John Odling-Smee

Niche construction, biological evolution, and cultural change

We propose a conceptual model that maps the causal pathways relating biological evolution to cultural change. It builds on conventional evolutionary theory by placing emphasis on the capacity of organisms to modify sources of natural selection in their environment (niche construction) and by broadening the evolutionary dynamic to incorporate ontogenetic and cultural processes. In this model, phenotypes have a much more active role in evolution than generally conceived. This sheds light on hominid evolution, on the evolution of culture, and on altruism and cooperation. Culture amplifies the capacity of human beings to modify sources of natural selection in their environments to the point where that capacity raises some new questions about the processes of human adaptation.

How culture shaped the human genome: bringing genetics and the human sciences together

Researchers from diverse backgrounds are converging on the view that human evolution has been shaped by gene–culture interactions. Theoretical biologists have used population genetic models to demonstrate that cultural processes can have a profound effect on human evolution, and anthropologists are investigating cultural practices that modify current selection. These findings are supported by recent analyses of human genetic variation, which reveal that hundreds of genes have been subject to recent positive selection, often in response to human activities. Here, we collate these data, highlighting the considerable potential for cross-disciplinary exchange to provide novel insights into how culture has shaped the human genome.

Cause and Effect in Biology Revisited: Is Mayr’s Proximate-Ultimate Dichotomy Still Useful?

Fifty years ago, Ernst Mayr published a hugely influential paper on the nature of causation in biology, in which he distinguished between proximate and ultimate causes. Mayr equated proximate causation with immediate factors (for example, physiology) and ultimate causation with evolutionary explanations (for example, natural selection). He argued that proximate and ultimate causes addressed different questions and were not alternatives. Mayr’s account of causation remains widely accepted today, with both positive and negative ramifications. Several current debates in biology (for example, over evolution and development, niche construction, cooperation, and the evolution of language) are linked by a common axis of acceptance/rejection of Mayr’s model of causation. We argue that Mayr’s formulation has acted to stabilize the dominant evolutionary paradigm against change but may now hamper progress in the biological sciences.

Cultural niche construction and human evolution

Organisms frequently choose, regulate, construct and destroy important components of their environments, in the process changing the selection pressures to which they and other organisms are exposed. We refer to these processes as niche construction. In humans, culture has greatly amplified our capacity for niche construction and our ability to modify selection pressures. We use gene‐culture coevolutionary models to explore the evolutionary consequences of culturally generated niche construction through human evolution. Our analysis suggests that where cultural traits are transmitted in an unbiased fashion from parent to offspring, cultural niche construction will have a similar effect to gene‐based niche construction. However, cultural transmission biases favouring particular cultural traits may either increase or reduce the range of parameter space over which niche construction has an impact, which means that niche construction with biased transmission will either have a much smaller or a much bigger effect than gene‐based niche construction. The analysis also reveals circumstances under which cultural transmission can overwhelm natural selection, accelerate the rate at which a favoured gene spreads, initiate novel evolutionary events and trigger hominid speciation. Because cultural processes typically operate faster than natural selection, cultural niche construction probably has more profound consequences than gene‐based niche construction, and is likely to have played an important role in human evolution.

NICHE CONSTRUCTION THEORY: A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR ECOLOGISTS

Niche construction theory (NCT) explicitly recognizes environmental modification by organisms (“niche construction”) and their legacy over time (“ecological inheritance”) to be evolutionary processes in their own right. Here we illustrate how niche construction theory provides useful conceptual tools and theoretical insights for integrating ecosystem ecology and evolutionary theory. We begin by briefly describing NCT, and illustrating how it differs from conventional evolutionary approaches. We then distinguish between two aspects of niche construction—environment alteration and subsequent evolution in response to constructed environments—equating the first of these with “ecosystem engineering.” We describe some of the ecological and evolutionary impacts on ecosystems of niche construction, ecosystem engineering, and ecological inheritance, and illustrate how these processes trigger ecological and evolutionary feedbacks and leave detectable ecological signatures that are open to investigation. Finally, we provide a practical guide to how NCT could be deployed by ecologists and evolutionary biologists to explore eco-evolutionary dynamics. We suggest that, by highlighting the ecological and evolutionary ramifications of changes that organisms bring about in ecosystems, NCT helps link ecosystem ecology to evolutionary biology, potentially leading to a deeper understanding of how ecosystems change over time.

Human niche construction in interdisciplinary focus

Niche construction is an endogenous causal process in evolution, reciprocal to the causal process of natural selection. It works by adding ecological inheritance, comprising the inheritance of natural selection pressures previously modified by niche construction, to genetic inheritance in evolution. Human niche construction modifies selection pressures in environments in ways that affect both human evolution, and the evolution of other species. Human ecological inheritance is exceptionally potent because it includes the social transmission and inheritance of cultural knowledge, and material culture. Human genetic inheritance in combination with human cultural inheritance thus provides a basis for gene–culture coevolution, and multivariate dynamics in cultural evolution. Niche construction theory potentially integrates the biological and social aspects of the human sciences. We elaborate on these processes, and provide brief introductions to each of the papers published in this theme issue.

Under niche construction: an operational bridge between ecology, evolution, and ecosystem science

All living organisms modify their biotic and abiotic environment. Niche construction theory posits that organism-mediated modifications to the environment can change selection pressures and influence the evolutionary trajectories of natural populations. While there is broad support for this proposition in general, there is considerable uncertainty about how niche construction is related to other similar concepts in ecology and evolution. Comparative studies dealing with certain aspects of niche construction are increasingly common, but there is a troubling lack of experimental tests of the core concepts of niche construction theory. Here, we propose an operational framework to evaluate comparative and experimental evidence of the evolutionary consequences of niche construction, and suggest how such research can improve our understanding of ecological and evolutionary dynamics in ecosystems. We advocate for a shift toward explicit experimental tests of how organism-mediated environmental change can influence the selection pressures underlying evolutionary responses, as well as targeted field-based comparative research to identify the mode of evolution by niche construction and assess its importance in natural populations.

Causing a commotion.

Niche construction: do the changes that organisms make to their habitats transform evolution and influence natural selection?

The role of internal and external constructive processes in evolution

The architects of the Modern Synthesis viewed development as an unfolding of a form already latent in the genes. However, developing organisms play a far more active, constructive role in both their own development and their evolution than the Modern Synthesis proclaims. Here we outline what is meant by constructive processes in development and evolution, emphasizing how constructive development is a shared feature of many of the research developments central to the developing Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. Our article draws out the parallels between constructive physiological processes expressed internally and in the external environment (niche construction), showing how in each case they play important and not fully recognized evolutionary roles by modifying and biasing natural selection.

Integrating Ecology and Evolution: Niche Construction and Ecological Engineering

Ecology and evolution remain poorly integrated despite their obvious mutual relevance. Such integration poses serious challenges: evolutionary biologists’ and ecologists’ conceptualizations of the organic world—and the models and theories based upon them—are conceptually incompatible. Work on organism-environment interaction by both evolutionary theorists (niche construction theory) and ecologists (ecosystem engineering theory) has begun to bridge the gap separating the two conceptual frameworks, but the integration achieved has so far been limited. An emerging extension of niche construction theory—ecological niche construction—now promises to achieve a richer integration of evolutionary and ecological conceptual frameworks. This work raises broader philosophical problems about how to choose and combine idealized models of complex phenomena, which can be addressed with the aid of ideas developed by biologists (such as Richard Levins) and philosophers (such as Sandra Mitchell) on the goals and strategies of model-building in the complex sciences. The result is an opening up of new pathways for conceptual change, empirical investigation, and reconsideration of the familiar that has only just begun. Ecological niche construction combines with new developments in evolutionary developmental biology to reveal the need for a deep transformation of the conceptual framework of evolution and the emergence of an integrative biology re-uniting development, evolution and ecology.