[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-157011-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-157011-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","evolution-letters-letter-the-evolution-of-reversible-plasticity-in-stable-environments","Evolution Letters - Letter - The evolution of reversible plasticity in stable environments","","Reversible plasticity enables organisms to undo environmentally induced phenotypic specializations, yet few mathematical models explain when evolution favors trait reversibility. Existing theory often treats development as instantaneous, ignoring incremental construction of phenotypes to match local ecologies. This letter develops an optimality model where organisms sample cues across generations and optionally deconstruct adjustments, comparing incremental versus complete deconstruction modes. Results reveal ordered sensitive periods and show reversibility can evolve even when environments remain stable within generations.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/evolution-letters-letter-the-evolution-of-reversible-plasticity-in-stable-environments/157011/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/evolution-letters-letter-the-evolution-of-reversible-plasticity-in-stable-environments/157011.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Seraphina","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-17","2026-08-29",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",9,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What does the letter model about reversible plasticity?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It proposes an optimality model where organisms incrementally construct phenotypes based on environmental cues sampled across generations, with an option to deconstruct those phenotypic adjustments.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How are phenotypic deconstruction modes compared?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The model contrasts two modes: incremental deconstruction of adjustments versus complete deconstruction of all adjustments in a single time period.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"When do the strongest cue effects occur for deconstruction?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Construction sensitive periods early in life precede mid-ontogeny sensitive periods for deconstruction, and cues in mid-ontogeny have the strongest impact even though deconstruction usually happens toward the end of ontogeny.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},157011,1787971158,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},962075114101,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/e000253a75eb197efd?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1780044092746381165","Evolution Letters, 2025, 0(XX), 1–11  \n[https://doi.org/10.1093/evlett/qraf015](https://doi.org/10.1093/evlett/qraf015)  \nLetter  \nThe evolution of reversible plasticity in stable environments  \nNicole Walasek 1 , *, Karthik Panchanathan2 , Willem E. Frankenhuis1,3  \n1 Evolutionary and Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands  \n2 Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States  \n3 Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law, Freiburg, Germany  \nCorresponding author: Evolutionary and Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, PO  \nBox 94240, 1090 GE Amsterdam, [The Netherlands. Email:](The Netherlands. Email: walasek.nicole@gmail.com)[ walasek.nicole@gmail.com](The Netherlands. Email: walasek.nicole@gmail.com)  \nAbstract  \nReversible plasticity, i.e., the ability to deconstruct phenotypic specializations based on environmental conditions, is widespread in nature. Despite its ubiquity, few mathematical models have explored the evolutionary selection pressures that favor trait reversibility. Therefore, many scenarios remain to be examined. In particular, existing theory has modeled trait development as an instantaneous process. These models do not capture the fact that trait development is often a constructive process, in which phenotypes incrementally adjust to local ecologies. Here, we present an optimality model of the evolution of reversible plasticity in which organisms build traits incrementally. In our model, organisms repeatedly sample cues to infer the environmental state—which can vary between generations but not within generations—and incrementally tailor their phenotypes to match their environments. Organisms also have the option to deconstruct phenotypic adjustments. We investigate two different modes of phenotypic deconstruction: Organisms can either deconstruct phenotypic adjustments incrementally or completely deconstruct all phenotypic adjustments in one time period. We highlight two results. First, early-life sensitive periods in construction precede mid-ontogeny sensitive periods in deconstruction. Intriguingly, although organisms typically only deconstruct toward the end of ontogeny, environmental cues in mid-ontogeny have the strongest impact on deconstruction. Second, in contrast to previous models, we find that reversibility often evolves in environments that are stable within generations. Thus, our model shows that reversibility does not require environmental change during development—as long as organisms are initially uncertain about environmental conditions. Our model provides new insights into the capacity for reversibility in species that have evolved in ontogenetically stable environments.  \nKeywords: phenotypic plasticity, reversible plasticity, stable environments, evolution, development  \nIntroduction  \nThe ability to deconstruct phenotypic specializations, a process called reversible phenotypic plasticity , is widespread (Nettle & Bateson, 2015; Stearns, 1989; West-Eberhard, 2003) . Reversible phenotypic plasticity has been modeled as a lifelong capacity to completely reverse phenotypes (Burggren, 2020; Piersma & Drent, 2003) . Not all empirical examples of reversibility work in this way. The freshwater snail Helisoma trivolis can develop shell thickness to guard against predators, but can also reverse course and reduce thickness if conditions change (Hoverman & Relyea, 2007) . However, the complete reversal of shell thickening only occurs if predators are removed early in ontogeny. In the water flea Daphnia barbata , reversibility of defensive morphologies is specific to predator and trait. Daphnia exposed to tadpoles (Triops cancriformis)—but not to an aquatic insect predator (Notonecta glauca)—can deconstruct defensive morphologies (Herzog et al. , 2016) . And, reversibility is higher for ","cbCaipHYaHXvJckx","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipHYaHXvJckx","pdf",1258075,11,"English","# Introduction\n## Reversible phenotypic plasticity and existing theory\n## Model motivation and research questions\n# Results and key predictions\n## Sensitive periods during construction and deconstruction\n## Reversibility under generationally stable environments","[{\"question\":\"What does the letter model about reversible plasticity?\",\"answer\":\"It proposes an optimality model where organisms incrementally construct phenotypes based on environmental cues sampled across generations, with an option to deconstruct those phenotypic adjustments.\"},{\"question\":\"How are phenotypic deconstruction modes compared?\",\"answer\":\"The model contrasts two modes: incremental deconstruction of adjustments versus complete deconstruction of all adjustments in a single time period.\"},{\"question\":\"When do the strongest cue effects occur for deconstruction?\",\"answer\":\"Construction sensitive periods early in life precede mid-ontogeny sensitive periods for deconstruction, and cues in mid-ontogeny have the strongest impact even though deconstruction usually happens toward the end of ontogeny.\"}]","Evolution Letters - Letter - The evolution of reversible plasticity in stable environments | PDF",28]