. Thermal tolerance in the keystone species Daphnia magna-a candidate gene and an outlier analysis approach. Mol Ecol. 2017;26:2291–2305. doi: 10.1111/mec.14040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Ghalambor CK, McKay JK, Carroll SP, Reznick DN. Adaptive versus non-adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments. Funct Ecol. 2007;21:394–407. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01283.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Mitchell KA, Sgro CM, Hoffmann AA. Phenotypic plasticity in upper thermal limits is weakly related to Drosophila species distributions. Funct Ecol. 2011;25:661–670. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01821.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hendry, A. P. Eco-evolutionary dynamics. (University Press, 2016).
- 11.Dubey SK, Dubey J, Mehra S, Tiwari P, Bishwas AJ. Potential use of cyanobacterial species in bioremediation of industrial effluents. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2011;10:1125–1132. [Google Scholar]
- 12.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]
- 13.Uller T, Nakagawa S, English S. Weak evidence for anticipatory parental effects in plants and animals. J Evol Biol. 2013;26:2161–2170. doi: 10.1111/jeb.12212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Salinas, S., Brown, S. C., Mangel, M. & Munch, S. B. In Non-Genetic Inheritance 38–50 (2013).
- 15.Chevin, L. M., Lande, R. & Mace, G. M. Adaptation, Plasticity, and Extinction in a Changing Environment: Towards a Predictive Theory. Plos Biology8 (2010). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 16.Herman JJ, Sultan SE. Adaptive transgenerational plasticity in plants: case studies, mechanisms, and implications for natural populations. Front Plant Sci. 2011;2:102. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2011.00102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Galloway LF, Etterson JR. Transgenerational plasticity is adaptive in the wild. Science. 2007;318:1134–1136. doi: 10.1126/science.1148766. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Bonduriansky R, Crean AJ, Day T. The implications of nongenetic inheritance for evolution in changing environments. Evol Appl. 2012;5:192–201. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00213.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. UK: Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. (2013).
- 20.IPCC. Summary for policymakers 1–32 (Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2014).
- 21.Bradshaw WE, Holzapfel CM. Evolution of Animal Photoperiodism. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 2007;38:1–25. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110115. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Bradshaw WE, Holzapfel CM. Light, time, and the physiology of biotic response to rapid climate change in animals. Annu Rev Physiol. 2010;72:147–166. doi: 10.1146/annurev-physiol-021909-135837. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Grevstad FS, Coop LB. The consequences of photoperiodism for organisms in new climates. Ecol Appl. 2015;25:1506–1517. doi: 10.1890/14-2071.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Tessier AJ, Caceres CE. Differentiation in sex investment by clones and populations of Daphnia. Ecology Letters. 2004;7:695–703. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00627.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Ebert, D. Ecology, epidemiology, and evolution of parasitism in Daphnia. (National Library of Medicine (US), National Center for Biotechnology, 2005).
- 26.Hobaek A, Larsson P. Sex determination in Daphnia magna. Ecol Evol. 1990;71:2255–2268. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Innes DJ, Singleton DR. Variation in allocation to sexual and asexual reproduction among clones of cyclically parthenogenetic Daphnia pulex (Crustacea: Cladocera) Biol J Linn Soc. 2000;71:771–787. doi: 10.1006/bijl.2000.0474. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Yampolsky LY. Genetic-Variation in the Sexual Reproduction Rate within a Population of a Cyclic Parthenogen, Daphnia-Magna. Evolution. 1992;46:833–837. doi: 10.2307/2409651. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Frisch D, et al. A millennial-scale chronicle of evolutionary responses to cultural eutrophication in Daphnia. Ecol Lett. 2014;17:360–368. doi: 10.1111/ele.12237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Orsini L, et al. Temporal genetic stability in natural populations of the waterflea Daphnia magna in response to strong selection pressure. Molecular Ecology. 2016;25:6024–6038. doi: 10.1111/mec.13907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Orsini L, Spanier KI, De Meester L. Genomic signature of natural and anthropogenic stress in wild populations of the waterflea Daphnia magna: validation in space, time and experimental evolution. Molecular Ecology. 2012;21:2160–2175. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294x2011.05429x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Dupuis AP, Hann BJ, Climate change diapause termination and zooplankton population dynamics: an experimental and modelling approach. Freshwater Biol. 2009;54:221–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2008.02103.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Jones NT, Gilbert B. Changing climate cues differentially alter zooplankton dormancy dynamics across latitudes. J Anim Ecol. 2016;85:559–569. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Altshuler I, et al. An Integrated Multi-Disciplinary Approach for Studying Multiple Stressors in Freshwater Ecosystems: Daphnia as a Model Organism. Integr Comp Biol. 2011;51:623–633. doi: 10.1093/icb/icr103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Miner BE, De Meester L, Pfrender ME, Lampert W, Hairston NG. Linking genes to communities and ecosystems: Daphnia as an ecogenomic model. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci. 2012;279:1873–1882. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.2404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Cambronero, C. M., Zeis, B. & Orsini, L. Haemoglobin-mediated response to hyper-thermal stress in the keystone species Daphnia magna. Evol Appl in press (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 37.Stoks, R., Govaert, L., Pauwels, K., Jansen, B. & De Meester, L. Resurrecting complexity: the interplay of plasticity and rapid evolution in the multiple trait response to strong changes in predation pressure in the water flea Daphnia magna. Ecol Lett, 10.1111/ele.12551 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed]
- 38.Cambronero Cuenca M, Orsini L. Resurrection of dormant Daphnia magna: protocol and applications. JoVE. 2018;131:e56637. doi: 10.3791/56637. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Cambronero CM, et al. Predictability of the impact of multiple stressors on the keystone species Daphnia. Sci Rep-Uk. 2018;8:17572. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35861-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Reisser CMO, et al. Transition from Environmental to Partial Genetic Sex Determination in Daphnia through the Evolution of a Female-Determining Incipient W Chromosome. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34:575–588. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msw251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Roulin AC, Bourgeois Y, Stiefel U, Walser JC, Ebert D. A Photoreceptor Contributes to the Natural Variation of Diapause Induction in Daphnia magna. Mol Biol Evol. 2016;33:3194–3204. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msw200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Sayer C, Davidson A, Jones JI. Seasonal dynamics of macrophytes and phytoplankton in shallow lakes: a eutrophication-driven pathway from plants to plankton? Freshwater Biol. 2010;55:500–513. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02365.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Berg S, Jeppesen E, Sondergaard M, Mortensen E. Environmental-effects of introducing Whitefish, Coregonus- Lavaretus (L), in Lake Ring. Hydrobiologia. 1994;276:71–79. doi: 10.1007/BF00026701. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 44.R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Vienna, Austria, 2017).
- 45.Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression, Second Edition. (Sage Publications, 2011).
- 46.Roff, D. A. Phenotypic Plasticity and Reaction Norms. (Springer, 1997).
- 47.Lewontin RC, Krakauer J. Distribution of gene frequency as a test of the theory of selective neutrality of polymorphisms. Genetics. 1973;74:175–195. doi: 10.1093/genetics/74.1.175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Dieringer D, Schlötterer C. Microsatellite analyser (MSA): a platform independent analysis tool for large microsatellite data sets. Mol Ecol Notes. 2003;3:167–169. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-8286.2003.00351.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Excoffier L, Laval G, Schneider S. Arlequin ver. 3.0: An integrated software package for population genetics data analysis. Evolutionary Bioinformatics Online. 2005;1:47–50. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Rozas J, Sanchez-DelBarrio JC, Messeguer X, Rozas R. DnaSP, DNA polymorphism analyses by the coalescent and other methods. Bioinformatics. 2003;19:2496–2497. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Bradbury PJ, et al. TASSEL: software for association mapping of complex traits in diverse samples. Bioinformatics. 2007;23:2633–2635. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Shama LNS, Wegner KM. Grandparental effects in marine sticklebacks: transgenerational plasticity across multiple generations. J Evolution Biol. 2014;27:2297–2307. doi: 10.1111/jeb.12490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Walsh, M. R. et al. Local adaptation in transgenerational responses to predators. Proc Biol Sci 283, 10.1098/rspb.2015.2271 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 54.Walsh, M. R., Cooley, F., Biles, K. & Munch, S. B. Predator-induced phenotypic plasticity within- and across-generations: a challenge for theory? P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 282, ARTN 20142205, 10.1098/rspb.2014.2205 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 55.Nogues-Bravo D, et al. Cracking the Code of Biodiversity Responses to Past Climate Change. Trends Ecol Evol. 2018;33:765–776. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2018.07.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Orsini L, et al. The evolutionary time machine: using dormant propagules to forecast how populations can adapt to changing environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2013;28:274–282. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.01.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. (Sinauer Associates, 1998).
- 58.Hallsson LR, Chenoweth SF, Bonduriansky R. The relative importance of genetic and nongenetic inheritance in relation to trait plasticity in Callosobruchus maculatus. J Evolution Biol. 2012;25:2422–2431. doi: 10.1111/jeb.12014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Shama LN. Bet hedging in a warming ocean: predictability of maternal environment shapes offspring size variation in marine sticklebacks. Glob Chang. Biol. 2015;21:4387–4400. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Burton T, Metcalfe NB. Can environmental conditions experienced in early life influence future generations? Proceedings of the Royal Society London Series B: Biological Sciences. 2014;281:20140311. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.0311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Feil R, Fraga MF. Epigenetics and the environment: Emergin patterns and implications. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2012;13:97–109. doi: 10.1038/nrg3142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Angilletta, M. J. Thermal Adaptation: A Theoretical and Empirical Synthesis. (Oxford University Press, 2009).
- 63.Cambronero CM, Beasley J, Kissane S, Orsini L. Evolution of thermal tolerance in multifarious environments. Molecular Ecology. 2018;27:4529–4541. doi: 10.1111/mec.14890. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Jackson MC, Loewen CJG, Vinebrooke RD, Chimimba CT. Net effects of multiple stressors in freshwater ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biol. 2016;22:180–189. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Canudas S, et al. dSAP18 and dHDAC1 contribute to the functional regulation of the Drosophila Fab-7 element. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33:4857–4864. doi: 10.1093/nar/gki776. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Costa E, Beltran S, Espinas ML. Drosophila melanogaster SAP18 protein is required for environmental stress responses. Febs Letters. 2011;585:275–280. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2010.11.058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Foronda D, Martin P, Sanchez-Herrero E. Drosophila Hox and Sex-Determination Genes Control Segment Elimination through EGFR and extramacrochetae Activity. Plos Genet. 2012;8:e1002874. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002874. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Corona M, Libbrecht R, Wheeler DE. Molecular mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity in social insects. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2016;13:55–60. doi: 10.1016/j.cois.2015.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Tatarazako N, Oda S, Watanabe H, Morita M, Iguchi T. Juvenile hormone agonists affect the occurrence of male Daphnia. Chemosphere. 2003;53:827–833. doi: 10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00761-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Toyota K, et al. Methyl farnesoate synthesis is necessary for the environmental sex determination in the water flea Daphnia pulex. J Insect Physiol. 2015;80:22–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2015.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Rivera-Perez C, et al. Aldehyde Dehydrogenase 3 Converts Farnesal into Farnesoic Acid in the Corpora Allata of Mosquitoes. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 2013;43:675–682. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2013.04.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Gorbi G, Moroni F, Sei S, Rossi V. Anticipatory maternal effects in two different clones of Daphnia magna in response to food shortage. Journal of Limnology. 2011;70:222–230. doi: 10.3274/Jl11-70-2-05. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Lande R, Price T. Genetic correlations and maternal effect coefficients obtained from offspring-parent regression. Genetics. 1989;122:915–922. doi: 10.1093/genetics/122.4.915. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.McGee LW, et al. Synergistic Pleiotropy Overrides the Costs of Complexity in Viral Adaptation. Genetics. 2016;202:285–295. doi: 10.1534/genetics.115.181628. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Ostman B, Hintze A, Adami C. Impact of epistasis and pleiotropy on evolutionary adaptation. Proc Biol Sci. 2012;279:247–256. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0870. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Otto SP. Two steps forward, one step back: the pleiotropic effects of favoured alleles. Proc Biol Sci. 2004;271:705–714. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Tajima F. Statistical method for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism. Genetics. 1989;123:585–595. doi: 10.1093/genetics/123.3.585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Fu YX, Li WH. Statistical tests of neutrality of mutations. Genetics. 1993;133:693–709. doi: 10.1093/genetics/133.3.693. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.


