Origin of planktotrophy-evidence from early molluscs: a response to Nützel et al. (2006)

Multiple origins of feeding head larvae by the Early Cambrian

In many animals the head develops early, most of the body axis later. A larva composed mostly of the developing front end therefore can attain mobility and feeding earlier in development. Fossils, functional morphology, and inferred homologies indicate that feeding head larvae existed by the Early Cambrian in members of three major clades of animals: ecdysozoans, lophotrochozoans, and deuterostomes. Some of these early larval feeding mechanisms were also those of juveniles and adults (the lophophore of brachiopod larvae and possibly the ciliary band of the dipleurula of hemichordates and echinoderms); some were derived from structures that previously had other functions (appendages of the nauplius). Trochophores that swim with a preoral band of cilia, the prototroch, originated before divergence of annelids and molluscs, but evidence of larval growth and thus a prototrochal role in feeding is lacking for molluscs until the Ordovician. Feeding larvae that definitely originated much later, as in insects, teleost fish, and amphibians, develop all or nearly all of what will become the adult body axis before they begin feeding. On present evidence, head larvae, including feeding head larvae, evolved multiple times early in the evolution of bilaterian animals and never since.

Contrasting Metatrochal Behavior of Mollusc and Annelid Larvae and the Regulation of Feeding While Swimming

Molluscan veliger larvae and some annelid larvae capture particulate food between a preoral prototrochal band of long cilia that create a current for both swimming and feeding and a postoral metatrochal band of shorter cilia that beat toward the prototroch. Larvae encountering satiating or noxious particles must somehow swim without capturing particles or else reject large numbers of captured particles. Because high rates of particle capture are inferred to depend on the beat of both ciliary bands, arrest of the metatroch could be one way to swim while reducing captures. Larvae in eight families of annelids arrest metatrochal cilia frequently during prototrochal beat, often over a large part of the metatrochal band and with the arrested cilia aligned near the beginning of the effective stroke. In contrast, metatrochs of veligers of gastropods and bivalves rarely arrested while the prototroch beat, and those arrests were more localized and variable in position. This difference in metatrochal arrest was unexpected under hypotheses of either a single origin of this feeding mechanism or multiple origins within each phylum. Although different in metatrochal arrests, larvae of both phyla can separate swimming from feeding while both prototroch and metatroch beat. One hypothesis explaining low rates of capture per encounter, without metatrochal arrest, is a change in adhesion of prototrochal cilia with algae. In a few observations, part of the velar edge was retained within the veliger's shell so that exposed prototrochal cilia contributed to swimming while the adjacent metatroch and food groove were sequestered.

The gastropod foregut — evolution viewed through a developmental lens

Comparative data on the developing gastropod foregut suggest that this multicomponent feeding complex consists of two developmental modules. Modularity is revealed by delayed development of the buccal cavity and radular sac (“ventral module”) relative to the dorsal food channel (“dorsal module”) in gastropods with feeding larvae compared with those that may have never had a feeding larval stage. If nonfeeding larvae like those of extant patellogastropods and vetigastropods are ancestral for gastropods, then the uncoupling and heterochronic offset of dorsal and ventral foregut modules allowed the post-metamorphic dorsal food channel to be co-opted as a simple but functional esophagus for feeding larvae. Furthermore, by reducing energy cost per ovum, the heterochronic offset may have given mothers the evolutionary option of increasing fecundity or investing in protective egg encapsulation material. A second developmental innovation was spatial separation of the dorsal and ventral foregut modules, as illustrated by distal foregut development in buccinid neogastropods and venom gland development in cone snails. Spatial uncoupling may have enhanced the evolvability of gastropod foreguts by allowing phenotypic variants of ventral module components to be selected within post-metamorphic ecological settings, without needing to be first tested for compatibility with larval feeding. Finally, we describe a case in which foregut modularity has helped facilitate a highly derived life history in which encapsulated embryos ingest nurse eggs.

Life cycle evolution: was the eumetazoan ancestor a holopelagic, planktotrophic gastraea?

BACKGROUND

Two theories for the origin of animal life cycles with planktotrophic larvae are now discussed seriously: The terminal addition theory proposes a holopelagic, planktotrophic gastraea as the ancestor of the eumetazoans with addition of benthic adult stages and retention of the planktotrophic stages as larvae, i.e. the ancestral life cycles were indirect. The intercalation theory now proposes a benthic, deposit-feeding gastraea as the bilaterian ancestor with a direct development, and with planktotrophic larvae evolving independently in numerous lineages through specializations of juveniles.

RESULTS

Information from the fossil record, from mapping of developmental types onto known phylogenies, from occurrence of apical organs, and from genetics gives no direct information about the ancestral eumetazoan life cycle; however, there are plenty of examples of evolution from an indirect development to direct development, and no unequivocal example of evolution in the opposite direction. Analyses of scenarios for the two types of evolution are highly informative. The evolution of the indirect spiralian life cycle with a trochophora larva from a planktotrophic gastraea is explained by the trochophora theory as a continuous series of ancestors, where each evolutionary step had an adaptational advantage. The loss of ciliated larvae in the ecdysozoans is associated with the loss of outer ciliated epithelia. A scenario for the intercalation theory shows the origin of the planktotrophic larvae of the spiralians through a series of specializations of the general ciliation of the juvenile. The early steps associated with the enhancement of swimming seem probable, but the following steps which should lead to the complicated downstream-collecting ciliary system are without any advantage, or even seem disadvantageous, until the whole structure is functional. None of the theories account for the origin of the ancestral deuterostome (ambulacrarian) life cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

All the available information is strongly in favor of multiple evolution of non-planktotrophic development, and only the terminal addition theory is in accordance with the Darwinian theory by explaining the evolution through continuous series of adaptational changes. This implies that the ancestor of the eumetazoans was a holopelagic, planktotrophic gastraea, and that the adult stages of cnidarians (sessile) and bilaterians (creeping) were later additions to the life cycle. It further implies that the various larval types are of considerable phylogenetic value.

How did indirect development with planktotrophic larvae evolve?

The two main types of theories for the evolution of the biphasic life cycles in marine invertebrates are discussed. The "intercalation" theories propose that the larval stages (planktotrophic or lecithotrophic) have evolved as specializations from the ancestral, direct life cycle. The opposing "terminal addition" theories propose that the ancestor was holopelagic and that the adult stage was added to the life cycle with the pelagic stage retained as a planktotrophic larva. It is emphasized that theories based on hypothetical ancestors that were unable to feed must be rejected. This applies to planula theories based on a compact planula. Various arguments against the theories that consider the feeding larvae as ancestral in the major eumetazoan lineages and in particular against the trochaea theory are discussed and found untenable. It is suggested that the "Cambrian explosion" was actually a rapid Ediacaran radiation of the eubilaterians that was made possible by the evolution of a tubular gut with all the resulting possibilities for new body plans.