61
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Artificial Selection on Relative Brain Size in the Guppy Reveals Costs and Benefits of Evolving a Larger Brain

      brief-report

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          The large variation in brain size that exists in the animal kingdom has been suggested to have evolved through the balance between selective advantages of greater cognitive ability and the prohibitively high energy demands of a larger brain (the “expensive-tissue hypothesis” [ 1]). Despite over a century of research on the evolution of brain size, empirical support for the trade-off between cognitive ability and energetic costs is based exclusively on correlative evidence [ 2], and the theory remains controversial [ 3, 4]. Here we provide experimental evidence for costs and benefits of increased brain size. We used artificial selection for large and small brain size relative to body size in a live-bearing fish, the guppy ( Poecilia reticulata), and found that relative brain size evolved rapidly in response to divergent selection in both sexes. Large-brained females outperformed small-brained females in a numerical learning assay designed to test cognitive ability. Moreover, large-brained lines, especially males, developed smaller guts, as predicted by the expensive-tissue hypothesis [ 1], and produced fewer offspring. We propose that the evolution of brain size is mediated by a functional trade-off between increased cognitive ability and reproductive performance and discuss the implications of these findings for vertebrate brain evolution.

          Highlights

          ► Brain size responded rapidly to divergent selection in the guppy ► Large-brained females outperformed small-brained females in a learning task ► Evolution of larger brains leads to smaller guts and lower offspring number

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Expensive Brain: a framework for explaining evolutionary changes in brain size.

          To explain variation in relative brain size among homoiothermic vertebrates, we propose the Expensive Brain hypothesis as a unifying explanatory framework. It claims that the costs of a relatively large brain must be met by any combination of increased total energy turnover or reduced energy allocation to another expensive function such as digestion, locomotion, or production (growth and reproduction). Focusing on the energetic costs of brain enlargement, a comparative analysis of the largest mammalian sample assembled to date shows that an increase in brain size leads to larger neonates among all mammals and a longer period of immaturity among monotokous precocial species, but not among the polytokous altricial ones, who instead reduce their litter size. Relatively large brained mammals, altricial and precocial, also show reduced annual fertility rates as compared to their smaller brained relatives, but allomaternal energy inputs allow some cooperatively breeding altricial carnivores to produce even more offspring in a shorter time despite having a relatively large brain. Thus, the Expensive Brain framework explains why brain size is linked to life history pace in some, but not all mammalian lineages. This framework encompasses other hypotheses of energetic constraints on brain size variation and is also compatible with the Brain Malnutrition Risk hypothesis, but the absence of a mammal-wide correlation between brain size and immature period argues against the Needing-to-Learn explanation for slower development among large brained mammals.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Revisiting the cognitive buffer hypothesis for the evolution of large brains.

            Daniel Sol (2009)
            Why have some animals evolved large brains despite substantial energetic and developmental costs? A classic answer is that a large brain facilitates the construction of behavioural responses to unusual, novel or complex socioecological challenges. This buffer effect should increase survival rates and favour a longer reproductive life, thereby compensating for the costs of delayed reproduction. Although still limited, evidence in birds and mammals is accumulating that a large brain facilitates the construction of novel and altered behavioural patterns and that this ability helps dealing with new ecological challenges more successfully, supporting the cognitive-buffer interpretation of the evolution of large brains.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Costs of encephalization: the energy trade-off hypothesis tested on birds.

              Costs and benefits of encephalization are a major topic of debate in the study of primate and human evolution. Comparative studies provide an opportunity to test the validity of a hypothesis as a general principle, rather than it being a special case in primate or hominid evolution. If a population evolves a larger brain, the metabolic costs of doing so must be paid for by either an increased energy turnover (direct metabolic constraint) or by a trade-off with other energetically expensive costs of body maintenance, locomotion, or reproduction, here referred to as the energy trade-off hypothesis, an extension of the influential Expensive Tissue Hypothesis of Aiello and Wheeler (1995, Curr. Anthropol. 36, 199-221). In the present paper, we tested these hypotheses on birds using raw species values, family means, and independent contrasts analysis to account for phylogenetic influences. First, we tested whether basal metabolic rates are correlated with brain mass or any other variable of interest. This not being the case, we examined various trade-offs between brain mass and the mass of other expensive tissues such as gut mass, which is approximated by gut length or diet quality. Only weak support was found for this original Expensive Tissue Hypothesis in birds. However, other energy allocations such as locomotor mode and reproductive strategy may also be reduced to shunt energy to an enlarged brain. We found a significantly negative correlation between brain mass and pectoral muscle mass, which averages 18% of body mass in birds and is indicative of their relative costs of flight. Reproductive costs, on the other hand, are positively correlated with brain mass in birds. An increase in brain mass may allow birds to devote more energy to reproduction, although not through an increase in their own energy budget as in mammals, but through direct provisioning of their offspring. The trade-off between locomotor costs and brain mass in birds lets us conclude that an analogous effect could have played a role in the evolution of a larger brain in human evolution.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Curr Biol
                Curr. Biol
                Current Biology
                Cell Press
                0960-9822
                1879-0445
                21 January 2013
                21 January 2013
                : 23
                : 2
                : 168-171
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Animal Ecology, Department of Ecology and Genetics, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18D, 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
                [2 ]Evolutionary Biology, Department of Ecology and Genetics, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18D, 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author niclas.kolm@ 123456ebc.uu.se
                Article
                CURBIO10014
                10.1016/j.cub.2012.11.058
                3566478
                23290552
                ec822f03-0421-4865-a901-1a767d51c0e1
                © 2013 ELL & Excerpta Medica.

                This document may be redistributed and reused, subject to certain conditions.

                History
                : 4 October 2012
                : 9 November 2012
                : 29 November 2012
                Categories
                Report

                Life sciences
                Life sciences

                Comments

                Comment on this article