Investment in regeneration versus asexual reproduction is resource‐dependent in a freshwater annelid
The post‐embryonic developmental processes of regeneration and asexual agametic reproduction are widespread and often co‐occur in animals. These traits are of great ecological significance, but their physiological dynamics within species are not well understood. In naid annelids, regeneration and as...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Functional ecology 2024-04, Vol.38 (4), p.739-754 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 754 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 739 |
container_title | Functional ecology |
container_volume | 38 |
creator | Rennolds, Corey W. Bely, Alexandra E. |
description | The post‐embryonic developmental processes of regeneration and asexual agametic reproduction are widespread and often co‐occur in animals. These traits are of great ecological significance, but their physiological dynamics within species are not well understood. In naid annelids, regeneration and asexual reproduction via fission are evolutionarily related and mechanistically similar yet distinct, making these animals useful systems in which to study resource allocation strategies between the two processes.
How asexual reproductive investment varies as a function of somatic investment demands was tested in the naid
Pristina leidyi
by repeatedly amputating the heads of individual worms, allowing regeneration to proceed, and measuring reproductive output over time. Treatments were replicated under high and low food levels to determine to what extent the investment dynamic between regeneration and fission is affected by the resource pool.
Reproductive output was affected by injury and regeneration frequency in a resource‐dependent manner, such that only worms with less food availability exhibited reproductive deficits; injury and regeneration did not affect reproductive output of worms under the high food condition. When reproductive output was decreased, this occurred not through a reduction in offspring quantity but a reduction in offspring quality. In the offspring of experimental animals, body size and fission speed were dependent on parental feeding level and to a lesser and inconsistent extent on parental injury history, but regeneration speed was unaffected by parental treatment.
These findings suggest that, in a species capable of both regeneration and asexual reproduction: (1) the resource pool is a key factor mediating the resource investment pattern between regeneration and fission; (2) sacrificing per‐offspring investment rather than fecundity may be an optimal strategy if resources are limiting; (3) regeneration and fission have evolved distinct resource allocation pathways. This work prompts further questions about the physiological dynamics between regeneration and asexual reproduction in animals, such as whether and to what extent these have evolved adaptively, including in response to injury and resource pressures.
Read the free
Plain Language Summary
for this article on the Journal blog. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/1365-2435.14525 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3030960281</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3030960281</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c310t-384990be2491d22c3a5647634f0bfd7ba2a8a67ad03872520cd8db895e00dd553</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9UMtOwzAQtBBIlMKZayTOadfPOEdU8ahUiQucLSfeQKrWKXZS4MYn8I18Ce5D7GW1O6PZ2SHkmsKEpppSrmTOBJcTKiSTJ2T0vzklI2CqzLVQ_JxcxLgEgFIyNiLN3G8x9mv0fdb6LOAregy2bzufbTHEIWY24udgVwnbhM4N9R5rY5pjN4Qaf79_HG7Qu6OGzZoEvX3YHkNmvcdV6y7JWWNXEa-OfUxe7u-eZ4_54ulhPrtd5DWn0Odci7KECpkoqWOs5lYqUSguGqgaV1SWWW1VYR1wXTDJoHbaVbqUCOCclHxMbg66yer7kB4zy-TRp5OGA4dSAdM0saYHVh26GAM2ZhPatQ1fhoLZhWl20ZlddGYfJv8DiUhpLQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3030960281</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Investment in regeneration versus asexual reproduction is resource‐dependent in a freshwater annelid</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Rennolds, Corey W. ; Bely, Alexandra E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rennolds, Corey W. ; Bely, Alexandra E.</creatorcontrib><description>The post‐embryonic developmental processes of regeneration and asexual agametic reproduction are widespread and often co‐occur in animals. These traits are of great ecological significance, but their physiological dynamics within species are not well understood. In naid annelids, regeneration and asexual reproduction via fission are evolutionarily related and mechanistically similar yet distinct, making these animals useful systems in which to study resource allocation strategies between the two processes.
How asexual reproductive investment varies as a function of somatic investment demands was tested in the naid
Pristina leidyi
by repeatedly amputating the heads of individual worms, allowing regeneration to proceed, and measuring reproductive output over time. Treatments were replicated under high and low food levels to determine to what extent the investment dynamic between regeneration and fission is affected by the resource pool.
Reproductive output was affected by injury and regeneration frequency in a resource‐dependent manner, such that only worms with less food availability exhibited reproductive deficits; injury and regeneration did not affect reproductive output of worms under the high food condition. When reproductive output was decreased, this occurred not through a reduction in offspring quantity but a reduction in offspring quality. In the offspring of experimental animals, body size and fission speed were dependent on parental feeding level and to a lesser and inconsistent extent on parental injury history, but regeneration speed was unaffected by parental treatment.
These findings suggest that, in a species capable of both regeneration and asexual reproduction: (1) the resource pool is a key factor mediating the resource investment pattern between regeneration and fission; (2) sacrificing per‐offspring investment rather than fecundity may be an optimal strategy if resources are limiting; (3) regeneration and fission have evolved distinct resource allocation pathways. This work prompts further questions about the physiological dynamics between regeneration and asexual reproduction in animals, such as whether and to what extent these have evolved adaptively, including in response to injury and resource pressures.
Read the free
Plain Language Summary
for this article on the Journal blog.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0269-8463</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2435</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1365-2435.14525</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Animals ; Asexual reproduction ; Body size ; Fecundity ; Fission ; Food ; Food availability ; Injuries ; Offspring ; Physiology ; Reduction ; Regeneration ; Reproduction ; Resource allocation</subject><ispartof>Functional ecology, 2024-04, Vol.38 (4), p.739-754</ispartof><rights>2024. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c310t-384990be2491d22c3a5647634f0bfd7ba2a8a67ad03872520cd8db895e00dd553</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c310t-384990be2491d22c3a5647634f0bfd7ba2a8a67ad03872520cd8db895e00dd553</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7437-8909</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rennolds, Corey W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bely, Alexandra E.</creatorcontrib><title>Investment in regeneration versus asexual reproduction is resource‐dependent in a freshwater annelid</title><title>Functional ecology</title><description>The post‐embryonic developmental processes of regeneration and asexual agametic reproduction are widespread and often co‐occur in animals. These traits are of great ecological significance, but their physiological dynamics within species are not well understood. In naid annelids, regeneration and asexual reproduction via fission are evolutionarily related and mechanistically similar yet distinct, making these animals useful systems in which to study resource allocation strategies between the two processes.
How asexual reproductive investment varies as a function of somatic investment demands was tested in the naid
Pristina leidyi
by repeatedly amputating the heads of individual worms, allowing regeneration to proceed, and measuring reproductive output over time. Treatments were replicated under high and low food levels to determine to what extent the investment dynamic between regeneration and fission is affected by the resource pool.
Reproductive output was affected by injury and regeneration frequency in a resource‐dependent manner, such that only worms with less food availability exhibited reproductive deficits; injury and regeneration did not affect reproductive output of worms under the high food condition. When reproductive output was decreased, this occurred not through a reduction in offspring quantity but a reduction in offspring quality. In the offspring of experimental animals, body size and fission speed were dependent on parental feeding level and to a lesser and inconsistent extent on parental injury history, but regeneration speed was unaffected by parental treatment.
These findings suggest that, in a species capable of both regeneration and asexual reproduction: (1) the resource pool is a key factor mediating the resource investment pattern between regeneration and fission; (2) sacrificing per‐offspring investment rather than fecundity may be an optimal strategy if resources are limiting; (3) regeneration and fission have evolved distinct resource allocation pathways. This work prompts further questions about the physiological dynamics between regeneration and asexual reproduction in animals, such as whether and to what extent these have evolved adaptively, including in response to injury and resource pressures.
Read the free
Plain Language Summary
for this article on the Journal blog.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Asexual reproduction</subject><subject>Body size</subject><subject>Fecundity</subject><subject>Fission</subject><subject>Food</subject><subject>Food availability</subject><subject>Injuries</subject><subject>Offspring</subject><subject>Physiology</subject><subject>Reduction</subject><subject>Regeneration</subject><subject>Reproduction</subject><subject>Resource allocation</subject><issn>0269-8463</issn><issn>1365-2435</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9UMtOwzAQtBBIlMKZayTOadfPOEdU8ahUiQucLSfeQKrWKXZS4MYn8I18Ce5D7GW1O6PZ2SHkmsKEpppSrmTOBJcTKiSTJ2T0vzklI2CqzLVQ_JxcxLgEgFIyNiLN3G8x9mv0fdb6LOAregy2bzufbTHEIWY24udgVwnbhM4N9R5rY5pjN4Qaf79_HG7Qu6OGzZoEvX3YHkNmvcdV6y7JWWNXEa-OfUxe7u-eZ4_54ulhPrtd5DWn0Odci7KECpkoqWOs5lYqUSguGqgaV1SWWW1VYR1wXTDJoHbaVbqUCOCclHxMbg66yer7kB4zy-TRp5OGA4dSAdM0saYHVh26GAM2ZhPatQ1fhoLZhWl20ZlddGYfJv8DiUhpLQ</recordid><startdate>202404</startdate><enddate>202404</enddate><creator>Rennolds, Corey W.</creator><creator>Bely, Alexandra E.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7437-8909</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202404</creationdate><title>Investment in regeneration versus asexual reproduction is resource‐dependent in a freshwater annelid</title><author>Rennolds, Corey W. ; Bely, Alexandra E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c310t-384990be2491d22c3a5647634f0bfd7ba2a8a67ad03872520cd8db895e00dd553</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Asexual reproduction</topic><topic>Body size</topic><topic>Fecundity</topic><topic>Fission</topic><topic>Food</topic><topic>Food availability</topic><topic>Injuries</topic><topic>Offspring</topic><topic>Physiology</topic><topic>Reduction</topic><topic>Regeneration</topic><topic>Reproduction</topic><topic>Resource allocation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rennolds, Corey W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bely, Alexandra E.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Functional ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rennolds, Corey W.</au><au>Bely, Alexandra E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Investment in regeneration versus asexual reproduction is resource‐dependent in a freshwater annelid</atitle><jtitle>Functional ecology</jtitle><date>2024-04</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>739</spage><epage>754</epage><pages>739-754</pages><issn>0269-8463</issn><eissn>1365-2435</eissn><abstract>The post‐embryonic developmental processes of regeneration and asexual agametic reproduction are widespread and often co‐occur in animals. These traits are of great ecological significance, but their physiological dynamics within species are not well understood. In naid annelids, regeneration and asexual reproduction via fission are evolutionarily related and mechanistically similar yet distinct, making these animals useful systems in which to study resource allocation strategies between the two processes.
How asexual reproductive investment varies as a function of somatic investment demands was tested in the naid
Pristina leidyi
by repeatedly amputating the heads of individual worms, allowing regeneration to proceed, and measuring reproductive output over time. Treatments were replicated under high and low food levels to determine to what extent the investment dynamic between regeneration and fission is affected by the resource pool.
Reproductive output was affected by injury and regeneration frequency in a resource‐dependent manner, such that only worms with less food availability exhibited reproductive deficits; injury and regeneration did not affect reproductive output of worms under the high food condition. When reproductive output was decreased, this occurred not through a reduction in offspring quantity but a reduction in offspring quality. In the offspring of experimental animals, body size and fission speed were dependent on parental feeding level and to a lesser and inconsistent extent on parental injury history, but regeneration speed was unaffected by parental treatment.
These findings suggest that, in a species capable of both regeneration and asexual reproduction: (1) the resource pool is a key factor mediating the resource investment pattern between regeneration and fission; (2) sacrificing per‐offspring investment rather than fecundity may be an optimal strategy if resources are limiting; (3) regeneration and fission have evolved distinct resource allocation pathways. This work prompts further questions about the physiological dynamics between regeneration and asexual reproduction in animals, such as whether and to what extent these have evolved adaptively, including in response to injury and resource pressures.
Read the free
Plain Language Summary
for this article on the Journal blog.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/1365-2435.14525</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7437-8909</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0269-8463 |
ispartof | Functional ecology, 2024-04, Vol.38 (4), p.739-754 |
issn | 0269-8463 1365-2435 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_3030960281 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Animals Asexual reproduction Body size Fecundity Fission Food Food availability Injuries Offspring Physiology Reduction Regeneration Reproduction Resource allocation |
title | Investment in regeneration versus asexual reproduction is resource‐dependent in a freshwater annelid |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T18%3A11%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Investment%20in%20regeneration%20versus%20asexual%20reproduction%20is%20resource%E2%80%90dependent%20in%20a%20freshwater%20annelid&rft.jtitle=Functional%20ecology&rft.au=Rennolds,%20Corey%20W.&rft.date=2024-04&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=739&rft.epage=754&rft.pages=739-754&rft.issn=0269-8463&rft.eissn=1365-2435&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1365-2435.14525&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3030960281%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3030960281&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |