Wada Haruka, Sewall Kendra B
*Department of Biology, Auburn University, 101 Rouse Life Science Building, Auburn, AL 36849, USA; Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, 1405 Perry Street, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
Integr Comp Biol. 2014 Nov;54(5):774-82. doi: 10.1093/icb/icu097. Epub 2014 Jun 27.
Diverse subfields of biology have addressed phenotypic plasticity, but have emphasized different aspects of the definition, thereby shaping the questions that are asked and the methodological approaches that are employed. A key difference between studies of plasticity in the fields of evolutionary biology and physiology is the degree of focus upon the contribution of genetic variance to plastic traits. Although evolutionary biology is generally focused on the heritability and adaptive value of plastic traits and therefore the potential for plasticity to impact changes in traits across generations, physiological studies have historically focused on the timing and reversibility of plastic change across seasons or ages and the mechanisms underlying traits' plasticity. In this review and the symposium from which it emerged, we aimed to highlight ways that integrative biologists can better communicate about their research and design better studies to address phenotypic plasticity. Evolutionary theory clarifies the need to assess fitness using reliable measures, such as survival and reproductive success, and to consider the heritability and genetic variance underlying plasticity. Reciprocally, physiological research demonstrates that understanding the mechanisms that permit, or limit, plasticity, whether through pleiotropic effects, developmental, or functional linkages between traits, or epigenetic modifications, will shed light on limitations to phenotypic plasticity. Uniting the fields of evolution and physiology to address all aspects of phenotypic plasticity will be increasingly important as the rate of anthropogenic environmental change increases and biologists must predict the responses of wild populations to novel environments, as well as determine the most effective conservation interventions.
生物学的不同子领域都探讨了表型可塑性，但各自强调了定义的不同方面，从而塑造了所提出的问题以及所采用的方法论途径。进化生物学和生理学领域对可塑性的研究之间的一个关键差异在于，对遗传变异对可塑性性状的贡献的关注程度不同。虽然进化生物学通常关注可塑性性状的遗传力和适应性价值，以及可塑性对跨代性状变化产生影响的潜力，但生理学研究历来关注可塑性变化在不同季节或年龄的时间和可逆性，以及性状可塑性的潜在机制。在本次综述以及由此产生的研讨会上，我们旨在强调综合生物学家能够更好地交流其研究内容并设计更好的研究以解决表型可塑性问题的方法。进化理论阐明了使用可靠指标（如生存和繁殖成功率）评估适应性的必要性，并考虑可塑性背后的遗传力和遗传变异。相反，生理学研究表明，了解允许或限制可塑性的机制，无论是通过多效性效应、性状之间的发育或功能联系，还是表观遗传修饰，都将有助于揭示表型可塑性的局限性。随着人为环境变化速度的加快，将进化和生理学领域结合起来以解决表型可塑性的各个方面将变得越来越重要，生物学家必须预测野生种群对新环境的反应，并确定最有效的保护措施。
