ArticleEvolution letters2025
The evolution of reversible plasticity in stable environments.
Article in Evolution letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reversible plasticity, i.e., the ability to deconstruct phenotypic specializations based on environmental conditions, is widespread in nature. Despite its ubiquity, few mathematical models have explored the evolutionary selection pressures that favor trait reversibility. Therefore, many scenarios remain to be examined. In particular, existing theory has modeled trait development as an instantaneous process. These models do not capture the fact that trait development is often a constructive process, in which phenotypes incrementally adjust to local ecologies. Here, we present an optimality model of the evolution of reversible plasticity in which organisms build traits incrementally. In our model, organisms repeatedly sample cues to infer the environmental state-which can vary between generations but not within generations-and incrementally tailor their phenotypes to match their environments. Organisms also have the option to deconstruct phenotypic adjustments. We investigate two different modes of phenotypic deconstruction: Organisms can either deconstruct phenotypic adjustments incrementally or completely deconstruct all phenotypic adjustments in one time period. We highlight two results. First, early-life sensitive periods in construction precede mid-ontogeny sensitive periods in deconstruction. Intriguingly, although organisms typically only deconstruct toward the end of ontogeny, environmental cues in mid-ontogeny have the strongest impact on deconstruction. Second, in contrast to previous models, we find that reversibility often evolves in environments that are stable within generations. Thus, our model shows that reversibility does not require environmental change during development-as long as organisms are initially uncertain about environmental conditions. Our model provides new insights into the capacity for reversibility in species that have evolved in ontogenetically stable environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.