Developmental plasticity and genetic selection shaped cereal evolution in the Early Holocene southern Levant
Whitlam, J.; Flohr, P.; Bogaard, A.; Charles, M.; Finlayson, B.; Makarewicz, C. A.
Show abstract
The domestication of plants in southwest Asia was an evolutionary process that took place over several millennia in the Early Holocene. During this time domestic species developed distinct traits that distinguish them from their wild counterparts. Current models of plant domestication emphasise the role of genetic selection in the evolution of these traits, viewing these as heritable adaptations that arose in response to selective pressures associated with human cultivation. In cereals, domestication resulted in the evolution of non-shattering rachis and increased grain size, two traits that can be tracked directly in the archaeobotanical record. Measurements of cereal grains from Early Neolithic sites indicate that grain size increase occurred prior to the evolution of non-shattering rachis, and it has been proposed that this reflects selection for larger grains under tillage, signifying pre-domestication cultivation. Here we combine morphological and metrical analysis of cereal remains, stable carbon isotope analysis, and weed ecology to test this hypothesis, using three assemblages from the southern Levant: Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Sharara (c. 9250-9200 cal BCE), Pre-Pottery Neolithic A el-Hemmeh (c. 9400-8700 cal BCE) and Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B el-Hemmeh (c. 7500-7000 cal BCE). Our findings indicate that increased grain size in the Early Holocene is better understood as a plastic response to variation in growing conditions (specifically moisture), rather than a result of genetic selection for increased grain size under cultivation (i.e., tillage). We argue that cereal evolution in southwest Asia was initially driven by developmental plasticity, followed by genetic selection. Significance StatementCereals were amongst the earliest crops domesticated in southwest Asia and remain central to modern agriculture. We can track cereal domestication archaeologically using a suite of morphological traits, which distinguish domestic species from their wild counterparts. The process by which these traits evolved is still not fully understood but has widely been framed as genetic adaptation to cultivation. Here we seek to disentangle how two key domestication traits relating to seed dispersal and size evolved. By taking a multi-stranded approach to new archaeobotanical evidence, we demonstrate that in the Early Holocene southern Levant, cereal domestication occurred in a sequence where developmental plasticity preceded genetic selection.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- In silico analysis of the evolution of root phenotypes during maize domestication in Neolithic soils of Tehuacan 95%
- Extensive photophysiological variation in wild barley is linked to environmental origin 95%
- Subcellular dynamics studies reveal how tissue-specific distribution patterns of iron are established in developing wheat grains 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Precision phenotyping of a barley diversity set reveals distinct drought response strategies 93%
- The trade-off between grain weight and grain number in wheat is explained by the overlapping of the key phases determining these major yield components 92%
- The road to sorghum domestication: evidence from nucleotide diversity and gene expression patterns 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Environment as a limiting factor of the historical global spread of mungbean 94%
- Glutaredoxin regulation of primary root growth is associated with early drought stress tolerance in pearl millet 93%
- Genetic variation, environment and demography intersect to shape Arabidopsis defense metabolite variation across Europe 93%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.