Does more maternal investment mean a larger brain? Evolutionary relationships between reproductive mode and brain size in chondrichthyans
Christopher G. Mull A C , Kara E. Yopak B and Nicholas K. Dulvy A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Earth to Ocean research group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
B Center for Scientific Imaging, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: cmull@sfu.ca
Marine and Freshwater Research 62(6) 567-575 https://doi.org/10.1071/MF10145
Submitted: 17 June 2010 Accepted: 25 February 2011 Published: 24 June 2011
Journal Compilation © CSIRO Publishing 2011 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Chondrichthyans have the most diverse array of reproductive strategies of any vertebrate group, ranging from egg-laying to live-bearing with placental matrotrophy. Matrotrophy is defined as additional maternal provisioning beyond the yolk to the developing neonate; in chondrichthyans, this occurs through a range of mechanisms including uterine milk, oophagy, uterine cannibalism and placentotrophy. Chondrichthyans also exhibit a wide range of relative brain sizes and highly diverse patterns of brain organisation. Brains are energetically expensive to produce and maintain, and represent a major energetic constraint during early life in vertebrates. In mammals, more direct maternal–fetal placental connections have been associated with larger brains (steeper brain–body allometric scaling relationships). We test for a relationship between reproductive mode and relative brain size across 85 species from six major orders of chondrichthyans by using several phylogenetic comparative analyses. Ordinary least-squares (OLS) and reduced major axis (RMA) regression of body mass versus brain mass suggest that increased maternal investment results in a larger relative brain size. Our findings were supported by phylogenetic generalised least-squares models (pGLS), which also highlighted that these results vary with evolutionary tempo, as described by different branch-length assumptions. Across all analyses, maximum body size had a significant influence on the relative brain size, with large-bodied species (body mass >100 kg) having relatively smaller brains. The present study suggests that there may be a link between reproductive investment and relative brain size in chondrichthyans; however, a more definitive test requires a better-resolved phylogeny and a more nuanced categorisation of the level of maternal investment in chondrichthyans.
Additional keywords: allometry, encephalisation, pGLS, relative brain size, reproductive mode.
References
Barton, R. A., and Capellini, I. (2011). Maternal investment, life histories, and the costs of brain growth in mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 6169–6174.| 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3MXltVymu74%3D&md5=01e49d538d53c936b65df6f02dc4a0b3CAS |
Barton, R. A., Purvis, A., and Harvey, P. H. (1995). Evolutionary radiation of visual and olfactory brain systems in primates, bats and insectivores. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 348, 381–392.
| Evolutionary radiation of visual and olfactory brain systems in primates, bats and insectivores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK28%2Fot1Onsg%3D%3D&md5=a388c7715b52f5bb5de67d3621237b09CAS |
Bauchot, R., Platel, R., and Ridet, J. M. (1976). Brain–body weight relationships in selachii. Copeia , 305–310.
| Brain–body weight relationships in selachii.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Branstetter, S. (1990). Early life-history implications of selected charcharhind and lamnoid sharks of the northwest Atlantic. In ‘Elasmobranchs and Living Resources: Advances in the Biology, Ecology, Systematics and the Status of the Fisheries’. (Eds H. L. Pratt, S. H. Gruber and T. Taniuchi.) pp. 17–82. US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 90.
Burnham, K., and Anderson, D. (2002). ‘Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information Theoretic Approach.’ (Springer-Verlag: New York.)
Clutton-Brock, T. H., and Godfrey, C. (1991). Parental Investment. In ‘Behavioral Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach’. (Eds J. R. Krebs and N. B. Dabies.) pp. 234–262. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.)
Compagno, L. (1988). ‘Sharks of the Order Carcharhiniformes.’ (Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.)
Cortés, E. (2000). Life history patterns and correlations in sharks. Reviews in Fisheries Science 8, 299–344.
Crespi, B., and Semeniuk, C. (2004). Parent-offspring conflict in the evolution of vertebrate reproductive mode. American Naturalist 163, 635–653.
| Parent-offspring conflict in the evolution of vertebrate reproductive mode.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15122484PubMed |
de Winter, W., and Oxnard, C. E. (2001). Evolutionary radiations and convergences in the structural organization of mammalian brains. Nature 409, 710–714.
| Evolutionary radiations and convergences in the structural organization of mammalian brains.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3MXht1yntrY%3D&md5=da39902b5e751867afb9676237ba1bbdCAS | 11217859PubMed |
Didier, D. A. (1995). ‘Phylogenetic Systematics of Extant Chimaeroid Fishes (Holocephali, Chimaeroidei)’, No. 3119. New York, NY: American Museum of Natural History.
Didier, D. (2004). Phylogeny and classification of extant Holocephali. In ‘Biology of Sharks and Their Relatives’. (Eds J. Carrier, J. Musick and M. Heithaus.) pp. 115–135. (CRC Press: New York.)
Dulvy, N. K., and Reynolds, J. D. (1997). Evolutionary transitions among egg-laying, live-bearing and maternal inputs in sharks and rays. Proceedings. Biological Sciences 264, 1309–1315.
| Evolutionary transitions among egg-laying, live-bearing and maternal inputs in sharks and rays.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Elliot, M. G., and Crespi, B. J. (2008). Placental invasiveness and brain–body allometry in eutherian mammals. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21, 1763–1778.
| Placental invasiveness and brain–body allometry in eutherian mammals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1cjkvFyhtw%3D%3D&md5=a5d8201567116d7ff45f980582864f71CAS | 18808441PubMed |
Finlay, B. L., and Darlington, R. B. (1995). Linked regularities in the development and evolution of mammalian brains. Science 268, 1578–1584.
| Linked regularities in the development and evolution of mammalian brains.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK2MXmtlarsb8%3D&md5=14cd9ffe6b17285736a11cc923019225CAS | 7777856PubMed |
Finlay, B. L., Hersman, M. N., and Darlington, R. B. (1998). Patterns of vertebrate neurogenesis and the paths of vertebrate evolution. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 52, 232–242.
| Patterns of vertebrate neurogenesis and the paths of vertebrate evolution.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2FgsFeqtA%3D%3D&md5=7a14f43090d63d201d4a3ee03d87179bCAS | 9787222PubMed |
Finlay, B. L., Darlington, R. B., and Nicastro, N. (2001). Developmental structure in brain evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24, 298–308.
Freckleton, R. P. (2000). Phylogenetic tests of ecological and evolutionary hypotheses: checking for phylogenetic independence. Functional Ecology 14, 129–134.
| Phylogenetic tests of ecological and evolutionary hypotheses: checking for phylogenetic independence.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Freckleton, R. P. (2009). The seven deadly sins of comparative analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 22, 1367–1375.
| The seven deadly sins of comparative analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1MvkvVegsQ%3D%3D&md5=ff481dd2263fb6b6449678ab036fb643CAS | 19508410PubMed |
Freckleton, R. P., Harvey, P. H., and Pagel, M. (2002). Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. American Naturalist 160, 712–726.
| Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1critl2ltw%3D%3D&md5=7f1301d9dac725b1eb19473a4f381e62CAS | 18707460PubMed |
Garland, T., Harvey, P. H., and Ives, A. R. (1992). Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Systematic Biology 41, 18–32.
Goodwin, N. B., Dulvy, N. K., and Reynolds, J. D. (2002). Life-history correlates of the evolution of live bearing in fishes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. Biological Sciences 357, 259–267.
| Life-history correlates of the evolution of live bearing in fishes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Goodwin, N. B., Dulvy, N. K., and Reynolds, J. D. (2005). Macroecology of live-bearing in fishes: latitudinal and depth range comparisons with egg-laying relatives. Oikos 110, 209–218.
| Macroecology of live-bearing in fishes: latitudinal and depth range comparisons with egg-laying relatives.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Goto, T. (2001). Comparative anatomy, phylogeny and cladistic classification of the order Orectilobiformes (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii). Memoirs of the Graduate School of Fisheries Science at Hokkaido University 48, 1–100.
Hilborn, R., and Mangel, M. (1997). ‘The Ecological Detective: Confronting Models with Data.’ (Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.)
Hou, C., Zuo, W. Y., Moses, M. E., Woodruff, W. H., Brown, J. H., and West, G. B. (2008). Energy uptake and allocation during ontogeny. Science 322, 736–739.
| Energy uptake and allocation during ontogeny.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXht12ltLfJ&md5=2723f6e07a48a159797f87995b1736c4CAS | 18974352PubMed |
Huber, R., vanStaaden, M. J., Kaufman, L. S., and Liem, K. F. (1997). Microhabitat use, trophic patterns, and the evolution of brain structure in African cichlids. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 50, 167–182.
| Microhabitat use, trophic patterns, and the evolution of brain structure in African cichlids.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK2svjsVGgsg%3D%3D&md5=be3bc6a11f1e08f128c4f7b36ba4a4d4CAS | 9288416PubMed |
Isler, K., and van Schaik, C. P. (2009). The expensive brain: a framework for explaining evolutionary changes in brain size. Journal of Human Evolution 57, 392–400.
| The expensive brain: a framework for explaining evolutionary changes in brain size.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19732937PubMed |
Ito, H., Yoshimoto, M., and Somiya, H. (1999). External brain form and cranial nerves of the megamouth shark, Megachasma pelagios. Copeia , 210–213.
| External brain form and cranial nerves of the megamouth shark, Megachasma pelagios.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK1MXhs1yqtLk%3D&md5=443cd7abe0d7ae22611ed5feb58f0639CAS |
Ives, A. R., Midford, P. E., and Garland, T. (2007). Within-species variation and measurement error in phylogenetic comparative methods. Systematic Biology 56, 252–270.
| Within-species variation and measurement error in phylogenetic comparative methods.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17464881PubMed |
Iwaniuk, A. N., and Nelson, J. E. (2001). A comparative analysis of relative brain size in waterfowl (Anseriformes). Brain, Behavior and Evolution 57, 87–97.
| A comparative analysis of relative brain size in waterfowl (Anseriformes).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MznvVynsQ%3D%3D&md5=bdcc6c791b753bf442b85c6f5fb53a1bCAS | 11435669PubMed |
Kotrschal, K., Van Staaden, M. J., and Huber, R. (1998). Fish brains: evolution and environmental relationships. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 8, 373–408.
| Fish brains: evolution and environmental relationships.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kruska, D. C. T. (1988). The brain of the basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus). Brain, Behavior and Evolution 32, 353–363.
| The brain of the basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaL1M7ltV2gsw%3D%3D&md5=ea4efb52cf7b0ce5a2293c58ac8dac83CAS | 3228691PubMed |
Last, P. R. (2007). The state of chondrichthyan taxonomy and systematics. Marine and Freshwater Research 58, 7–9.
| The state of chondrichthyan taxonomy and systematics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Last, P., and Stevens, J. (2009). ‘Sharks and Rays of Australia.’ (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.)
Lefebvre, L., Nicolakakis, N., and Boire, D. (2002). Tools and brains in birds. Behaviour 139, 939–973.
| Tools and brains in birds.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lisney, T. J., Yopak, K. E., Montgomery, J. C., and Collin, S. P. (2008). Variation in brain organization and cerebellar foliation in chondrichthyans: batoids. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 72, 262–282.
| Variation in brain organization and cerebellar foliation in chondrichthyans: batoids.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19001808PubMed |
Maddison, W., and Maddison, D. (2010). ‘Mesquite: A Modular System for Evolutionary Analysis v 2.73.’ Available at http://mesquiteproject.org [accessed September 2009].
Martin, R. D. (1981). Relative brain size and basal metabolic-rate in terrestrial vertebrates. Nature 293, 57–60.
| Relative brain size and basal metabolic-rate in terrestrial vertebrates.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaL3M3ntVOmtA%3D%3D&md5=1df785ff6f8f36ea26da5d8a97b91703CAS | 7266659PubMed |
Martin, R. D. (1996). Scaling of the mammalian brain: the maternal energy hypothesis. News in Physiological Sciences 11, 149–156.
Martin, A. P., Naylor, G. J. P., and Palumbi, S. R. (1992). Rates of mitochondrial DNA evolution i sharks are slow compared with mammals. Nature 357, 153–155.
| Rates of mitochondrial DNA evolution i sharks are slow compared with mammals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK38XktVCmtLg%3D&md5=a41faf1d0532ec43ce905bd70ed7c122CAS | 1579163PubMed |
McEachran, J., and Aschliman, N. (2004). Phylogeny of Batiodea. In ‘Biology of Sharks and Their Relatives’. (Eds J. Carrier, J. Musick and M. Heithaus.) pp. 79–113. (CRC Press: New York.)
Musick, J., and Ellis, J. (2005). Reproductive evolution of chondrichthyans. In ‘Reproductive Biology and Phylogeny of Chondrichthyes: Sharks, Batoids and Chimaeras’. (Eds W. Hamlett and B. Jamieson.) pp. 45–79. (Science Publishers, Inc.: Enfield, NH.)
Naylor, G. J. P. (1992). The phylogenetic relationships among requiem and hammerhead sharks: inferring phylogeny when thousands of equally most parsimonious trees result. Cladistics – the International Journal of the Willi Hennig Society 8, 295–318.
Naylor, G. J. P., Ryburn, J. A., Fedrigo, O., and Lopez, A. (2005). Phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of modern elasmobranchs. In ‘Reproductive Biology and Phylogeny of Chondrichthyans: Sharks, Skates, Rays and Chimaeras’. (Eds W. C. Hamlett and B. Jamieson.) pp. 1–25. (Science Publishers, Inc.: Enfield, NH.)
Northcutt, R. G. (1977). Elasmobranch central nervous-system organization and its possible evolutionary significance. American Zoologist 17, 411–429.
Northcutt, R. G. (1978). Brain organization in the cartilaginous fishes. In ‘Sensory Biology of the Sharks, Skate, and Rays’. (Eds E. S. Hodgson and R. F. Mathewson.) pp. 117–194. (Office of Naval Research: Arlington, VA.)
Northcutt, R. G. (1989). Brain variation and phylogenetic trends in elasmobranch fishes. Journal of Experimental Zoology 252, 83–100.
| Brain variation and phylogenetic trends in elasmobranch fishes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pagel, M. D., and Harvey, P. H. (1988). How mammals produce large-brained offspring. Evolution 42, 948–957.
| How mammals produce large-brained offspring.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Paradis, E. (2006). ‘Analysis of Phylogenetics with R.’ (Springer: New York.)
Reynolds, J. D., Goodwin, N. B., and Freckleton, R. P. (2002). Evolutionary transitions in parental care and live bearing in vertebrates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. Biological Sciences 357, 269–281.
| Evolutionary transitions in parental care and live bearing in vertebrates.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Reznick, D., Meredith, R., and Collette, B. B. (2007). Independent evolution of complex life history adaptations in two families of fishes, live-bearing halfbeaks (zenarchopteridae, beloniformes) and poeciliidae (cyprinodontiformes). Evolution 61, 2570–2583.
| Independent evolution of complex life history adaptations in two families of fishes, live-bearing halfbeaks (zenarchopteridae, beloniformes) and poeciliidae (cyprinodontiformes).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17725625PubMed |
Rosenberger, L. J. (2001). Phylogenetic relationships within the stingray genus Dasyatis (Chondrichthyes: Dasyatidae). Copeia , 615–627.
| Phylogenetic relationships within the stingray genus Dasyatis (Chondrichthyes: Dasyatidae).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sanderson, M. J. (2002). Estimating absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times: a penalized likelihood approach. Molecular Biology and Evolution 19, 101–109.
| 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD38XhtFCitQ%3D%3D&md5=1a7a7ad8754a01b005f9173f4431baf2CAS | 11752195PubMed |
Shine, R. (1989). Ecological influences on the evolution of vertebrate viviparity. In ‘Complex Organismal Functions: Integration and Evolution in Vertebrates’. (Eds D. B. Wake and G. Roth.) pp. 263–278. (Wiley-Interscience: New York.)
Shine, R. (2005). Life-history evolution in reptiles. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 36, 23–46.
| Life-history evolution in reptiles.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shirai, S. (1992). ‘Squalean Phylogeny: A New Framework of ‘Squaloid’ Sharks and Related Taxa.’ (Hokkaido University Press: Sapporo, Japan.)
Shirai, S. (1996). Phylogenetic relationships of the angel sharks, with comments of elasmobranch phyloheny (Chondrichthyes, Squatinidae). Copeia , 505–518.
Shumway, C. A. (2008). Habitat complexity, brain, and behavior. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 72, 123–134.
| Habitat complexity, brain, and behavior.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18836258PubMed |
Smith, R. J. (2009). Use and misuse of the reduced major axis for line-fitting. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 140, 476–486.
| Use and misuse of the reduced major axis for line-fitting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19425097PubMed |
Smith, C. C., and Fretwell, S. D. (1974). Optimal balance between size and number of offspring. American Naturalist 108, 499–506.
| Optimal balance between size and number of offspring.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Striedter, G. (2005). ‘Principles of Brain Evolution.’ (Sinauer Associates, Inc.: Sutherland, MA.)
Vélez-Zuazo, X., and Agnarsson, I. (2010). Shark tales: a molecular species-level phylogeny of sharks (Selachimorpha, Chondrichthyes). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 52, 207–217.
Wourms, J. P. (1977). Reproduction and development in chondrichthyan fishes. American Zoologist 17, 379–410.
Wourms, J. P. (1981). Viviparity – the maternal-fetal relaionship in fishes. American Zoologist 21, 473–515.
Wourms, J. P. (1993). Maximization of evolutionary trends for placental viviparity in the spadenose shark, Scoliodon laticaudus. Environmental Biology of Fishes 38, 269–294.
| Maximization of evolutionary trends for placental viviparity in the spadenose shark, Scoliodon laticaudus.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wourms, J. P. (1994). The challenges of piscine viviparity. Israel Journal of Zoology 40, 551–568.
Wourms, J. P., and Demski, L. S. (1993). The reproduction and development of sharks, skates, rays, and ratfishes – introduction, history, overview, and future-prospects. Environmental Biology of Fishes 38, 7–21.
| The reproduction and development of sharks, skates, rays, and ratfishes – introduction, history, overview, and future-prospects.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wourms, J. P., and Lombardi, J. (1992). Reflections of the evolution of piscine viviparity. American Zoologist 32, 276–293.
Yopak, K. E., and Frank, L. R. (2009). Brain size and brain organization of the whale shark, Rhincodon typus, using magnetic resonance imaging. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 74, 121–142.
| Brain size and brain organization of the whale shark, Rhincodon typus, using magnetic resonance imaging.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19729899PubMed |
Yopak, K. E., and Montgomery, J. C. (2008). Brain organization and specialization in deep-sea chondrichthyans. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 71, 287–304.
| Brain organization and specialization in deep-sea chondrichthyans.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18431055PubMed |
Yopak, K. E., Lisney, T. J., Collin, S. P., and Montgomery, J. C. (2007). Variation in brain organization and cerebellar foliation in chondrichthyans: sharks and holocephalans. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 69, 280–300.
| Variation in brain organization and cerebellar foliation in chondrichthyans: sharks and holocephalans.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17314475PubMed |
Yopak, K. E., Lisney, T. J., Darlington, R. B., Collin, S. P., Montgomery, J. C., and Finlay, B. L. (2010). A conserved pattern of brain scaling from sharks to primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 107, 12 946–12 951.
| A conserved pattern of brain scaling from sharks to primates.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXpsVCrs7c%3D&md5=29f58b7b2b0d2e24333619b37f3a429eCAS |
