Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6.
Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2012 May 1;176(3):286-95. doi: 10.1016/j.ygcen.2011.11.028. Epub 2011 Dec 1.
Life-histories provide a powerful, conceptual framework for integration of endocrinology, evolutionary biology and ecology. This has been a commonly articulated statement but here I show, in the context of avian reproduction, that true integration of ultimate and proximate approaches has been slow. We have only a rudimentary understanding of the physiological and hormonal basis of phenotypic variation in (a) reproductive traits that contribute most to individual variation in lifetime fitness in birds (e.g. laying date, clutch size, parental effort) and (b) trade-offs that link these traits or that link reproduction to other life stages (e.g. migration, molt). I suggest that some reasons for this relative lack of progress include (a) an increasingly reductionist and centralist (upstream) focus which is more and more removed from ecological/evolutionary context, and from peripheral (downstream) mechanisms that actually determine how phenotypes work (b) a long-standing male-bias in experimental studies, even though the key reproductive traits which contribute most to variation in fitness are female-specific traits (e.g. onset of vitellogenesis, egg size or number). Endocrine systems provide strong candidate mechanisms for regulation of phenotypic variation in single traits, and two endocrine concepts capture the essence of life-history trade-offs: (a) hormonal 'pleiotropy', when single hormones have both positive and negative effects on multiple physiological systems and (b) hormonal conflict between regulatory systems required for different but over-lapping or linked life-history stages. I illustrate these ideas with examples of reproductive anemia, migration-reproduction overlap, and molt-breeding overlap, to highlight some of the tremendous opportunities that exist for comparative endocrinologists to contribute to mechanistic studies of avian reproduction in an evolutionary context.
生活史为内分泌学、进化生物学和生态学的整合提供了一个强大的概念框架。这是一个普遍表达的观点,但在这里,我以鸟类繁殖为例表明,终极和近因方法的真正整合一直很缓慢。我们对(a)在鸟类中对终生适应度有最大贡献的繁殖特征(如产卵日期、窝卵数、亲代投入)和(b)将这些特征联系起来或将繁殖与其他生命阶段(如迁徙、换羽)联系起来的权衡机制的表型变异的生理和激素基础只有初步的了解。我认为,这种相对缺乏进展的一些原因包括:(a)一种日益简化和集中(上游)的焦点,这种焦点越来越脱离生态/进化背景,以及实际决定表型如何发挥作用的外围(下游)机制;(b)即使是对适应度变化贡献最大的关键繁殖特征是雌性特有的特征,但实验研究中仍然存在长期的雄性偏见。内分泌系统为调节单一特征的表型变异提供了强有力的候选机制,两个内分泌概念抓住了生活史权衡的本质:(a)激素“多效性”,即单个激素对多个生理系统既有积极影响,也有消极影响;(b)不同但重叠或相关的生活史阶段所需的调节系统之间的激素冲突。我用繁殖贫血、迁徙-繁殖重叠和换羽-繁殖重叠的例子来说明这些想法,以突出比较内分泌学家在进化背景下为鸟类繁殖的机制研究做出贡献的巨大机会。