Download tive structures) or than characters whose pattern is impressed on

Advances in Genetics 13: 115-155 (1965)
EVOLUTIONARY SIGNIFICANCE OF PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY IN PLANTS
A. D. Bradshaw
Department of Agricultural Botany University College of North Wales, Bangor, Wales
and Department of Agronomy, University of California, Davis, California
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
Introduction
Genetic Control of Plasticity
Fitness, Plasticity, and Selection
Conditions Favoring Plasticity
A. Disruptive Selection
B. Directional Selection
C. Stabilizing Selection
Conditions Disfavoring Plasticity
Mechanisms of Plasticity
Fixed Phenotypic Variation
Conclusions
A. General Characteristics of Plasticity
B. Interrelationship of Plasticities of Different Characters
C. Open Problems
D. Plasticity in Crop Plants
Summary
References
Page
115
117
124
125
126
136
137
138
140
114
145
145
116
148
149
149
151
I. Introduction
One must take into account the organism's capacity for adaptive plasticity. In this regard the question which will
undoubtedly receive especial attention in the future is to what extent different species or forms show different
degrees of individual adaptive modification. (Nilsson-Ehle, 1914, p. 549, Trans. S. A. Cook.)
We are becoming increasingly aware that the individual cannot be considered out of the context of its
environment. The way in which it reacts to different environments is as much part of its characteristics as
its appearance and qualities in a single environment At the present time there is a great deal of interest in
the way in which an individual can maintain stability in the face of varying environmental influences. A
considerable amount of evidence has shown that this stability is under genetic control. Much of the
evidence has taken the viewpoint that stability and adaptation are correlated and that lack of stability
indicates lack of adaptation. But as Nilsson-Ehle implies, it seems that plasticity, or lack of stability, can
be of positive adaptive value in many circumstances. This essay seeks to explore this viewpoint further.
An individual genotype assumes particular characteristics in a given environment. In a second
environment it may remain the same, or it may be different. The amount by which the expressions of
individual characteristics of a genotype are changed by different environments is a measure of the
plasticity of these characters. Plasticity is therefore shown by a genotype when its expression is able to be
altered by environmental influences. The change that occurs can be termed the response. Since all
changes in the characters of an organism which are not genetic are environmental, plasticity is applicable
to all intragenotypic variability.
If plasticity is given this definition then it is necessary to remember that it can have two manifestations,
(a) morphological and (b) physiological. All changes are physiological in origin, so fundamentally all
plasticity is physiological. Where physiological changes have predominantly morphological end effects
however, we can talk about morphological plasticity. Such changes will occur during the course of
development: they are likely to be permanent for the organ involved. Purely physiological changes, by
contrast, can occur at any time, even in mature organs: these may be reversible and not permanent. These
two sorts of plasticity will be closely interrelated, often reciprocally, since morphological stability may
result from physiological plasticity. Because physiological changes are less easy to observe than
morphological changes it is inevitable that most of the evidence about plasticity is concerned with the
latter.
Plasticity in the sense defined here does not include variation which is directly genetic in origin. It is
therefore being used more narrowly than by Salisbury (1940) who included both genetically and
environmentally determined variation in his definition. His usage is ambiguous, however, since his
subsequent examples were all of environmentally determined modifications.
The concept of plasticity does not also have any implications concerning the adaptive value of the
changes occurring, although many types of plasticity may have important adaptive effects. Plasticity is
therefore not equivalent to phenotypic flexibility as used fly Thoday (1953), since the latter term is the
capacity of an organism to function in a range of environments, and may include plastic and stable
responses.
Lack of stability or instability, in the sense of Mather (1953a) and others, is the term used to describe
variation which is not genetic in origin and which has no observed environmental cause. Since the cause
is unknown the variation appears to be random in direction. It is sometimes considered to be due to
developmental errors [or developmental noise (Waddington, 1957)] arising from random changes during
development, unconnected with any environmental influences. As such it can be considered to be a
different phenomenon from plasticity, where specific modifications are induced by definite
environmental effects.
Nevertheless, this distinction seems difficult to maintain. It is clear that in many cases the modifications
included under lack of stability have distinct environmental causes, but the observations made preclude
the possibility of their determination. It is difficult to believe that any such changes do not ultimately
have definite environmental causes. This is supported by the experiments of Went (1953). For this reason
lack of stability is considered here to be part of the general phenomenon of plasticity, and evidence
concerning it will be considered. For convenience, however, the term may be retained to describe
nongenetic changes where the cause is not apparent, and the changes therefore appear random. Similarly,
stability can be used to indicate a condition where such changes do not occur. It can also be used
generally to indicate any condition where there is lack of plasticity.
Currently the term homeostasis is widely used in many contexts. In the sense of Cannon (1932) it is the
tendency for the characteristics of a physiological or morphological system to be held constant. Plasticity
of a character can therefore be equated with lack of morphological (or physiological) homeostasis of that
character, although plasticity of certain characters may lead to homeostasis of others. The use of the term,
however, has recently been confused, and its use will therefore he avoided. More lengthy discussions of
the semantic problems involved have been given by Waddington (1957, 1961) and Lewontin (1957).
II. Genetic Control of Plasticity
In order to understand the significance of environmentally induced changes, it is perhaps logical to turn
to what is known of the basic causes of such changes and details of the mechanisms involved. It has been
argued elsewhere (Allard and Bradshaw, 1964) that at the present, owing to the complexities of the
developmental pathways concerned, the interactions between pathways and environment will be so
complex that it is unlikely that much progress in understanding can be made until more detailed work on
the pathways has been carried out. Considerations of basic causes, however, have led to the argument
that the degree of plasticity shown by a character can be related to the basic pattern of its developmental
pathway. Such a viewpoint has been taken by many authors, such as Klebs (1909). Stebbins (1950) has
argued that characters formed by long periods of meristematic activity (such as over-all size, leaf number,
etc.) will he more subject to environmental influences and are likely to he more plastic than characters
formed rapidly (such as reproductive structures) or than characters whose pattern is impressed on
primordia at an early stage of development (such as bud scales, leaves, etc.). This argument can he
supported by evidence of the differences in plasticity shown by different characters in Achillea and
Potentilla in the experiments of Clausen and associates (1940, 1948). The plasticity shown by the characters
of these species can be related to their general pattern of development, i.e., its duration, complexity, the
number of interacting processes involved, etc., as shown in the tabulation:
Plastic
Size of vegetative parts
Numbers of shoots, leaves, and flowers
Elongation of stems
Hairiness
Not plastic
Pinnate leaf shape
Leaf margin serration
Shape of inflorescence
Floral characters
The contrast of the manner in which plants of determinate and indeterminate growth react to density
provides further evidence. Species of indeterminate growth such as Vicia faba tend to respond to density
by the number of parts formed, whereas species of determinate growth such as Helianthus annuus tend to
respond by changes in the size of the parts (Harper, 1961).
While basic developmental pathways are important, it does not seem possible for them to provide an
explanation of all observable differences in plasticity. In an experiment where the annual mediterranean
grass, Polypogon monspeliensis was grown under low and high fertility conditions, a hundredfold variation
occurred in the numbers of spikelets per panicle, while glume and seed size varied by only 10%
(Bradshaw, 1958). Variation in density of plants of linseed (Linum usitatissimum) caused the following
changes in different characters (Khan, 1963)
Linseed Character
Capsules/plant
Seeds/capsule
Seed weight/100 seeds
High density
5.6
8.1
6.0
Low density
77 5
9.3
5.9
L.S.D. at 5%
22.6
0.86
0.34
In both of these cases it is difficult to see, using arguments based on development, why seed number
should change so enormously with density, and seed size remain so constant. Examination of other
investigations, e.g., on barley (Ariyanayagam, 1961), on Vicia faba (Hodgson and Blackman, 1956), on
Agrostemma githago (Harper and Gajic, 1961), or on subterranean clover or others reviewed by Donald
(1963) leads to similar conclusions.
This problem can be examined in a different manner. If it was assumed that the degree of plasticity
shown by a character was the outcome of the basic pattern of its developmental pathway, certain
deductions would follow. First, since general pathways of characters cannot be changed readily, it should
not be possible for plasticity to change readily. Second, since the same organ, e.g., leaf, usually has the
same basic developmental pathway in different species, the organ should show' the same plasticity in
different species.
That such arguments are not true can be seen from a comparison of the plasticity of a single character in a
number of species. A conspicuous type of plasticity is the heterophylly shown by certain water plants.
Such heterophylly is rarely characteristic of a whole genus; more commonly it is found only in particular
species. Closely related species may differ markedly in the degree of heterophylly they show, as can be
seen from the tabulated examples:
Heterophyllous
Potamogeton natans
Ranunculus peltatus
Sparganium erectum
Juncus heterophyllus
Not heterophyllous
P. lucens
R. hederaceus
S. minimum
J. obtusiflorus
The occurrence of such differences was pointed out 70 years ago by Kerner von Marilaun and Oliver
(1895). A detailed consideration of this type of evidence will be made later in this essay.
Marked differences can similarly be found in the amount of plasticity shown by varieties within species.
Linum usitatissimum, in common with many annual plants, shows considerable plasticity in seed
production in relation to variation in density. Khan (1963) has shown that linseed (oil flax) possesses a
much greater capacity to respond in seed number to changes in density than flax (fiber flax) (Fig. I).
Indications of similar differences of plasticity in relation to density have been reported in other crops, e.g.,
in soybeans (Hinson and Hanson, 1962), in cereals (Engledow, 1925), and in sorghum (Karper, 1929).
Differences in plasticity within species in relation to other environmental factors are to be found
throughout agricultural literature, e.g., capsule number of different linseed varieties in relation to
nitrogen (Blackman and Bunting, 1954). Such differences are difficult to explain unless it is assumed that
the plasticity of a character is an independent property of that character and is under its own specific
genetic control.
Fig. 1. The response of four varieties of Linum usitatissimum to
changes in density (Khan, 1963).
The stability, as opposed to the plasticity, of genotypes has recently received considerable attention. Here
again there is evidence that the stability of a character can vary from one genotype to another and is
genetically determined. Evidence that the stability of the omnibus character of yield can vary from one
genotype to another has been reviewed by Simmonds (1962) under the term "general genotypic
adaptation," and the significance of this to plant breeding discussed by Allard and Bradshaw (1964). In
tomatoes Williams (1960) has shown that different inbred lines can differ markedly in their stability for a
number of characters and that this stability is transmitted to the F1 hybrids. An examination of his data
also shows that stability levels are specific for individual characters within a single genotype and are not
common for all characters of a single genotype. If the four inbred lines and three hybrids are ranked in
order of their standard deviations determined in experiment 1, this is very clear (Table 1). It is confirmed
by correlation analysis. None of the correlation coefficients determined between mean standard deviation
values for all possible pairs of characters approached significance at the 10% probability level.
Ariyanayagam (1961) has shown similar differences in the stability of different characteristics of pure
lines of barley in response to various environmental conditions. Evidence of a different nature is given by
the studies of chiasma frequency in rye by Rees and Thompson (1956), who showed that control of
stability of chiasma frequency between plants, between cells, and between bivalents is not the same at
these three levels.
TABLE I
Mean Standard Deviations and Their Standard Deviations of Ten Replicates of Four Inbred Lines
and Three F1 Hybrids of Tomato Ranked in Order of Magnitude*
Genotypes
Character
59
XT/1
42
XT/2
5
XT/27
18
2.11 ± 0.25
3.04 ± 0.15
3.97 ± 0.37
3.37 ± 0.33
2.71 ± 0.26
3,49 ± 0.22
2.83 ± 0.21
1
4
7
5
2
0
3
Fruit weight
0.39 ± 0.04
0.46 ± 0.01
0.28 ± 0.01
0.24 ± 0.02
0.26 ± 0.04
0.40 ± 0.03
0.48 ± 0.03
4
6
3
1
2
5
7
Weight per plant
7.63 ± 0.83
7.08 ± 0.67
7.68 ± 0.88
8.54 ± 1,27
9.24 ± 0.96
9.46 ± 0.91
7.16 ± 0.58
3
1
4
5
6
7
2
Flower number
1.81 ± 0.16
2.61 ± 0.21
1.76 ± 0.12
2,40 ± 0.20
2.02 ± 0.22
2.24 ± 0.24
3.05 ± 0.19
2
6
1
5
3
4
7
0.66 ± 0.06
0.70 ± 0.04
2.16 ± 0.21
1.05 ± 0.05
0.90 ± 0.13
0.82 ± 0.07
1.13 ± 0.09
1
2
7
5
4
3
6
Fruit number
Flowering date
* Data of Williams (1960)
Very extensive evidence is given by Clausen et al. (1940) in a series of experiments involving the growth
of contrasting populations of a number of species under sun and shade, and wet and dry, conditions.
Examination of their data shows that different characters, e.g., stem height, stem number, and flowering
time, showed markedly different levels of plasticity. Moreover, their data shows that while contrasting
populations differed in their plasticity for particular characters, such variation between populations in
the plasticity of one character was not necessarily correlated with equivalent variation in the plasticity of
another character.
Further evidence is given by Paxman (1956) on stability of various characters in Nicotiana rustica. He
demonstrated that, for various leaf and floral characters, different genotypes differed in their stability.
Such differences were not the property of the whole genotype but were specific for individual characters.
Different characters of a single organ (parts of the flower) did possess related stabilities; this might be
expected in characters very closely grouped developmentally. Unrelated characters (leaves and flowers),
however, had unrelated stabilities. By comparing the stability of characters in relation to both local
fluctuations and gross environmental changes, he showed that these were not necessarily related. While it
could be considered difficult to distinguish between these two types of environmental variation, this
observation is of considerable significance. It implies that plasticity must be considered in relation to
specific environmental effects at specific stages of development. Langridge (1963) takes the same
viewpoint. He has shown that stability due to heterosis in Arabidopsis under different conditions of stress
is specific for particular factors. It was shown very positively in relation to high temperature, but not
shown at all in relation to optimal temperature, low mineral nutrients, or other factors. It is further
confirmed by the early work of Crowther (1934) on cotton. He showed that whereas internode number of
the main axis was linked with nitrogen level, mean length was positively correlated with availability of
water.
Plasticity is therefore a property specific to individual characters in relation to specific environmental
influences. This is only an extension of the arguments of Haldane (1946) who pointed out that
genotype/environment interactions are ultimately entirely specific.
In more general investigations where single characters have been examined in relation to over-all, often
random, environmental influences, a relationship has been found in both plants and animals between
stability and degree of heterozygosity (Dobzhansky and Wallace, 1953; Lorner, 1954; Lewontin, 1957; and
others). In crop plants the evidence similarly suggests that stability of performance can be achieved by
heterozygosity (Allard and Bradshaw, 1964). It is clear, however, that there is an equal amount of
evidence that stability may be determined by gene systems unrelated to heterozygosity as such. This is
apparent from the evidence already presented. Observations on stability of certain characters in pure
lines and hybrids of the inbreeding Nicotiana rustica showed that stability was quite unrelated to the
occurrence of heterozygosity in the material (links and Mather, 1955). The same situation was found in
tomatoes (Williams, 1960). In maize it is clear from the work of Adams and Shank (1959) that while
heterozygosity has considerable effects on stability it is not in itself a sufficient explanation of stability;
hybrids belonging to the same level of heterozygosity often differed significantly in their stability.
Evidence of direct genetic control of stability in wheat has been given recently (Frankel and Munday,
1963). Flower morphogenesis is very stable in normal types of Triticum aestivum but is unstable in speltoid
mutants where Q is deleted. Experiments which are particularly critical are those where it has been
possible to modify the level of stability by selection without any alteration in heterozygosity. In Drosophila
the degree of stability of bristle pattern, determined by the degree of asymmetry, has been changed by
selection and shown to be tinder genetic control (Mather, 1953a; Thoday, 1955; Reeve, 1960). Similarly,
selection for low variance of scutellar bristles in scute flies has been effective and has incidentally caused
decreased sensitivity to temperature changes (Rendel and Sheldon, 1960). Stability of development time
has been altered by disruptive selection in a manner implying an increase in the environmental
components of variance (Prout, 1962). Waddington (1960) has been able to increase markedly the stability
of the bar phenotype in Drosophila in relation to temperature variation. In this investigation it was also
possible to show that the gene system determining the canalization of the character in question was
specific to that character and did not influence the degree of asymmetry of facet number.
The influence that selection may have on the stability or plasticity of a character is perhaps most elegantly
demonstrated in the investigations on genetic assimilation by Waddington and others (Waddington,
1961). In Drosophila the ease of production of venation phenocopies by high temperature shock was
radically altered by about a dozen generations of selection for ease of production (Waddington, 1953;
Bateman, 1959). Similarly the ease of production of bithorax by ether treatment was radically altered by
selection. In a character not involving a threshold effect Waddington (1959) was able to improve, by
selection, the capacity of a strain of Drosophila to react to increased salt content in the medium by the
development of large papillae. This is a particularly significant experiment since in this ease the changes
appear to be of adaptive significance. The altered strains show increased survival in high salt media. In
all these experiments the environmentally induced effect eventually became assimilated and determined
genetically. Nevertheless, the significance of the results to the present consideration is that the plasticity
of the genotype in one specific respect and direction could he radically altered by selection in a few
generations.
III. Fitness, Plasticity, and Selection
The evidence presented so far suggests that the plasticity of a character can be (a) specific for that
character, (b) specific in relation to particular environmental influences, (c) specific in direction, (d) under
genetic control not necessarily related to heterozygosity, and (e) radically altered by selection.
Up to this point no attempt has been made to attach any particular adaptive significance to the ability (or
otherwise) of a character to be altered by environmental influences. In many cases wide fluctuations in a
character owing to environmental influences can be considered to indicate that there is a lack of
adaptation and that the genotype concerned is inadequately buffered against the environment. This is
particularly true in animals. Wide deviations in characteristics of animals owing to environmental effects
are not usually found because of an organization which buffers the individual against the environment.
Deviations can usually be considered as indications of lack of adaptation. The classic data of Bumpus
(1899) on sparrows substantiate this. The viewpoint colors much of the current investigations on stability,
homeostasis, etc., particularly in Drosophila. It can also be true in plants. A plant at the point of death
owing to unfavorable circumstances may be very reduced and show considerable distortion. This can
readily be seen in the altitudinal transplant experiments of Clausen el al. (1940, 1948). Plants grown in
inappropriate environments in their experiments show a great reduction and upset of growth. Such
instability can be correlated with lack of adaptation to those environments.
In all organisms, however, maximum fitness does not require the same degree of stability in all
characters. As a result of natural selection those characters in which stability is paramount for survival
are likely to show greater stability than those in which some plasticity is not a disadvantage. This is
apparent from the observed coefficient of variation ascribable to asymmetry in wing length of Drosophila,
0.48%, compared with that for sternopleural chaeta number, 4.84% (Mather, 1953a).
The argument may be taken further. In some organisms plasticity in some characters may not be neutral
in adaptive value, but of positive selective advantage, as has been argued by Baur (1930), Schmalhausen
(1949), and Mather (1955). This will be particularly true in those types of organisms in which highly
complex buffering processes are not present, where the organism grows in accordance with the
opportunities provided it by the environment. Plants are essentially such organisms.
It has been pointed out that in studies of environmentally induced variation, it is not sufficient to know
that a character is of some significance in determining fitness; the effect of its variation is also pertinent
(Lewontin, 1957). In plants more is known of the effects of such variation than in other organisms. Plants
therefore provide excellent material in which we may seek to discover the adaptive value of plasticity in
evolution. Not all plasticity is adaptive, but sonic is. The conditions under which plasticity is likely to be
selected for, and the nature of the plasticity, must therefore be considered.
IV. Conditions Favoring Plasticity
It is convenient to consider plasticity in plants in relation to the various types of selection that may
operate at one time or another on plant populations, using the terminology of Mather (1953b). It will
become clear that many different conditions may favor plasticity. If this seems to result in contradictions,
it only illustrates the complexity of evolutionary processes in plants.
Two essential general points must be made at the outset. Because of their system of nutrition, plants are
essentially static, fixed organisms, incapable of movement except during reproductive processes and then
normally only by a rather passive scattering of propagules. The new generation falls to the ground and
thereafter must endure the particular environment in which it finds itself, including any fluctuations
which may occur subsequently. Because they possess complex behavioral responses and locomotory
mechanisms, animals do not of necessity have to do this. The infinity of different behavioral patterns
which have evolved in animals relate to the degree animals are often able to move from one environment
to another, evading those which are unsatisfactory to them and selecting others (Waddington, 1957). Such
behavioral plasticity has little equivalent in plants.
It should not, however, be construed that animals are always able to evade adverse conditions and have
in contrast no physiological and morphological plasticity. There are many conditions such as season,
chronic shortage of food, etc., which they cannot evade. In relation to these, many different forms of
plasticity have been evolved, e.g., in coat color, litter size, etc. Plasticity, however, appears to play a more
important part in adaptation of plants.
Plants, except those that are not holophytic, must also live in environments which provide the necessary
raw materials for their growth. In other words, they must live in situations where they are likely to he
strongly exposed to extremes of climate and other influences. At the same time the holophytic type of
nutrition can occur efficiently only in a structure which in many important respects will be more
attenuated and physically weaker than that of animals; a structure in which elaborate mechanisms
buffering the organization of the individual against the environment cannot easily be developed. The
only exceptions to this are plants such as cacti: but these achieve stability only at the expense of rapid
growth.
A plant is therefore both vulnerable in organization and unable to move away from an environment
which is unsuitable to it. Lacking behavioral plasticity, other types of plasticity are likely to he favored.
A. DISRUPTIVE SELECTION
Disruptive selection can be due to recurrent variation in selection in either time or space. If it acts on
populations without reproductive isolation, it can cause either (a) genetic polymorphism or (b) plasticity.
The part played by disruptive selection in causing genetic polymorphism has been discussed by Mather
(1955), Huxley (1955), Thoday (1959), and others. The occurrence of genetic polymorphisms in the strict
sense has been reported in plants, but much less frequently than in animals. This is difficult to
understand, since the occurrence of disruptive patterns of selection on plant populations must be no less
frequent than on animal populations. It is possible that the scarcity of evidence is due to the lack of
observation, for little is known about levels of genetic variability in plant populations; recently, several
investigators have recorded the existence of genetic variability in populations not previously suspected
(e.g., Allard, 1963; Zohary and Imber, 1963). Nevertheless, the ease with which plants are able to respond
to disruptive selection by plasticity is perhaps itself the reason why genetic polymorphisms are not
conspicuous. Theoretical support for this argument has been given by Levins (1963).
1. Disruptive Selection in Time
If a population is subject to recurrent changes in its environment, whose duration is the same as or less
than its generation time, it cannot easily respond to the contrasting environments by directly adaptive
genetic changes. If the duration of the environmental fluctuation is much less than the generation time,
any adaptation that occurs can only take place by plasticity. If the duration of a single environmental
condition is more or less equal to the generation time, it is possible for adaptation to take place by genetic
polymorphism; the particular morph that is adapted in any one generation becomes the most prevalent,
the others being reduced in number. But such a situation leads to considerable elimination of individuals;
the progeny of the best adapted plants of one generation tend to be the least well adapted in the next.
This also applies when the oscillation of the environment is longer than that of the generation time. At the
same time, any genetic adaptation that occurs is always too late (Kimura, 1955; Crow, 1955). Therefore
adaptation by plasticity is more likely. This possibility was envisaged by Darwin; "I speculated whether a
species very liable to repeated and great changes of conditions might not assume a fluctuating condition
ready to be adapted to either condition" (letter to Karl Semper, 1881).
The only situation in which adaptation to recurrent changes in environment of shorter duration than the
generation time of the population can be achieved by direct genetic changes is if the change is not
random but occurs regularly at a particular phase in the life cycle. Then intrinsically timed developmental
changes, which are genetically determined, can be evolved, adapting the population to the particular
environmental condition concerned. For example, flowering in many annuals occurs after a certain period
of growth and therefore coincides with optimal summer conditions. There is, however, a close
relationship between such changes and plasticity which is discussed further in Section VII. If the changes
are random and not regular, intrinsically determined changes cannot be successful. Only adaptation by
plasticity will be effective.
Random changes in environment coincident with, or shorter than, generation changes are almost
inevitable in plants because of the passive and therefore unselective distribution of their seeds.
Environmental conditions are neither constant in time, nor are they constant in space. The seeds shed
from a plant growing in good conditions will not all land in equally good conditions. The significance of
this is nowhere more obvious than in annual weedy and other species. During its life an annual suffers
changes in its environment, but from generation to generation the environment in which it finds itself
may also vary radically. If it is to survive it must be able to grow and reproduce effectively in each
condition. There will be selection for the individual which can both survive in a reduced state in difficult
conditions and grow vigorously in optimal conditions. The degree of over-all plasticity, particularly of
seed production, shown by annuals is in great contrast with that of perennials. The annual grass
Polypogon monspeliensis has already been discussed: its plasticity of panicle size is in marked contrast with
that of the closely related perennial Agrostis tenuis. If we examine, however, whether panicles are
produced or not, the plasticity is reversed. Under very adverse conditions P. monspeliensis still produces
panicles, although reduced in size; in contrast A. tenuis fails to produce any panicles at all. In terms of
presence or absence of sexual reproduction, the perennial here is more plastic than the annual. A similar
contrast can be made between Poa annua and Poa pratensis: and between annual and perennial Bromus
species (Stebbins, 1964). Everyone is familiar with the plasticity of weeds of cultivation in relation to soil
fertility and density. Sonchus oleraceus has been observed to vary in number of capitula from 1 to 1600
(Lewin, 1948); this is in great contrast to the related perennial Sonchus arvensis. Chenopodium album shows
remarkable plasticity in comparison with C. rubrum, which may explain its success as a weed (Cumming,
1959), Annual weeds in particular are subject to considerable fluctuation in density from one generation
to another. Agrostemma githago shows considerable plasticity in relation to density, although in contrast
Papaver species respond to density by mortality of some individuals (harper and Gajic, 1961). The contrast
in the plasticity that can be found within a single annual species Linum usitatissimum, between flax and
linseed, which have become adapted to being sown at different densities, has already been mentioned
(Khan, 1963).
An extensive experimental examination of the plasticity of a range of populations within an annual
species Capsella bursa-pastoris has been made by Sorensen (1954). The populations were subjected to
contrasting environments by being grown in fertile garden soil or in coarse poor sand. The latter
condition caused very reduced growth, reduced rate of leaf production, and considerable alteration of
flowering time. But the significant fact is that populations differed very markedly in their response to
these conditions, not only in amount but also in direction. Thus population 7, collected from a luxuriant
cultivated field, was constitutionally early flowering. Its reaction to growth in sand was to increase the
number of leaves and relatively retard flowering. By contrast population 22, collected from moist beach
sand, was constitutionally late flowering. In the sand treatment its reaction was to reduce the number of
leaves and relatively advance flowering. Other populations showed little or no change in leaf number or
in flowering time. Such differences in plasticity could be shown to be of adaptive significance. Thus,
population 22 was perfectly successful in sand, whereas population 7 failed to flower arid set seed
satisfactorily. These differences can be related to the original habitats of the populations.
Perennials also may show marked plasticity in particular characters. A species with a long life cycle must
of necessity endure variations in environment which cannot he met by genetic changes. Many different
types of plasticity may therefore be found in perennials. In contrast with annuals however, perennials do
not usually show the same marked plasticity of seed production except in its presence or absence. This
can be related to the fact that reproduction by seed does not play such an important part in the survival of
a perennial from one year to the next and seed production is spread out over many years.
The most obvious environmental changes affecting a perennial are those connected with season.
Although perhaps it would not be thought of as a type of plasticity, the deciduous habit must logically be
considered a highly developed form of it. A deciduous species undergoes a startling change in shape,
involving not only the loss of leaves but also the development of specialized protective structures such as
bud scales, by which it becomes adapted to the severity of winter conditions. Closely related species
differ in the degree to which they show this form of plasticity, e.g., Quercus robur which loses its leaves
over winter, and Quercus ilex which retains them. In California the same contrast is shown by Q. douglasii
and Q. turbinella (Tucker, 1952); these two species form hybrid populations where they meet, in which
individuals with all grades of leaf persistence occur. Herbaceous species may retreat into a variety of
underground storage organs. Seasonal variations may he related to drought. There again many highly
developed types of plasticity have been evolved in adaptation to variation in water supply. For instance,
Cercidium floridum, a desert shrub, produces leaves only after rain and these are shed when dry conditions
return.
Innumerable other examples of the evolution of plastic responses in relation to seasonal variations are
available. Different types of response may be shown not only by closely related species, but also by
different populations of a single species. This is apparent from the work of Clausen et at. (1940, 1048) on
Potentilla glandulosa and Achillea millefolium. One of the most conspicuous differences between the
ecological races of each of these species is in the occurrence of vegetative dormancy. The high altitude
populations are all winter dormant, the low altitude populations from dry areas are summer dormant,
and the low altitude populations from coastal, moist habitats have no dormant period at all. Such
differences can he related readily to the habitats concerned. A second particularly significant set of
experiments carried out by these investigators was that already mentioned involving the growth of
contrasting populations of a number of species under conditions of sun and shade, and dryness and
wetness. They were able to show considerable differences in response between populations. Thus, in
general, the alpine populations showed little change in general morphology, whereas those from lowland
areas showed marked plasticity, e.g., Potentilla glandulosa ssp. nevadensis and ssp. typica, respectively. As
has already been pointed out, however, it must be remembered that the plasticity involved only certain
characters and not others. The different levels of plasticity between populations and between characters
can be related to their adaptative significance in the environment concerned.
In Lolium perenne Cooper (1963) has shown that populations from different regions of Europe differ
markedly in their rate of leaf expansion with temperature. The northern populations are very sensitive to
temperature, showing very reduced rate of expansion at low temperatures. Southern populations are
markedly less sensitive showing little reduction in rate of expansion at low temperatures. This difference
can be shown to he of adaptive significance; the plasticity of leaf expansion of the northern populations
gives higher survival under severe winter conditions. In Solidago virgaurea leaf expansion in response to
light intensity has been found to differ in populations from habitats of differing seasonal light regimes, in
a manner suggesting adaptive significance (Bjorkman and Holmgren, 1963).
The photosynthetic mechanism itself is able to alter in adaptation to variation in environment.
Measurements of photosynthesis over a range of environments indicated that both rate and position of
optimal photosynthesis can be altered by previous exposure to particular environments. Such changes,
termed acclimation, are in the direction that implies increased adaptation to the new environments.
Recently, Mooney and West (1964) have shown that five Californian species differ in the degree of
acclimation of photosynthesis exhibited to temperature and suggest this may be related to the natural
distribution of the species. Bjorkman arid Holmgren (1963) have shown that populations of Solidago
virgaurea differ markedly in their ability to acclimate photosynthesis to changes in light intensity; the
differences appear to be the result of genetic adaptation. Physiological acclimation to drought, frost, etc.,
is also well known. Both physiological and morphological plasticity therefore occur in adaptation to
seasonal fluctuations. Despite the complexity of the responses it seems that such plasticity can be evolved
quite readily.
Seed dormancy and germination, whether of annuals or perennials, show very clearly the influence of
disruptive selection and the development of plasticity in response to it. Seeds are likely to be most
successful if they germinate when conditions will continue to be satisfactory for their subsequent
development into mature plants. This will happen when the season is appropriate, when they are near
enough to the surface to be able to reach it without exhausting their reserves, or when there is little
competition from other vegetation, etc. If every seed that fell to the ground germinated in its own
inexorable manner without relation to external circumstances, a large proportion would do so in
unfavorable situations and fail to survive beyond the seedling stages. This is well shown by the
breakdown of dormancy in Papaver hybrids (Harper and McNaughton, 1960). Absence of dormancy in
interspecific hybrids permits the seeds to germinate in the field in autumn. These seedlings are then
commonly killed by winter frosts. There are a large number of mechanisms of enforced dormancy which
prevent or reduce the likelihood of this happening. In many species, e.g., Juncus effusus and Betula
pubescens, only those seeds which are in the presence of light will germinate; in others the only seeds that
will germinate are those which have experienced a period of low temperature, especially summer
annuals, or a period of high temperature, especially winter annuals. Some require particular oxygen or
nitrate concentration. Others, e.g., Stellaria media, have as yet undefined mechanisms, perhaps
combinations of the preceding ones, which result in only those seeds germinating which are close to the
soil surface. The mechanisms are many. They must all be considered examples of physiological plasticity,
because the environment is able to alter markedly the physiological state of the seed and the occurrence
of germination. In most cases the adaptive significance of such plasticity of germination is very obvious
and can be related to the particular habitat requirements of the species concerned. Closely related species
may differ enormously in their germination behavior, as has been described by Crocker and Barton
(1957), Harper (1959), and Thurston (1960).
An important effect of variation in environment in time concerns reproductive processes, particularly
pollination. A common adaptation to difficult conditions is cleistogamy, where flowers are self-fertilized
without opening. Some species are permanently cleistogamous, but species are more commonly
facultatively cleistogamous (reviewed by Uphof, 1938). The occurrence of cleistogamy in such species is
determined by various ecological factors. The flowers of Ranunculus moseleyi and R. aquatilis (S. A. Cook,
1964), produced under water are cleistogamous, whereas those above water are chasmogamous. In
Dicliptera assurgens and other species in the West Indies cleistogamic flowers are produced in the dry
season and normal flowers at other times. In Bromus carinatus cleistogamic flowers are produced in dry
years and chasmogamous flowers in wet years (Harlan, 1945). In Viola odorata cleistogamic flowers are
produced under summer conditions. Other factors are important in other species.
These species therefore exhibit distinct plasticity in this character. In most cases the occurrence of
cleistogamy can be inferred to be of adaptive value, enabling the species to overcome conditions adverse
to chasmogamy. Closely related species not subject to such adverse conditions are usually found not to
possess this plasticity. In some species, e.g., Sporobolus subinclusus, cleistogamy is obligate; these are then
not plastic.
Agricultural situations provide interesting conditions of disruptive selection in time. Variation in crops
from one season to another causes variation in environmental conditions for associated species. This is
well exemplified by the variation found in Camelina sativa (Zinger, 1909 and Sinskaia and Beztuzheva,
1931, in Stebbins, 1950). This species is a weed of arable fields, and has two subspecies. The typical form
is found in many crops, including flax. It has a wide branching growth form which is very plastic. When
growing with flax it assumes a taller, less branched form similar to flax. Where flax is grown intensively
this form is replaced by subspecies linicola, which is found only as a weed of flax. It is not as plastic and
under all conditions possesses the taller, less branched growth form. It appears that the typical form has
evolved a plasticity enabling it to survive in a variety of crops, whereas subspecies linicola has evolved
specifically in relation to flax and therefore has lost this plasticity. Other species, e.g., Chrysanthemum
segetum, Papaver rhoeas, and Chenopodium album, which are weeds of several contrasting crops, possess a
high degree of plasticity and like Camelina sativa are able to compete more effectively with the crop in
which they are growing.
Grazing may be considered a marked environmental effect, the incidence of which varies enormously
with time. It is noticeable that species vary considerably in their response to the many different
consequences of grazing. Some species tiller strongly at the base and regrow rapidly, e.g., Poa trivialis,
whereas others do not, e.g., Poa pratensis. The over-all height of vegetation may fluctuate markedly, and it
is interesting that some species possess the ability to adjust the height of their leaves in relation to it. The
petiole of Trifolium repens must he an example of one of the most plastic plant organs known, an idea
implied by Kerner von Marilaun and Oliver (1895). Plantago lanceolata achieves the same adjustment by
remarkable plasticity in leaf length. Recent work on Trifolium species (Harper, 1961) suggests that species
differ in this plasticity, the petiole of Trifolium fragiferum possessing greater plasticity than that of
Trifolium repens. Black (1960), working with strains of Trifolium subterraneum, has shown recently that
these differ remarkably in their ability to elongate petioles. The adaptive significance of this was shown in
uncut swards containing a mixture of two strains. The strain with the greatest potentiality for petiole
elongation rapidly became dominant.
Other factors of the environment which may vary in time are many.
It would appear that examples of plasticity may be found in relation to all of them, but space does not
permit their treatment in this essay. Further examples are given by Kerner von Marilaun and Oliver
(1895), Davy de Virville (1927-1928), Salisbury (1940), Clements et at. (1950), and others.
2. Disruptive Selection in Space
The environment of a plant species may not only change in time; it may also change in space. If changes
in space occur over reasonable distances the plant species usually adapts by the formation of localized
races or ecotypes. The distances necessary for such differentiation are now known to be as little as 10
meters (Bradshaw, 1963). Changes in environment, however, can occur over much smaller distances than
this, distances which may preclude the formation of genetically different populations.
The most elegant example of this is provided by areas of shallow water. Here three different
environments occur in close proximity, under water, at the water surface, and in the air above the water.
Although specialized plants such as Lemma species can grow in one of these environments, the water
surface, without growing in the others, species which root in solid material can only grow in the upper
environments by also growing in the lower. These plants are therefore subject to a violent and
unchanging form of disruptive selection, which can only he met by changes occurring within each
individual. For this reason some of the most remarkable types of plasticity are to be found in water
plants. This has been argued by Arber (1919).
Species of Ranunculus, subgenus Batrachium, show a remarkable degree of heterophylly. Submerged
leaves are finely dissected, adapted to the conditions of flowing water, whereas floating leaves are entire
or lobed. The species differ in their plasticity, in whether they produce leaves which are of both types.
The behavior of the British species (Clapham et at., 1962) is given in. Table 2. Experimental studies have
shown that these differences in plasticity are permanent and therefore genetic characters of the species.
The species that are plastic for leaf shape, that are able to produce both sorts of leaf, are all typically
species of shallow water; whereas those that can produce only floating leaves are species of mud or very
shallow water; and those that can produce only submerged leaves are those of deep or swift flowing
water.
Similar variation in plasticity is shown by species of Potamogeton (Clapham et at., 1962; Dandy, 1961). All
species produce submerged leaves, but some can produce both submerged and floating leaves.
Innumerable hybrids are known; their plasticity can be related to the plasticity of the particular parents
and emphasizes its genetic determination. The plasticity, as far as it is known, of the British species and
their hybrids is given in Fig. 2. Further work on this group is, however, necessary.
TABLE 2
The Occurrence of Heterophylly in British Species of Ranunculus Subgenus Batrachium*
Species
Habitat
Leaves
Floating
Submerge
d
R. hederaceus L.
Mud or shallow water
Many
R. omiophyllus Ten.
Streams and muddy places
Many
R. tripartitus D.C.
Muddy ditches and shallow ponds
Some
Many
R. fluitans Lam.
Rapidly flowing rivers and streams
Many
R. circinatus Sibth.
Ditches, streams, ponds, and lakes
Many
R. trichophyllus Chaix
Ponds, ditches, slow streams
Many
R. aquatilis L.
Ponds, streams, ditches, river
Some
Many
R. peltatus Shrank
ssp. peltatus
Lakes, ponds, slow streams
Many
Many
ssp. pseudofluitans
Fast-flowing streams
Rare
Many
R. baudotii Godr.
Brackish streams, ditches, ponds
Some
Many
*From Clapham et al. (1962).
Fig. 2. Heterophylly in British species of Potamogeton subgenus Potamogeton, and in their
naturally occurring putative hybrids (Clapham et at., 1962; Dandy, 1961). Circles,
species; lines, hybrids: white, heterophylly present; black heterophylly absent.
This type of plasticity may be quite complex in some species and involve more than one character.
Proserpinaca palustris, for instance, is an aquatic with submerged dissected leaves and entire aerial (not
floating) leaves. The dissected leaves are borne on horizontal stems, whereas the entire leaves are borne
on erect stems (Burns, 1904). Similar complex responses can be found in Ranunculus species. It is difficult
to believe that the character of dissection of leaves and the tropic response of the stems are
physiologically connected. It would appear that two characters are involved independently in the one
response.
Many other aquatic species show similar plasticity, whereas other related species may not. Some
examples of this have been given earlier. Further examples are discussed by Glück (1905-1924). Since it is
clear that the character of heterophylly is under genetic control and can be of selective advantage, it
would seem likely that variation in this character should be found within species and vary from one
population to another. There appear to be no records of this in the literature. In Polygonum amphibium,
however, a species which shows marked heterophylly (Massart, 1902), populations have been found
which differ markedly in the degree to which they can show heterophylly (Turesson, 1950). Recently, a
similar situation has been found in Ranunculus baudotii and R. trichophyllus (C. D. K. Cook, 1962, 1964),
and in Ranunculus flammula and R. aquatilis (S. A. Cook, 1964).
In many other habitats similar extreme variations in environment occur over distances which are too
short for adaptation to occur by genetic differentiation. Gregor (1956b) discusses an example of this in
Plantago maritima. In an exposed area occupied by a fairly dwarf population, shallow depressions
occurred affording some protection from the wind. In these depressions the individuals of Plantago
maritima in situ were taller than those of the general area. Upon cultivation, however, in five out of the six
samples examined the difference disappeared. Elsewhere in the same locality where the exposure was
uniformly less, populations of a genetically taller type did occur. In the mosaic of communities on the
exposed summit of Monte Maiella in Italy, Whitehead (1954, 1956) has shown the significance of
modifications induced by exposure. He suggests there has been selection for single genotypes with high
plasticity, rather than different genotypes adapted to different habitat conditions. He points out that
species with low plasticity appear to be limited to one community type.
Another apposite example is provided by work on Ranunculus hirtus (Fisher, 1960). This is a plant which
occupies the variable habitat conditions of cool forest margins in New Zealand. Its leaves show a greater
degree of dissection in the pastures outside the forest than within the forest. This appears to adapt it to
the relatively dry cool conditions of the pasture. The modification is controlled by temperature.
Experimental studies have shown that not all populations possess the same degree of plasticity.
Populations from the South Island of New Zealand show the greatest plasticity, those from the North
Island less plasticity, and those of a closely related species from southeast Australia, R. plebius, least
plasticity (Fisher, 1964). There appears to be an adaptive explanation for this difference in sensitivity,
since the most marked variation in climatic conditions occurs in the South Island habitat and the least in
the Australian habitat. Under the same forest margin conditions H. hirtus also shows plasticity in
hairiness, degree of prostration, and over-all size. These characters are determined by humidity and light
intensity, as well as by temperature, and appear to be independent of the plasticity of leaf dissection.
It is clear that many other examples are to be found. Some that have already been discussed in relation to
disruptive selection in time are appropriate here. But only in a few cases have they been adequately
investigated, and the adaptive significance of the changes been determined.
B. DIRECTIONAL SELECTION
If directional selection is very severe and the normal, directly adaptive, genetic variation is limited,
further adaptation may be afforded by increased plasticity. Experimental evidence for this in Drosophila
comes from the work of Thoday (1955, 1958). It is common experience that plant populations collected
from severe habitats grow more luxuriantly under garden conditions, although they still retain a
considerable degree of distinctness (smaller size, etc.) indicating genetic differences from other
populations (Kerner von Marilaun and Oliver, 1895, Turesson, 1922, 1925; Clausen et al., 1940, 1948). This
suggests that plasticity is supplementing the genetic adaptation already present. Further evidence comes
from the fact that an adaptation observed in the field may he found to he genetically determined in some
cases, but environmentally determined in others. Turesson, in particular, has recorded a number of
examples (1920, 1922, 1925):
Prostrate maritime forms
Atriplex latifolium
Atriplex patulum
Chenopodium album
Lax shade form
Dactylis glomerata
Dwarf subalpine form
Ranunculus acris
The response to local variations in habitat by phenotypic change in Plantago maritima (Gregor, 1956b),
already discussed, is another example.
Plastic response is able to provide adaptation to directional selection in some populations which in others
is provided by genetic change. The individuals in the former populations may properly he considered
phenocopies of the individuals in the latter populations. From the magnitude of such environmentally
determined modifications, it is clear that this type of plasticity may be of considerable significance,
although there is no indication how much it may vary from species to species or how much it is present
in species not subject to intense directional selection.
In most cases the genetically determined forms, would appear to be relatively simple permanent changes,
e.g., in Ranunculus acris and Dactylis glomerata. In the case of the genetically determined prostrate forms of
Atriplex latifolium and A. patulum, however, Turesson (1920) showed that this was not so. In these forms
the prostrate habit was not permanent and was lost at low light intensities. The prostration under normal
conditions was due to greater sensitivity. These forms therefore retain a certain degree of plasticity which
will appear under extreme conditions of low light intensity, for instance under conditions of severe
competition, where it will be of adaptive value.
C. STABILIZING SELECTION
Not only can plasticity permit a single genotype to assume different phenotypes, it can also enable
different genotypes to assume a single phenotype. It can therefore cover up variation in a manner
analogous to dominance. Where selection is acting in a stabilizing manner it can permit the population to
assume a uniform phenotype, while retaining a considerable degree of genetic variation. Many of the
arguments that apply to the evolutionary significance of dominance are applicable to plasticity.
Few clear-cut records of plasticity acting in this manner are available, although common sense suggests
that it could be found commonly if appropriate measurements were made. The most critical records are
those of Gregor (1956a). A population of Plantago maritima, growing wild in Iceland, showed less than
one-quarter the variation in plant size of a sample of the same population grown in an experimental
garden. Other populations which were uniform in growth form in their natural habitat also showed
considerable variation in growth form on cultivation. Turesson (1922, 1925) records a number of similar
cases in which populations which were more or less uniform in their natural habitat showed considerable
variability when brought into cultivation. These are listed below:
Succisa pratensis, maritime dwarf population from Hallands Vadero
Centaurea jacea, maritime dwarf population from Torekov
Atriplex littorale, unspecified maritime population
Atriplex sarcophyllum, maritime population from East Coast
Sedum maximum, maritime cliff population from Kallen and Varberg
Hieracium umbellatum, sand dune population from Vietmolle
V. Conditions Disfavoring Plasticity
Not all environmental conditions favor the development of plasticity in plants. Any condition of
stabilizing selection, where deviations from the optimum are selected against, will tend to increase
canalization and stability, apart from the effects it may have on genetic variance, as has been considered
earlier. Thus for some plant characters constancy is of adaptive significance, and deviations lead to
reduced fitness. This seems to be true of seed size. It is interesting that in comparison with other
characters it shows great phenotypic stability, as has already been shown in Linum and Polypogon. It
would seem reasonable to argue that constancy of flower size and shape, in insect-pollinated plants
particularly, is of considerable adaptive significance; wide deviations in size could be expected to lead to
failure of pollination. General observations show that flowers show much less phenotypic variability in
size than other organs. Thus in the hemiparasite Euphrasia presence of a host causes considerable increase
in vegetative size (x2.2) but only a very small increase in flower size (x1.1) (Wilkins, 1963). The
significance of stabilizing selection in plants, however, has been discussed by Berg (1959) and will not be
considered further here.
But there are other conditions where stabilizing selection is not occurring, where plasticity also may not
be favored by natural selection. For instance, under some conditions of disruptive selection a system of
plasticity might be adaptive in itself but only achieved at too high a cost to the organism. This is very
likely with a character that is permanent, and the only means of modification is by the loss of the organ
concerned and the regrowth of a new one. This will be true in perennials when adaptation to seasonal
environmental variation can only be produced by many modifications of an individual during its
lifetime. In these cases, spectacular plasticity is only achieved when it is accompanied by other processes
which minimize its deleterious effects, e.g., in the deciduous habit where shedding does occur, but is
accompanied by translocation of important materials out of the leaf before shedding.
Waddington (1957) has suggested that it may also be difficult for plasticity to be of value in annuals if the
modification is not easily reversible. An early adverse period in the life cycle of an individual might so
modify it that it was unable to take advantage of succeeding good periods or vice versa. Early
waterlogging can cause a plant to have a shallow root system which is ill-adapted to later drought. Such
environmental variations are again those of short duration relative to the total life-span. We have already
seen that if the variations are of the same length as the lifespan, then spectacular types of plastic response
may occur, e.g., in annual weeds. Under these conditions the irreversibility of the plasticity is no
embarrassment.
It may also be difficult for plasticity to be of adaptive value if the environmental change, to which the
plasticity is adaptive, occurs suddenly. The plant may be unable to assume its new state rapidly enough
so that it suffers damage before it becomes fully adapted. This must be very frequent in plants, e.g., in
relation to frost, storm, drought, etc. In this case, as Turesson (1922) suggested, the species may only be
able to adapt by permanent genetic changes, so that it is already in the appropriate state before the critical
environmental changes occur. It is difficult to see the validity of the arguments of Underwood (1954) who
suggests that such situations are uncommon.
Finally, it may be biologically impossible for the plant to achieve the necessary degree of adaptation by a
system of plasticity, owing to the mere limitations of the potentialities inherent in the genotypes. In other
words, it may be beyond the capacity of the species to evolve an effective system.
Such practical considerations go a long way to explain why, in species that occupy a range of
environments, a single genetic type with infinite plasticity is not found, but rather a myriad of genetically
distinct individually adapted populations. Indeed, although adaptation by plasticity plays an important
role in many situations, permanent adaptation by genetic change is more common. Most plant species
consist of separately adapted genetically distinct populations whose characteristics are determined, not
by the optimal conditions of growth, but by the most adverse. This can he seen from an examination of
any work on the pattern of differentiation within species (e.g., Clausen et at., 1940; Bradshaw, 1959).
Waddington (1957), following Warburton (1955), has suggested that such genetically adapted
populations are "sewn into their winter underwear" to stop it from being blown away. Rather it would
appear that either they cannot afford to possess other underwear or they are unable to change it quickly
enough.
Adaptation by plasticity is exogenous; adaptation by genetic change is endogenous. The latter changes
often have effects resembling the former; in most of the examples that have been discussed this is true. In
this case such genetic changes can be termed pseudoexogenous (Waddington, 1957). Arguments based on
adaptive value suggest reasons for this resemblance. If the same factor is involved, even if in one
situation adaptation by plasticity is more successful whereas in another situation permanent adaptation
by genetic change is more successful, this common factor is good reason why the two types of adaptation
should resemble one another. Waddington has produced extensive evidence (review, Waddington, 1061)
showing that such resemblance can arise as a result of genetic assimilation. While it is clear that this is an
important phenomenon, it seems logical that the resemblance can also be due to parallel adaptation.
VI. Mechanisms of Plasticity
The development of a character can be considered to be determined by an epigenetic landscape
(Waddington, 1957). The stability of a character depends on the degree of canalization. The manner in
which a character may be modified by the environment is dependent on the pattern of the epigenetic
landscape. The many ways in which plants may react to variations in environment show that the patterns
of the epigenetic landscape are many and various.
At the one extreme is the character which shows a continuous range of modification dependent on the
intensity of the environmental stimulus. This has been termed "dependent morphogenesis" by
Schmalhausen (1949). The pathway of development can be considered to be a broad flat delta, so that the
individual or character can follow any number of different paths to the final adult state. Such characters
as height and seed number follow this sort of pathway. In these characters adjustment can be continuous.
This is shown by the remarkable manner in which many species can adjust seed output per plant to
density so that the seed output per unit area is constant over a wide range of densities (Harper, 1961).
At the other extreme is the character which shows a series of discrete modifications, often only two, with
no intermediates. In this ease the pathway can be envisaged as two divergent steep-sided valleys with the
environmental stimulus merely acting as switch. This type of plasticity has been termed "autoregulatory
dependent morphogenesis" by Schmalhausen (1949). He justifiably argues that it is due to the occurrence
of stabilizing selection in each phase of the regularly varying environment. Such a character as leaf form
in Ranunculus peltatus follows this pattern of development. The canalization of the two types of leaf shape
is considerable; there are no intermediates. Where apparent intermediate leaves do occur, it will be found
that these are in fact composites of the two patterns of development and that within the leaf a sudden
switch from one to the other has occurred. This has been described for British species of Ranunculus (Cook,
1963). Not all water plants with heterophylly show such a degree of canalization. In Ranunculus flabellaris
all gradations of dissection of leaf may be found (Bostrack and Millington, 1962). In Sagittaria sagittifolia,
where failure to form lamina occurs in submerged leaves, all grades of reduction of lamina may be found.
Similar gradation can be found in Oenanthe aquatica, Sium latifolium, and Rorippa amphibia. Water plants,
however, tend to show a higher degree of canalization of alternate growth forms than most other plants,
which can be related to the constancy of the distinctness of the contrasting habitats available. An
equivalent high degree of canalization of each of two forms is shown in the deciduous habit, which again
can be related to the regularity of the environmental variation concerned.
A similar degree of canalization occurs in facultatively cleistogamous species already discussed (Uphof,
1938). The cleistogamous and chasmogamous forms are usually quite distinct in the degree of exsertion of
anthers. It seems reasonable to believe that this is because intermediate forms are unlikely to be
effectively pollinated. Nevertheless, there are all grades of distinctness in associated structures. In the
grass Scleropoa rigida anthers and lodicules of cleistogamous flowers are little different from normal
flowers. In Avena scabrivalvis, Bromus carinatus (Harlan, 1945), and other grasses, however, the
cleistogamous flowers have very reduced anthers, stigmas, and lodicules. In Mayaca fluviatilis the anthers
of the cleistogamous flowers are spoon-shaped and reach over the stigma effecting fertilization easily. In
Viola odorata cleistogamous flowers are geotropic from the beginning, whereas chasmogamous flowers
are orthotropic until fertilized. This plasticity may therefore involve a highly complex set of modifications
in some species, a point which has been made earlier.
A further distinction in mechanism that can be made is whether the plasticity is between plants or within
plants. This will depend in particular on the duration of life of the plant. Perennials will inevitably show
within plant plasticity, whereas short-lived annuals are more likely to show between-plant plasticity. It
will also depend on the reversibility of the response. Plasticity in irreversible response involving the
whole plant can only be expressed between plants. Thus plasticity of seed germination is only expressed
between seeds; plasticity of seed number in many annuals tends to be expressed between plants since
seed formation takes place over a short period. By contrast plasticity of petiole length in Trifolium species
is reversible (although it involves the production of new leaves) since a single plant, whether annual or
perennial, produces leaves over a long period and the response brought about by one set of conditions
can be replaced by that brought about by another. There are, however, only conceptual and not
fundamental differences between these two types of plasticity. In many cases the same plasticity can be
expressed both within and between plants.
It would he reasonable to expect that all adaptive modifications are determined by the occurrence of the
environmental factor to which adaptation occurs. In this manner the intensity of the stimulus determines
the degree of response, and the degree of modification can be precisely related to the environment, e.g., in
responses to density. Goebel (1893), however, realized that water level was not itself directly responsible
for changes in leaf form in some aquatic Ranunculus species. Cook (1963) has shown that change of leaf
form of Ranunculus aquatilis is dependent on temperature and photoperiod and not directly on water
level. In Ranunculus flabellaris Bostrack and Millington (1962) have shown that the same is true but that
there is also a profound effect of water level. Therefore there may be differences between related species
in the type of mechanism. The same lack of direct causal connection between the plastic modification and
the environment to which it is adaptive is readily seen in the deciduous habit, for leaf fall is determined
by an internal rhythm controlled primarily by photoperiod and only secondarily (if at all) by temperature
and exposure. Further discussion of mechanisms is given by Sinnott (1960).
Such cases, where an adaptive modification is determined by an indirect stimulus, may have various
explanations. The first is that of reliability. In many circumstances the response would be most valuable if
it occurred with complete reliability, even if the stimulus were feeble. This will be particularly true of
adaptations connected with seasonal changes, which are usually regularly repeating oscillations, yet
which may not always be clear-cut and reliable. This is perhaps also the explanation of the mechanism in
Ranunculus aquatilis and related species. The stimulus provided by the water surface will not be clear-cut,
particularly in moving water, where the tips of the plant oscillate in the current. The pattern of growth
and plasticity is not directly connected with it. The plant begins growing in spring from its overwintering
rootstock and grows for a period producing submerged leaves; during this time it reaches the surface. But
it does not change leaf shape necessarily on reaching the surface and may continue extending for a time,
submerged just below the surface. Then in response to the stimulus of temperature and photoperiod it
suddenly produces floating leaves on the surface. This occurs with considerable reliability.
The second possible explanation is that of preadaptation or anticipation. If a plastic response is initiated
by a particular stimulus, response to that stimulus cannot occur immediately; it will take place only after
an appreciable period of time. This is a necessary outcome of the normal mechanisms of growth. The only
cases where response can be rapid are in various nastic movements such as those shown by stomata or
the leaves of Mimosa pudica and Oxalis acetosella. Such mechanisms are, however, uncommon. Therefore,
in many cases, adaptive modifications would be much too late if they were initiated by the environmental
change to which they are adaptive. This will be particularly true of environmental changes that begin
very suddenly, such as the onset of winter or wet season. It has already been argued that, in this case,
adaptation may be possible only by permanent genetic change.
If the adaptive modification, however, can be initiated by a minor environmental change occurring
regularly in advance of the major change, then the plant can be already fully adapted by the time of onset
of the major change. The change will he anticipated. It would appear that exactly this has occurred in a
number of eases. The most obvious stimulus of this nature available to the plant is that of photoperiod. It
would appear that this is concerned in many cases of adaptive response where the stimulus is secondary
in nature. Not enough is known of plasticities of this type to be able to generalize about the mechanisms
involved, but it would appear that other factors, e.g., temperature, may also be involved where
appropriate.
The mechanisms of adaptive modification involving secondary stimuli can he considered to be the most
elaborate and advanced of the mechanisms studied. Although they may be elaborate, however, it is
impossible to say they are more advanced than other mechanisms. They have, for instance, inefficiency in
that since the major environmental change is not the stimulus, the degree of modification cannot he
related to its severity.
Another inefficiency of this type of mechanism is shown when the pattern of the operative stimulus
breaks down. Then the adaptation may not be appropriate. In Ranunculus aquatilis and R. peltatus the
plants found growing out of water on mud in midsummer possess dissected leaves and not laminate
leaves as would be expected. It has been shown (Cook, 1963) that this occurs because laminate loaf
production is normally initiated in stem apices under water and that when those are raised above the
water (a condition that would not normally occur) they will only produce dissected leaves. Ranunculus
flabellaris, in which the degree of submergence does control loaf shape, does not appear to show this
anomalous behavior; the loaves of terrestial plants are not capillary. The more complex mechanism may
therefore lead to anomalous behavior when normal environmental patterns are disturbed, whereas the
simpler mechanisms will not. But in the absence of disturbance the more complex mechanisms are
extremely effective.
It would therefore appear that no one mechanism can be considered the most advanced. Each has its own
advantages and disadvantages. Each appears to be related to the particular disruptive situation involved
and gives a fine degree of adaptation to the different environments concerned.
VII. Fixed Phenotypic Variation
We have seen that for various reasons an adaptive modification can become determined by an indirect
stimulus. For the same reasons it can be argued that an adaptive modification can be determined
autonomously by the stage of growth or some other character of the plant itself.
If a seed always germinated under a specific set of conditions which are different from those experienced
by the adult, modifications in relation to these could be of adaptive value. These modifications could be
directly determined by the effect of the environment on the seedling. But if the particular environment
always occurred at the seedling stage of development, the stage of development itself could determine
the modification. This would lead to both regularity and anticipation.
It would appear that this happens in a number of cases (Goebel, 1900; Sinnott, 1960). Thus Acacia,
Adenostoma, and Ulex species develop expanded leaves in juvenile stages which are not found in adults in
nature. The seeds of these species develop under moist conditions not necessarily experienced by the
adults and an adaptive value can be inferred. Such a type of development, termed heteroblastic, has been
discussed extensively by Goebel (1900).
In water plants the early development of the seedling is inevitably below water. Correlated with this the
juvenile leaves of some species, e.g., of Sagittaria sagittifolia and Alisma plantago-aquatica are always of
submerged type, thin and ribbonlike, in contrast to those of the adults. These modifications can be
considered to be fixed and to be related to the stage of development since they occur whether the plants
are grown in water or not.
In these cases there is an apparent plasticity which is not true plasticity, since the modification occurs
independently of the environment. The phenotypic variation is in fact fixed, being endogenous and not
exogenous. By definition such fixed phenotypic variation must not be considered plasticity at all: it is
ontogenetic differentiation. It has a close connection with true plasticity, however, for the boundary
between it and true plasticity is not a clear one. The same response may at some stages be fixed, but at
other stages be determined by environment. Thus, in Campanula rotundifolia adult linear leaved plants can
return to the juvenile condition of rounded leaves under conditions of low light intensity.
The linear leaved juvenile state of Sagittaria sagittifolia and the juvenile states of various other species are
similarly reversible in the adult (Arber, 1919). Many other cases are known (Goebel, 1900).
Such fixed phenotypic variation occurs in characters other than morphology. While some species may be
facultatively cleistogamous and others obligately cleistogamous, there are some species which are
permanently both cleistogamous and chasmogamous (Uphof, 1938). Panicum clandestinum bears
cleistogamous flowers at the base of side tillers, as well as normal panicles; Amphicarpum floridanum bears
cleistogamous flowers at the ends of rhizomes, as well as normal panicles.
Seed dormancy also involves fixed phenotypic variation. Despite the presence of mechanisms involving
plasticity of seed behavior already discussed, causing seeds to germinate in conditions likely to be
satisfactory for subsequent development, on many occasions these conditions might not be maintained
and all the seeds that germinated would die. Therefore a species is likely to be most successful if all its
seeds do not germinate at any one time in a particular habitat, however appropriate the immediate
conditions may be.
It is found that many species show a between-seed variability or polymorphism in dormancy. In some
cases this seems to be due to genetic variation. But in a number of cases there is no genetic component; it
is determined developmentally by the parent plant. In Xanthium there are two seeds in the fruit, the lower
of which germinates readily, the other only after a period of dormancy. In Avena ludoviciana there is a
similar difference between the seeds of upper and lower florets of the spikelet. This is not found in the
related species Avena fatua except in the subspecies septentrionalis (Thurston, 1960). In other species,
particularly of the Compositae, similar differences between seeds are found.
Such variation in seed dormancy is very similar to that already considered as plasticity, but it is
permanently fixed and is independent of the external environment. Like the other examples of fixed
phenotypic variation it may be of considerable adaptive value.
VIII. Conclusions
A. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PLASTICITY
The many different sorts of evidence show unequivocally that the ability of plants to be modified by the
environment is genetically determined. The general pattern of development of a character will exercise
some control over the degree of modification possible. But it is clear that a large measure of control is
afforded by the detailed developmental pathway, the epigenetic landscape, which has its own genetic
determination. The degree of control is considerable. There can be rigorous canalization into one
pathway, giving stability; canalization into two distinct pathways, giving the possibility of switching
between two precisely determined forms and therefore discontinuous plasticity; or broad control with
canalization only between wide limits, giving continuous plasticity. This control is not general to the
whole genotype, but is specific for individual characters, and usually specific for individual
environmental influences. All this is apparent from a study of the modifications that can be induced in
the characteristics of plants and animals.
Since the degree of plasticity of a character is under genetic control, it must follow that it can be
influenced by natural selection. There are many situations where the plasticity of a character can have
considerable adaptive significance. As we have seen, this is particularly true in plants, because they lack
the animals' complex response mechanisms of movement and behavior. As a component of evolutionary
adaptation in plants, plasticity appears to play a considerable part. It also plays a considerable part in the
processes of competition. Although competition may express itself by differential mortality of the
interfering components, it more commonly expresses itself by differences in response (harper, 1961;
Donald, 1963).
B. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF PLASTICITIES OF DIFFERENT CHARACTERS
The fitness of an organism in a varying environment will he maximized by phenotypic changes if these
(a) minimize any deleterious effects of the environment and (b) maximize any advantageous effects. Such
fitness, dependent on both vegetative and reproductive characters, is the outcome of the interaction of all
the component characters. We have seen that these characters can each have their own plasticity and
response to environmental variation. It must therefore follow that maximal fitness can be obtained in a
number of ways, by response in some characters and stability of others. If a number of interacting
characters are all plastic, it is possible that maximal fitness can be obtained by adjustment of one character
in one species and by adjustment of another character in a second. An analysis of such interrelationships
for yield in cereals has been presented by Grafius (1956).
Nevertheless, essential attributes and balance of organization must be maintained and limits will be set
by particular characters which lack the ability to respond or in which response could only be deleterious.
We may therefore find increased vegetative growth that may not be achieved by over-all increase in size
of all organs equally because of structural limitations, but by increase in their number. There may therefore be stability of certain characters which is compensated for by plasticity of others.
Maximal fitness will also involve interaction between physiological and morphological characters and
their plasticities. Physiological plasticity may permit morphological stability. But if plasticity in a
particular physiological system is not possible, the fitness of the organism may be maintained by
morphological adjustment.
In reproductive growth the same complex interactions will be found. For various reasons constancy of
flower and seed size is important. Maximization of fitness therefore usually occurs by variation in the
number of flowers. In some organisms, however, there may be variation in some floral characters, such as
numbers of seeds per flower.
Interaction between vegetative and reproductive characters will also clearly occur. Maximization of
fitness will not necessarily occur by unlimited response of both. After the onset of adverse conditions to
an annual plant, further vegetative growth may seriously reduce the possibility of subsequent
reproductive growth. Under these circumstances we may find time development of a mechanism
diverting vegetative growth into reproductive growth.
The occurrence of such interactions is well exemplified by the responses of populations of Capsella
bursa-pastoris, studied by Sørensen (1954), already discussed. Poor growing conditions cause a reduced
rate of growth and leaf production which the species cannot overcome apparently by physiological
plasticity. As a result flowering, which usually occurs after production of a certain number of leaves,
tends to be later. Some populations can, however, under poor conditions, reduce the number of leaves
produced before flowering and thereby maintain the date of flowering under poor conditions that they
usually show under good conditions. Populations not possessing such plasticity of leaf number are
unsuccessful under poor conditions.
There is therefore a hierachy of plasticities. In the evolution of processes maximizing fitness a variety of
different solutions may be developed in different plants. This can be seen by comparison of plant species.
The essential common character of all such solutions will be that some characters of the plant will for
various reasons be held constant, whereas others will he permitted to vary, and therefore show high
plasticity. Characters which are held constant can he properly said to show homeostasis (in the sense of
Cannon, 1932) or canalization (in the sense of Waddington, 1957). For such constancy can be considered
to be at least in part the outcome of the plasticity of the other characters. Which characters are held
constant and which vary depend on the exigencies of the structure, physiology, and environment of the
species in question.
C. OPEN PROBLEMS
In view of the integral and complex part played by plasticity in adaptation it is remarkable that there are
so few critical analyses of specific eases of plasticity in plants, particularly of its genetic control and
response to selection. It can be argued that plasticity is under genetic control. An attempt has been made
in this article to stress the eases where marked differences in plasticity exist in closely related species or
varieties, since this is circumstantial evidence of the ease with which plasticity can be changed by
selection. But the direct experimental evidence is meager. In order to fit the concept of plasticity into our
framework of evolutionary principles, we need to know the amount of genetic variability for plasticity
that is available in natural populations, its genetic control, and the ease with which it can be selected. The
same point has been emphasized recently for animals (Mayr, 1963).
It seems also necessary that we should have more primary evidence on the occurrence of different types
of plasticity and their underlying mechanisms. The spectacular types of plasticity involving a number of
major characters are well documented and are becoming well understood. The simpler types of plasticity
are more common, yet have rarely been studied critically except in crop plants. The evolutionary
relationship between the two types of mechanisms is not clear. Much of the recent work on plant
adaptation has eschewed very carefully any consideration of plasticity. Any modifications induced by the
environment during the course of an experiment are usually considered only an embarrassment.
In this connection it would be particularly valuable to know the mechanism by which several unrelated
characteristics can be associated in one particular plastic response. We are familiar with the fact that in
genetic polymorphisms several characteristics can be determined by one switch gene. This can be due
either to a common system of canalization so that a number of different processes all take place as the
result of a single switch. It can also be due to the switch being in effect a set of ganged switches operating
separately on a set of independent characters (Mather, 1955). It seems reasonable to believe that the same
alternative systems exist in mechanisms of plasticity, with the environment and not a gene being the
switch. But there is little evidence giving proof of this. The deciduous habit seems to be an example of the
first system. The second system seems to occur in Ranunculus hirtus where the characters associated in the
one response appear to be controlled by separate environmental factors. An analysis of the plastic
response of segregating hybrid populations derived from crosses between individuals with contrasting
plasticities and a search for mutants affecting single components of a response would be valuable.
A third aspect of mechanisms about which we need information is the degree to which the direction of
response can be controlled. An essential part of the arguments that have been presented is that the
direction of response can be controlled by the organism. The evidence already presented unequivocally
shows that responses can be in particular directions, e.g., in the adaptation of Drosophila to salinity
(Waddington, 1959) or in the flowering of Capsella bursa-pastoris (Sørensen, 1954). Indeed, without such
control of direction, the evolution of adaptive responses would be impossible. But we know very little
about this control. Initially, plasticity may be undirected: that which is normally considered lack of
stability or developmental noise is perhaps of this nature. But at some stage in the evolution of a plastic
response randomness in direction and in extent must be replaced by fixation of direction and extent.
D. PLASTICITY IN CROP PLANTS
Finally, it must be realized that an understanding of plasticity is important not only to the framework of
evolutionary theory, but also to the practical problems of plant improvement. The environment of any
crop plant varies from season to season, from locality to locality, and even from place to place in the field,
and much of this variation cannot be controlled by the farmer despite cultivation (Allard arid Bradshaw,
1964). The plant breeder is therefore concerned with the stability of final yield. Stability of final yield may
be due to inherent stability of the crop; but it may also be due to plasticity of the components of final
yield (Grafius, 1956). This is very clear from the reaction of crop plants to density (Donald, 1963).
Plasticity is therefore as much an essential part of the adaptation of crop plants as of wild species.
IX. Summary
The expression of an individual genotype can be modified by its environment. The amount by which it
can be modified can be termed its plasticity. This plasticity can be either morphological or physiological;
these are interrelated.
It can be argued that the plasticity of a character is related to the general pattern of its development, and
apart from this, that plasticity is a general property of the whole genotype. A review of the evidence
suggests that neither of the conclusions is tenable. Plasticity of a character appears to be (a) specific for
that character, (b) specific in relation to particular environmental influences, (c) specific in direction, (d)
under genetic control not necessarily related to heterozygosity, and (e) able to be radically altered by
selection.
Since plants are static organisms, plasticity is of marked adaptive value in a great number of situations:
(a) Disruptive selection in time. Where changes in environment are of the same or shorter duration than
its generation time, a species cannot adapt by genetic changes, but only by plasticity.
(b) Disruptive selection in space. Where changes in environment occur over very short distances,
adaptation by the formation of genetically different populations may be precluded. In these conditions
very spectacular types of plasticity may be evolved.
(c) Directional selection. If selection is very severe and directly adaptive genetic variation is limited,
further adaptation may be afforded by plasticity.
(d) Stabilizing selection. Plasticity permits different genotypes to assume the same phenotype. Under
certain circumstances, this may permit the retention of genetic variation in a population in a manner
analogous to dominance.
Examples of all these situations in plant species are discussed. They indicate that adaptation by plasticity
is a widespread and important phenomenon in plants and has been evolved differently in different
species. There can be a considerable interrelationship between the plasticities of different characters;
plasticity of one character can allow stability of another. The plasticity of a species must therefore only be
considered in terms of the plasticity of its individual characters.
The mechanisms involved are varied. At one extreme the character may show a continuous range of
modification dependent on the intensity of the environmental stimulus. At the other the character may
show only two discrete modifications. The stimulus causing these modifications may be direct, i.e., the
environmental factor to which the adaptation occurs, or it may be indirect, i.e., an environmental
stimulus not part of that to which adaptation occurs. Under certain circumstances the modifications may
be determined by the stage of growth of the plant itself. This is no longer true plasticity, for it is fixed and
independent of the external environment: the adaptation is endogenous and not exogenous. The
mechanisms found can be related to the particular environmental situation involved.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to the Trustees of the Leverhulme Research Awards for the award of a Fellowship and to
Professor B. W. Allard of the Department of Agronomy, University of California, Davis, for his
hospitality and stimulus during the period of the fellowship.
I would like to thank the many friends with whom I have discussed this problem on many different
occasions, Mr. J. E. Dandy for the information concerning Potamogeton, Dr. S. A. Cook for the quotation of
Nilsson-Ehle, arid Drs. C. D. K. Cook, S. A. Cook, F. J. F. Fisher, Professor J. L. Harper, Mr. J. G. Pusey,
and Professor G. L. Stebbins for their critical reading of the manuscript and valuable suggestions. I owe
much to their guidance and help. The views expressed in this article must, however, remain my, and not
their, responsibility.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. W., and Shank D. B. (1959). The relationship of heterozygosity to homeostasis in maize
hybrids. Genetics 44, 777-786.
Allard, R. W. (1963). Population and biometrical genetics in plant breeding. Proc. Intern. Congr. Genet.,
11th, The Hague, 1963 Vol. 2, in press. Pergamon Press, London and New York.
Allard, R. W., and Bradshaw, A. D. (1964). The implications of genotype-environment interactions in
applied plant breeding. Crop Sci. 4, 503-508.
Arber, A. (1919). On heterophylly in water plants. Am. Naturalist 53, 272-278.
Ariyanayagam, D. V. (1961). A study of genotype-environment interaction in relation to developmental
homeostasis in barley. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. California, Davis, California.
Bateman, K. G. (1959). Genetic assimilation of four venation phenocopies. J. Genet. 56,443-474.
Baur, E. (1930). "Einfuhrung in die Vererbungslehre." Borntrager, Berlin.
Berg, H. L. (1959). A general evolutionary principle underlying the origin of developmental homeostasis.
Am. Naturalist 93, 103-105.
Bjorkman, O., and Holmgren, P. (1963). Adaptability of the photosynthetic apparatus to light intensity in
ecotypes from exposed and shaded habitats. Physiol. Plantarum 16, 889-914.
Black, J. N. (1960). The significance of petiole length, leaf area and light interception in competition
between strains of subterranean clover (Trifolium subterranean L.) grown in swards. Australian J. Agr. Res.
11, 277-291.
Blackman, 0. E., and Bunting, E. S. (1954). Studies on oil seed crops. 2. An assessment of the
inter-relationship between plant development and seed production in linseed, Linum usitatissimsem. . J.
Agr. Sci. 45, 3-9.
Bostrack, J. M., and Millington, W. F. (1962). On the determination of leaf form in an aquatic
heterophyllous species of Ranunculus. Bull. Torrey Botan. Club 89, 1-20.
Bradshaw, A. D. (1958). Unpublished material.
Bradshaw, A. D. (1959). Population differentiation in Agrostis tenuis Sibth. 1. Morphological differences.
New Phytologist 58, 208-227.
Bradshaw, A. I). (1963). The analysis of evolutionary processes involved in the divergence of plant
populations. Proc. Intern. Congr. Genet., 11th, The Hague, 1963 Vol. 1, p. 143. Pergamon Press, London and
New York.
Bumpus, H. C. (1899). The elimination of the unfit as illustrated by the introduced sparrow. Biol. Lectures
Woods Hole 1898, 209.
Burns, G. P. (1904). Hetcrophylly in Proserpinaca palustris. Ann. Botany (London) 18,579-587.
Cannon, W. B. (1932). "The Wisdom of the Body." Norton, New York.
Clapham, A. B., Tutin, T. G., and Warburg, E. F. (1962). "Flora of the British Isles," 2nd ed. Cambridge
Univ. Press, London and New York.
Clausen, J., Keck, D. D., and Hiesey, W. M. (1940). Experimental studies on the nature of species. 1. The
effect of varied environments on western North American plants. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. 520.
Clausen, J., Keck, D. D., and Hiesey, W. M. (1948). Experimental studies on the nature of species. III.
Environmental responses of climatic races of Achillea. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. 581.
Clements, F. E., Martin, E. V., and Long, F. L. (1950). "Adaptation and Origin in the Plant World."
Chronica Botanica, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Cook, C. D. K. (1962). Abstract in Heywood, V. H., and Valentine, D. H. Experimental taxonomy. Nature
195, 26-27.
Cook, C. D. K. (1963). Studies in Ranunculus subgenus Batrachium (D.C.) A. Gray. 11. General
morphological considerations in the taxonomy of the subgenus. Watsonia 5, 294-303.
Cook, C. D. K. (1964). Personal communication.
Cook. S. A. (1964). Personal communication.
Cooper, J. P. (1963). Species and population differences in climatic responses. In "Environmental Control
of Plant Growth" (L. T. Evans, ed.), pp. 381-403. Academic Press, New York.
Crocker, W., and Barton, L. V. (1957). "Physiology of Seeds." Chronica Botanica, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Crow, J. F. (1955). General theory of population genetics: synthesis. Cold Spring Harbor Syrup. Quant. Biol.
20, 54-59.
Crowther, F. (1934). Studies on growth analysis of the cotton plant under irrigation in Sudan. I. The
effects of different combinations of nitrogen applications and water supply. Ann. Botany (London) 48,
877-913.
Cumming, B. G. (1959). Extreme sensitivity of germination and photoperiodic reaction in the genus
Chenopodium (Town.) L. Nature 184, 1044.
Dandy, J. E. (1961). Personal communication.
Davy de Virville, M. A. (1927-1928). L'action du milieu sur les mousses. Rev. Gen. Botan. 39, 40, many pp.
Dobzhansky, Th., and Wallace, B. (1953). The genetics of horoeostasis in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., U.S.
39, 162-171.
Donald, C. M. (1963). Competition among crop and pasture plants. Advan. Agron. 15, 1-118.
Engledow, F. L. (1925). Investigations on yield in the cereals. II. A spacing experiment with wheat. J. Agr.
Sci. 15, 125-146.
Fisher, F. J. F. (1960). A discussion of leaf morphogenesis in Ranunculus hirtus. New Zealand J. Sci. 3,
685-693.
Fisher, F. J. F. (1964). Personal communication.
Frankel, 0. H., and Munday, A. (1963). Canalisation of flower morphogenesis in wheat. Proc. Intern.
Congr. Genet., 11th, The Hague, Netherlands, 1963 Vol. 1, p. 179. Pergamon Press, London and New
York.
Gluck, H. (1905-1924). "Biologische und Morphologische Untersunchungen uber Wasser- und
Sumpgewachse," Pt. I (1905). Pt. II (1906). Pt. III (1911). Pt. IV (1924). Fischer, Jena.
Goebel, K. (1803). "Pflanzenbiologische Schilderungen," Vol. II. N. G. Elwert'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
Marburg.
Goebel, K. (1900). "Organography of Plants," Oxford Univ. Press (Clarendon), London and New York.
Grafius, J. E. (1956). Components of yield in oats: a geometrical interpretation. Argon. J. 48, 419-423.
Gregor, J. W. (1956a). Genotypie-environmental interaction and its bearing on a practical problem of
international interest. Proc. Intern. Grassland Congr., 7th, Palmerston, New Zealand, 1956 pp. 202-211. New
Zealand Senior Trade Commissioner in the U.S. of America, Washington, D.C.
Gregor, J. W. (1956b). Adaptation and ecotypic components. Proc. Roy. Soc. B145, 333-337.
Haldane, J. B. S. (1946). The interaction of nature and nurture. Ann. Eugen. (London) 13, 197-205.
Harlan, J. R. (1945). Cleistogamy and chasmogamy in Bromus carinatus Hook, and Arn. Am. J. Botany 32,
66-72.
Harper, J. L. (1959). The ecological significance of dormancy and its importance in weed control. Proc.
Intern. Congr. Crop Protect., 4th, Hamburg, 1957 Vol. 1, pp. 415-420. Bibliothek der Biologischen
Bundesanstalt fuer Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Brunswick, Germany.
Harper, J. L. (1961). Approaches to the study of plant competition. Symp. Soc. Exptl. Biol. 15, 1-39.
Harper, J. L., and Gajic, D. (1961). Experimental studies of the mortality and plasticity of a weed. Weed
Res. 1, 91-104.
Harper, J. L., and McNaughton, I. H. (1960). The inheritance of dormancy in inter~ and intraspecific
hybrids of Papaver. Heredity 15, 315-320.
Hinson, K., and Hanson, W. D. (1962). Competition studies in soybeans. Crop. Sci. 2, 117-123.
Hodgson, G. L., and Blackman, G. E. (1956). An analysis of the influence of plant density on the growth of
Vicia faba. 1. The influence of density on the pattern of development. J. Exptl. Botany 7, 147-165.
Huxley, J. S. (1955). Morphism and evolution. Heredity 9, 1-54.
Jinks, 3. L., and Mather, K. (1955). Stability in development of heterozygotes and homozygotes. Proc. Roy.
Soc. B143, 561-578.
Karper, R. E. (1929). The contrast in response of kafir and mile to variations in spacing. J. Am. Soc. Agron.
21, 344-354.
Kerner von Marilaun, A., and Oliver, F. W. (1895). "The Natural History of Plants," Vol. 2. Blackie,
London.
Khan, RI. A. (1963). Physiologic and genetic analysis of varietal differences within Linum usitatissimnvrn
(flax and linseed). Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Wales.
Kimura, M. (1955). Stochastic processes and distribution of gene frequencies under natural selection. Cold
Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 20, 33-53.
Klebs, G. (1909). The influence of environment on the form of plants. In "Darwin and Modern Science" pp.
223-246. Cambridge Univ. Press, London and New York.
Langridge, J. (1963). The genetic basis of climatic response. In "Environmental Control of Plant Growth"
(L. T. Evans, ed.), pp. 381-403. Academic Press, New York.
Lerner, I. M. (1954). "Genetic Homeostasis." Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh and London.
Levins, R. (1963). Theory of fitness in a heterogeneous environment. II. Developmental flexibility and
niche selection. Am. Naturalist 97, 75-90.
Lewin, R. A. (1948). Biological flora of the British Isles. Sonchus oleraceus L. J. Ecol. 36, 204-216.
Lewontin, H. C. (1957). The adaptation of populations to varying environments. Cold Spring Harbor Symp.
Quant. Biol. 22, 395-408.
Massart, J. (1902). L'accomodation individuelle chez le Polygonum amphibium. Bull. Jardin Botan. Bruxelles
1, 73-95.
Mather, K. (1953a). Genetical control of stability in development. Heredity 7,297-336.
Mather, K. (1953b). The genetical structure of populations. Symp. Soc. Exptl. Biol. 7, 66-95.
Mather, K. (1955). Polymorphism as an outcome of disruptive selection. Evolution 9, 52-61.
Mayr, E. (1963). "Animal Species and Evolution." Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Mooney, H. A., and West, M. (1964). Photosynthetic acclimation of plants of diverse origin. Am.. .1.
Botany 61, 825-827.
Nilsson-Ehle, H. (1914). Vilka erfarenheter hava hittills vunnits rorande mojligheten av växters
acklimatisering. Kgl. Landtbruks-Akad. Handl. Tidskr. 53, 537-572.
Paxman, G. J. (1956). Differentiation and stability in development in Nicotiana rustica. Ann. Botany
(London) [N.S.] 20, 331-347.
Prout, T. (1962). The effects of stabilizing selection on the time of development in Drosophila
melanogaster. Genet. Res. 3, 364-382.
Rees, H., and Thompson, J. B. (1956). Genotypic control of chromosome behavior in rye. IV. Chiasma
frequency in homozygotes and heterozygotes. Heredity 10, 409-424.
Reeve, H. C. R. (1960). Some genetic tests on asymmetry of sternopleural chaeta number in Drosophila.
Genet. Res. 1, 151-172.
Rendel, J. M., and Sheldon, B. L. (1960). Selection for canalisation of the scute phenotype of Drosophila
melanogaster. Australian J. Biol. Sci. 13, 36-47.
Salisbury, E. J. (1940). Ecological aspects of plant taxonomy. In "The New Systematics" (J. Huxley, ed.) pp.
329-340. Oxford Univ. Press, London and New York.
Schmalhausen, I. 1. (1949). "Factors of Evolution." McGraw-Hill (Blakiston), New York.
Simmonds, N. W. (1962). Variability in crop plants, its use and conservation. Biol. Rev. Cambridge Phil.
Soc. 37, 422-465.
Sinnott, E. W. (1960). "Plant Morphogenesis." McGraw-Hill, New York.
Sørensen, T. (1954). Adaptation of small plants to deficient nutrition and a short growing season.
Illustrated by cultivation experiments with Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Med. Botan. Tidsskr. 51, 339-361.
Stebbins, G. L. (1950). "Variation and Evolution in Plants." Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
Stebbins, G. L. (1964). Personal communication.
Thoday, J. M. (1953). Components of fitness. Symp. Soc. Exptl. Biol. 7, 96-113.
Thoday, J. M. (1955). Balance, heterozygosity and developmental stability. Cold Spring Harbor Symp.
Quant. Biol. 20, 318-326.
Thoday, J. M. (1958). Homeostasis in a selection experiment. Heredity 12, 401-415.
Thoday, J. M. (1959). Effects of disruptive selection. 1. Genetic flexibility. Heredity 13, 187-203.
Thurston, J. M. (1960). Dormancy in weed seeds. Brit. Ecol. Soc. Symp. 1, 69-82.
Tucker, J. M. (1952). Evolution of the Californian Oak Quercus alvordiana. Evolution 6, 162-180.
Turesson, G. (1920). The cause of plagiotrophy in maritime shore plants. Lunds Univ. Arsskr. Avd 2 [N.F.]
16 (2), 1-33.
Turesson, G. (1922). The genotypical response of the plant species to the habitat. Hereditas 3, 211-350.
Turesson, G. (1925). The plant species in relation to habitat and climate. Hereditas 6, 147-236.
Turesson, G. (1950). Personal communication.
Underwood, G. (1954). Categories of adaptation. Evolution 8, 365-377.
Uphof, J. C. T. (1938). Cleistogamic flowers. Botan. Rev. 4, 21-49.
Waddington, C. H. (1953). Epigenetics and evolution. Symp. Soc. Exptl. Biol. 7, 186-199.
Waddington, C. H. (1957). "The Strategy of Genes." Allen & Unwin, London.
Waddington, C. H. (1959). Canalisation of development and genetic assimilation of acquired characters.
Nature 183, 1654-1655.
Waddington, C. H. (1960). Experiments on canalising selection. Genet. Res. 1, 140-150.
Waddington, C. H. (1061). Genetic assimilation. Advan. Genet. 10, 257-293.
Warburton, F. H. (1955). Feed back in development and its evolutionary significance. Am. Naturalist 89,
129-140.
Went, F. W. (1953). Gene action in relation to growth and development. I. Phenotypic variability. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S. 39, 839-848.
Whitehead, F. (1954). A study of the relation between growth form and exposure on Monte Maiella, Italy.
J. Ecol. 42, 180-186.
Whitehead, F. (1956). Preliminary investigations of factors determining the growth form of Cerastium
tetrandrum Curt. J. Ecol. 44, 333-340.
Williams, W. (1960). Relative variability of inbred lines and F1 hybrids in Lycopersicum esculenturn.
Genetics 45, 1457-1465.
Wilkins, D. A. (1963). Plasticity and establishment in Euphrasia. Ann. Botany (London) [N.S.] 27, 533-552.
Zohary, D., and Imber, D. (1963). Genetic dimorphism in fruit types in Aegilops speltoides. Heredity 18,
223-231.