As I wrote
in the previous post, I am neither an expert on developmental biology nor am I
a geneticist, so I am just going to present my personal take-on to this subject
here.
When
domestic animals run wild, for whatever reason, they are opposed to the
following selective pressures:
· Climate
· Food quality and quantity
· Diseases and ability to recover from
injuries
· Predation (herbivores)
· Intraspecific competition
o
Sexual
selection
· Interspecific competition
The ability
to live on poor forage and to recover from injury as much as resistance to
diseases are not visible traits. Adaptions to climate are not necessarily
either, but some are. For example, the development of a sufficient winter fur,
or the reduction of unnecessarily large appendages like large dewlaps, udders
or ears. An interesting fact is that domestic pigs with sparse fur and pink
skin are prone to sunburns [1].
There are
behavioural adaptions too: Domestic animals tend to mate all the year round,
which is not advantageous because both mother and juvenile may not find enough
food during winter. Therefore, any wild animal exposed to such a climate has a
seasonal mating circle.
Defending
against predation requires morphological and behavioural changes as well. These chenges depend on the species and its defensive mechanisms. Herbivores
living in groups show herding behaviour, taking the young individuals into the
middle of the herd, and also form defensive circles around the youngsters. They
must have the physical ability to defend themselves – that is the necessary
strength, size, speed, manoeuvrability, and weapons (horns, antlers, kicks,
tusks, whatever). Camouflage is a factor as well.
Intraspecific
competition is basically about dominance and reproductive success. To be a dominant animal in a herd means to have access
to the best feeding and resting places, and not being chased by other, more
dominant herd members (dominant individuals have to defend their status, on the
other hand). Both the combats for dominance within a herd or mating rights should
have an influence on the morphology, as I am going to outline later on. But
also on behaviour – the more aggressive, energetic and more willingly to take
risks should be in advantage. Free reproduction not influenced by man will also
invoke sexual selection (of which the aforementioned mating combat is part),
which is another important factor for certain traits.
So, what
would happen if a population of domestic animals is released into the wild? Of
course the same that evolution does with any population: shape it to fit the
requirements given by nature (= intra- and interspecific, abiotic and biotic
factors). How this is going to happen certainly depends on the area they are
released on, but let’s assume it is the same evolutionary adaptive environment
the wild type of these domestic animals inhabited. It probably sounds logical
that those traits that were present in the wild type and were advantageous
adaptions to live in this ecosystem will be fixated and united in these
domestic animals as far as they are retained in the population. It is unlikely
that the whole genome of the wild type is preserved within a domestic species,
and that the released population contains all the wild type traits present in
the domestic species itself, but they probably would still have such traits. Furthermore, the animal’s genetic and
developmental potential might enable them to evolve traits equivalent to an
original wild trait that is lost but now needed again.
Nevertheless,
the transformative selection that would take place certainly would not just be pure
regression towards the retained wild type traits. The requirements of the biome
might have changed since the time the wild type has disappeared – some other
species might have vanished, or new been introduced and the landscape might
have been modified and the space restricted by man. The population has to adapt
to these circumstances as well.
Many
typical traits of domestic animals are useless or hindering: floppy ears,
reducing the acuteness of the auditory sense and affecting their social
behaviour (dogs); over-grown fur that felts or soaks full of water, dirt or
parasites; or unnecessarily large appendages such as large dewlaps, udders, fat
bumps, hypertrophied muscles, ears et cetera. Those would probably be
eradicated by natural selection as far as possible.
As anybody
familiar with the basic principles of population genetics will know, mutations
are not always fitness-reducing or deleterious. They can also be advantageous or at least be neutral. Perhaps some of the new
mutations that occurred since the domestication event would now be advantageous
to overcome the genetic bottlenecks they domestic lineages went through. Probably
a number of new traits acquired since domestication would be neutral and
disappear only slowly or only with the help of genetic drift, especially colour
traits.
Natural
selection would likely also influence the genes that were responsible for the
developmental changes during domestication (outlined in the previous post) and
change them in an evolutionary advantageous way, therefore removing some domestic
artefacts such as paedomorphism.
Eventually
the whole population would become more and more uniform. Wild animals usually are very uniform, and this is not only because of stabilizing selection that
purges out traits that are “not as fit” as the others, but also due to genetic
drift, which purely depends on coincidence concerning neutral traits. It would
probably take a very long time until a variable population of domestic animals
reaches the uniformity of wild animals (without severe bottlenecks).
Phenotypic
plasticity probably changes the appearance of the animals in just the reverse way
it does when taking place in husbandry: the animals should look more “trained”.
Based on
these thoughts, I worked out the
following hypotheses:
1. Domestic animals change under selective pressure in nature. These
changes are
a)
a regression towards wild-type traits because they provide an immediate
fitness advantage
b)
a response to the new and/or new old selective pressures, that might also
enforce traits that are not necessarily wild-type traits
2. Mechanisms that cause morphological and
behavioural changes in domestication, such as relaxed selection, alteration of
developmental cascades and pleiotropy do the reverse during dedomestication
3. Not all new traits that emerged during domestication are necessarily
fitness-reducing. Those will remain in the population for a long time or even
become fixed per coincidence.
4. Eventually, the population gets as uniform or nearly as uniform as wild
animals usually are through stabilizing selection and genetic bottlenecks,
however long that process will be.
Now I am
going to give a number of examples of dedomestication that might be models for
what we can expect to see in a released population of cattle:
Feral rabbits
It is
well-known that the native range of the common Rabbit, Oryctolagus cunniculus, was restricted to Iberia, North Africa and
southern France before it was expanded by humans from the antiquity onwards. Now
they inhabit great parts of Europe, Australia, New Zealand and also a bit of
South America. Those outside their original range are very uniform in appearance
and I do not know of any differences to those rabbits within the original
range. I do not know how many of the rabbits that were originally released in
non-native regions were wild or domestic, but there surely must have been
domestic rabbits among them. Heinz Heck claimed all of them were of domestic
origin (does anybody know further sources for that?).[2] Rabbits are small animals and have many
predators, they cannot effort any deviant, eye-catching colour variants, floppy
ears and so on.
Feral pigs
Pigs had escaped or been released on a lot of places on this earth. The most famous
examples are Australia and the Americas. The North American “razorbacks” will
be in the focus here. If you do a google search, you will find some specimen
that resemble European wild boars very closely – that is because those have
been introduced to several regions as game animals and hybridized with the
feral pigs. But there are, luckily, still regions with un-hybridized feral
hogs. Texas, for example. Have a look at these two videos showing Texan feral
hogs: video 1, video 2. Although not identical, they bear a considerable
resemblance to wild boars in looks, behaviour and movement. They have a body
build for agility and strength, and that's how they move. Their tusks are
well-pronounced as they have a social and defensive function. The skull is very
elongated, as much as in the wild boar – perhaps this is an example of a
“reversal” of paedomorphism as described above through developmental cascades [UPDATE: I was pointed out to a paper that suggests that the elongated snout of feral pigs is a result of phenotypic plasticity due to the chewing mechanism]. What
is also striking is their (with a few exceptions) uniform fur colour, beautiful
mud-coloured brown or very dark, almost black, brown (not as greyish as in the
European wild boar) – very likely camouflage in forested environment.
Feral Horses
There are a
lot of feral horse populations as well. But in this case I wasn’t able to trace
down a population that was originally of a diverse origin (in which the effect
of selection would be easier to spot than in a population that was rather
homogeneous right from the start*), fully exposed to natural selection and
without further influx by domestic horses. So I do not know of any feral horses
that serve as a good role model. And as far as I can see, there are no
populations that are homogeneous but not inbred at the same time. One of the
reasons might be that horses, being large herbivores that do not have any
natural enemies in most of the areas they run wild, do not have the same
predative pressure than feral rabbits or pigs have (adult feral hogs may be
untouched by native American predators, but juveniles and subadults probably
not). Furthermore, I think that horses are far less domesticated in terms of
morphology than (derived) cattle or pigs are.
*The feral
horses of the Namib Desert are very homogeneous. But I would explain that with
their very low genetic diversity [3] and ancestral breeds that were much alike.
My
dedomestication concept has empirical problems that am going to outline in a
following post. But for now I am going to use it as a working hypothesis for the next post,
which is going to explore what might happen in a cattle population becoming
dedomesticated.
For the next part, go here.
Literature
[1] Margret
Bunzel-Drüke, Carsten Böhm, Peter Finck, Gerd Kämmer, Rainer Luick, Edgar
Reisinger, Uwe Riecken, Johannes Riedl, Matthias Scharf, Olaf Zimball: ''„Wilde Weiden“. Praxisleitfaden für
Ganzjahresbeweidung in Naturschutz und Landschaftsentwicklung.'' 2.
Auflage. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Biologischer Umweltschutz im Kreis Soest, Bad
Sassendorf-Lohne 2009, ISBN 978-3-00-024385-1.
[2] Heinz Heck:
“Der neue Auerochse”, Internationales
Zuchtbuch für Auerochsen, 1980.
[3] Cothran EG, van Dyk E, and van der Merwe FJ
(March 2001). "Genetic Variation in the feral horses of the Namib Desert,
Namibia". Journal of the South African Veterinary
Association (J S Afr Vet Assoc) 72 (1): 18–22. PMID 11563711. R
A pigs skull changes shape radically due to how they feed. If a barnyard piglet is released to live feral, it will grow to have an elongated snout, very similar to a wild Eurasian boar skull.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16360913
Ah, that makes sense, thank you. I wouldn't have guessed that the effect of mechanically induced growth would be that large, interesting. I'll add that aspect.
Delete