<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Solving the grand challenge of phenotypic integration: allometry across scales

François Vasseur, Adrianus Johannes Westgeest, Denis Vile, Cyrille Violle

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

François Vasseur, Adrianus Johannes Westgeest, Denis Vile, Cyrille Violle. Solving the grand challenge of phenotypic integration: allometry across scales. Genetica, 2022, 150 (3-4), pp.161-169. 10.1007/s10709-022-00158-6. hal-03745940

HAL Id: hal-03745940

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03745940

Submitted on 4 Aug 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Solving the grand challenge of phenotypic integration: allometry across scales

François Vasseur<fnref n="1" />* · Adrianus Johannes Westgeest<fnref n="1" /> · Denis Vile<fnref n="2" /> · Cyrille Violle<fnref n="1" />

Received: 3 December 2021 / Accepted: 13 June 2022

© The Author(s) 2022

## Abstract

Phenotypic integration is a concept related to the cascade of trait relationships from the lowest organizational levels, i.e. genes, to the highest, i.e. whole-organism traits. However, the cause-and-effect linkages between traits are notoriously difficult to determine. In particular, we still lack a mathematical framework to model the relationships involved in the integration of phenotypic traits. Here, we argue that allometric models developed in ecology offer testable mathematical equations of trait relationships across scales. We first show that allometric relationships are pervasive in biology at different organizational scales and in different taxa. We then present mechanistic models that explain the origin of allometric relationships. In addition, we emphasized that recent studies showed that natural variation does exist for allometric parameters, suggesting a role for genetic variability, selection and evolution. Consequently, we advocate that it is time to examine the genetic determinism of allometries, as well as to question in more detail the role of genome size in subsequent scaling relationships. More broadly, a possible—but so far neglected—solution to understand phenotypic integration is to examine allometric relationships at different organizational levels (cell, tissue, organ, organism) and in contrasted species.

**Keywords** Allometry · Phenotypic integration · Genome size · Metabolic scaling · Trait relationships

## Building complex organisms: an allometric perspective

The development of large and complex multicellular organisms requires the coordination and integration of a multitude of processes at different organizational levels (Pigliucci 2007; Zinner et al. 2020). Phenotypic integration (i.e. how complex organisms are built and how phenotypic traits are connected and coordinated) has been examined from a wide variety of approaches and research fields, including physiology, evolutionary biology, ecology and allometry (see for instance Schlichting and Pigliucci 1995; Pigliucci et al. 1996; Klingenberg 1996; Murren 2002; Pigliucci 2003;

Klingenberg and Marugan-Lobon 2013; Klingenberg 2014; Klingenberg 2016; Watanabe 2022). However, joint empirical efforts at the interface of those disciplines warrant further study. One reason is that the study of trade-offs and strategies in comparative ecology has largely occurred independently of the study of phenotypic integration in evolutionary biology. Indeed, comparative ecology has mainly focused on global trends and trait-trait relationships across species, taking advantage of large interspecific databases (Brosse et al. 2021; Kattge et al. 2011; Díaz et al. 2016; Mouillot et al. 2021; Toussaint et al. 2021); while evolutionary biology has mainly focused on investigating the mechanisms and consequences of genetic correlations within species (Steppan et al. 2002; Arnold et al. 2008; Penna et al. 2017; Milocco and Salazar-Ciudad 2022).

Following Arnold's definition (Arnold 1983), phenotypic integration can be represented as a pyramid, in which traits related to gene products (RNA, enzymes) are at the bottom, and performance-related traits (growth rate, fecundity) at the top (Fig. 1). Ecological theory proposes a similar hierarchy of trait integration from genes to fitness (Violle et al. 2007). Basically, a trait Y is said to be integrated when it results from the effect of one or several traits $X_i$ (considered

This article is part of the Special Issue “The relationship between genotype and phenotype: new insights on an old question”.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<footnote>François Vasseur
francois.vasseur@cefe.cnrs.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ CEFE, University Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² LEPSE, University Montpellier, INRAE, Institut Agro, Montpellier, France</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Arnold's view of phenotypic integration. The pyramidal cascade of trait relationships from genes to organism's fitness is represented. Here, the trait-trait relationships between two successive organizational levels are hypothetical</figcaption></figure>

at “lower degrees of phenotypic integration”). Traits at different organizational levels are assumed to be connected by scaling relationships or functions (Fig. 1). For instance, gene expression impacts RNA content, which in turn impacts cell metabolism and size, which in turn impacts organ physiology and size, and so on. Following Arnold's view of phenotypic integration, a genetic variation impacting a trait should also impact the traits that are at higher levels and that result from the effect of the focal trait, with possible feedback effects between consecutive levels of integration. This is corroborated by recent findings, in which the rate of adaptive substitution (i.e. genetic variation that impacts organismal fitness) along the genome increases with the degree of phenotypic integration (Zhang 2018). However, the pyramidal view of phenotypic integration proposed by Arnold largely remains theoretical: the ‘cause-and-effect’ cascades, as well as the relationships involved, are notoriously difficult to establish, so is the hierarchy of phenotypic integration. Traits are generally organized into groups of interacting features, called modules, which are relatively independent from each others (e.g. floral traits versus vegetative traits in plants) (Wagner et al. 2007; Klingenberg 2008; Murren 2012; Diggle 2014). However, how modules and traits at different scales are connected to each other remains unclear.

One of the main consequences of a change in the size of an object is the modification of its surface area to volume ratio. This is explained by simple geometric considerations: the surface area, which allows exchanges of resources and energy between the internal medium and the environment, increases according to a square function; while the volume, a priori linked to the number of cells and thus to energy needs,

increases according to a cubic function. As a result, the surface-to-volume ratio decreases with volume and mass, whatever the shape of the object (but see Bestova et al. 2021). In living things, these geometric constraints have profound consequences for resource use strategies. First, the rate of metabolic activity—measured through basal respiration rate—is expected to increase non-proportionally with organism size. Having a smaller surface-to-volume ratio, large individuals are expected to have a lower metabolic rate (Kleiber 1947) and to lose less heat per unit biomass (Bergmann's rule) (Bergmann 1847; Blackburn et al. 1999). For example, an increase of only 10% in height and width of a cone representing a simplified tree would result in an increase of c. 20% in its surface area, and an increase of c. 33% in its volume. A direct consequence is that surface-related processes, such as carbon fixation and water loss, increase twice as fast as the increase in height and width. A tree with increased size will therefore be likely to use significantly more surface-related resources (e.g., transpiration of water, acquisition of carbon through photosynthesis). Moreover, volume-related processes, such as carbon consumption via cellular respiration, increase even more significantly (33%). This example is of course an unrealistic simplification (a tree is never as simple as a cone) of the physiological processes involved in complex organisms, but it illustrates the major, and asymmetric, influence of size variations on resource use, growth, and development (Ohlberger 2013; Malerba et al. 2017; Lindmark et al. 2019; Malerba and Marshall 2019).

Considering that the size of an object is the main determinant of its internal properties is the central tenet of allometry research, which, in its broad definition, is the

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
study of the relationships between the size of a biological
entity (e.g., genome, cell, organ, organism, population)
and its morphological, physiological and metabolic traits
(Niklas 1994). Allometric equations aim at modelling
trait-trait relationships across organizational scales. They
typically take the form of power-law functions $Y = \alpha X^{\beta}$,
where X is a size-related trait and Y a morphological or
physiological trait (Niklas 1994). Strikingly, the same
equations are used to scale up from genome size to cell
size (Kozłowski et al. 2003b; Beaulieu et al. 2008; Šímová
and Herben 2011; Gonzalez-de-Salceda and Garcia-Pichel
2021), cell size to organ size (Gregory et al. 2000; Tisné
et al. 2008; John et al. 2013), organ size to organism size
(Stahl 1965; Gould 1971; Stevenson et al. 1995; Lindst-
edt and Schaeffer 2002; Shingleton et al. 2007; Poorter
et al. 2015), body size to energy consumption (Huxley
1932; Kleiber 1932, 1947; DeLong et al. 2010; Capellini
et al. 2010), as well as from organism size to population
density (Enquist et al. 1998; Malerba and Marshall 2019)
(see Fig. 2 for examples of allometric relationships at dif-
ferent organizational levels). We advocate that a promising
approach to understand phenotypic integration is to study
scaling relationships, because modelling such relation-
ships is built from a mathematical toolkit aimed at linking
one level of integration to another.

Integrating traits across scales: biological regularity versus genetic diversity

The allometric equations used to connect one phenotypic
level to another are generally linearized by log-trans-
formation, and β becomes the slope of the relationships
log(Y) = log(α) + βlog(M) (Fig. 2). Simple geometric mod-
els predict β = 2/3 because β must be determined by the
ratios between surface area (square function) and volume
(cubic function) (Rubner 1883; White and Seymour 2003).
However, in 1932, Kleiber observed that energy consump-
tion in animals—which spanned several orders of magni-
tude in size—scales with body mass with an allometric
exponent β = ¾ (Kleiber 1932). This observation yielded
many studies on the value that β actually takes for differ-
ent traits in different taxa. Moreover, the question of a
biological constant that applies to virtually all organisms
has been the subject of intense debates in the scientific lit-
erature. Indeed, the sole existence of a biological constant
would suggest that organisms are built under the same
developmental constraints, which translates into univer-
sal scaling relationships. Moreover, if the same constants
are observed at different levels of phenotypic integration
(from genomes to whole organisms), this would have
strong implications for our understanding, and the poten-
tial prediction, of biological structures and organization.

The introduction of fractal geometries into mechanistic
models has revolutionized the field of allometry research.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a series of papers laid
the theoretical foundations for the Metabolic Scaling
Theory (MST) (Enquist et al. 1999, 2007b; West et al.
1999a, b, 2001, 2002; Niklas and Enquist 2001; Brown
et al. 2004; Price and Enquist 2007), which invokes the
fractal-like geometry of vascular networks as the main
determinant of several scaling relationships in both plants
and animals. MST is primarily based on two central
hypotheses: the network is space-filling and the branch-
ing is area-preserving, i.e. the sum of cross-sectional areas
of daughter branches equals the cross-sectional area of
the mother branch. These hypotheses led to predictions
concerning the variation of organism morphology, the
allocation of biomass and the physiological rates at the
organism level (Fig. 2) (Savage et al. 2008). For instance,
the organism's basal metabolic rate is expected to scale
with β = ¾ to the organism's body mass due to the opti-
mization of the internal transport distance for resources
and energy (West et al. 1999b). In plants, the metabolic
rate is expected to scale isometrically (i.e. with exponent
β = 1, which directly translates strict proportionality) with
total leaf area and total leaf biomass, and allometrically
(with exponent β = ¾) with the mass of the plant (Enquist
et al. 1998; West et al. 1999a; Price et al. 2007). These
scaling expectations represent the master equations of the
MST, from which other scaling relationships at different
levels of phenotypic integration have been derived, such as
metabolic activity, relative growth rate, xylem fluxes and
net photosynthetic rate in plants (Enquist 2002; Price and
Enquist 2007; Enquist et al. 2007b; Savage et al. 2008).
MST predictions even extend to population dynamics
and demography, as illustrated by the expected exponent
of -3/4 for the relationship between maximum plant den-
sity and plant size (Enquist et al. 1998). However, some of
the mechanistic assumptions of MST remain controversial,
in large part because the universality of the scaling expo-
nent has been challenged theoretically and empirically
(Dodds et al. 2001; Kozłowski and Konarzewski 2004;
Glazier 2005; Coomes 2006; Russo et al. 2007).

The theoretical underpinnings of MST are based on the
idea that natural selection has optimized vascular networks
in order to minimize the energy required for resource distri-
bution, which would shape quasi-universal allometric rela-
tionships within and between species (West et al. 1999b).
Interspecific comparisons have revealed global patterns
of covariation that generally confirm the predictions of
MST, in both animals and plants (Fig. 2). Moreover, recent
intraspecific studies in plants also demonstrated an allomet-
ric exponent of ¾ in wild tomatoes and in *A. thaliana* (Vas-
seur et al. 2012; Muir and Thomas-Huebner 2013, 2015).
This suggests that allometric relationships result from strong
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Examples of allometric relationships between scales. **A** Relationship between leaf mass ($M_L$) and stem mass ($M_S$) (Price et al. 2010). **B** Relationship between cell area ($A_C$) and genome size ($S$) (Beaulieu et al. 2008). **C** Relationship between plant mass ($M$) and plant density ($N$) (Enquist et al. 1998). **D** Relationship between organism's basal metabolic rate ($B$) and body mass ($M$) (West et al. 2002).</figcaption></figure>

**E** Relationship between the number of 16S/18S ribosomal genes per cell ($R_C$) and cell volume ($V_C$) (Gonzalez-de-Salceda and Garcia-Pichel 2021). **F** Relationship between xylem flux ($F$) and plant mass ($M$) (Enquist and Niklas 2001). **G** Relationship between flatworm body volume ($V$) and genome size ($S$) (Gregory et al. 2000)

constraints, which operate at different organizational levels independently from the taxonomic scale and which, on average, adhere to the predictions of MST. Yet, intraspecific variability in allometries are also frequently observed in animals (Kozłowski et al. 2003a; Sieg et al. 2009; Summers and Ord 2021), and in plants (Vasseur et al. 2012; Muir and Thomas-Huebner 2013, 2015). For instance, the rate of respiratory metabolism has been found to scale isometrically (i.e. with

exponent $\beta \approx 1$) with plant biomass in herbaceous plants and tree seedlings (Reich et al. 2006; Cheng et al. 2010). Other studies in plants (Enquist et al. 2007a; Mori et al. 2010) and mammals (Kolokotrones et al. 2010), showed that respiration rate scales differently for organisms with small body mass and large body mass. In plants, competition for light results in significant variations in allometric relationships in trees (Russo et al. 2007; Lines et al. 2012). Strikingly, the

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
studies reporting that intraspecific plant allometries follow the ¾ rule on average, also showed that the allometric exponent can vary significantly around ¾ because of evolutionary adaptation to stressful environments (Vasseur et al. 2018b). Studies in plants also indicated that variation in allometric exponents are genetically associated with different carbon and water-use strategies (Vasseur et al. 2012, 2014; Muir and Thomas-Huebner 2015), as well as reproductive output and resistance to stress (Muir and Thomas-Huebner 2013; Vasseur et al. 2018b). Together, these recent findings support the idea that scaling relationships vary between populations as a consequence of evolutionary adaptation to different environments, but they generally center around ¾. Overall, it suggests that phenotypic integration obeys fundamental laws that are translated into the relative constancy of allometric relationships at different organizational levels. However, a key question related to the integration of phenotypic traits is how adaptation to contrasting environments is the result of, or is dependent on, substantial variations in allometric relationships (Pigliucci et al. 1996; Pélabon et al. 2014).

**Current prospects in allometry:
toward a genetic synthesis?**

Exploring the genetic determinism of intraspecific allometries represents a promising avenue to better understand how organisms are built. Recent efforts have been devoted to the identification and characterization of genetic diversity in allometric relationships (Long et al. 2006; Qin et al. 2012, 2013; Vasseur et al. 2012, 2018b; Muir and Thomas-Huebner 2015). These works suggest that selection must operate on the genes that impact allometric parameters such as β, because the same biomechanical constraints (notably those related to surface area-to-volume ratio) are expected to operate at different scales. Identifying those genes should be a research priority to determine which molecular pathways are involved in the integration of phenotypic traits with size. In addition, the genetic architecture of intraspecific variability in allometry is directly informative about how organisms are expected to evolve. The predominance of few pleiotropic genes with strong effects on allometries, for instance genes related to life history, would suggest evolution by abrupt increments and sharp variations (Paaby and Rockman 2013). By contrast, if allometries are determined by a multitude of genes along the genomes, each having only a small effect, then a more gradual and continuous evolution of organisms is expected, which is directly related to the integration of multiple traits in complex organisms, and which has been called the “cost of complexity” (Orr 2000; Wagner et al. 2008). Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) might help to clarify the oligo- and/or the polygenic nature of allometric variations by the screening of plant and animal

populations at different organizational levels. Furthermore, the recent rise of next-generation sequencing technologies allows extensive genomic analyses of the identified genes. The genetic survey of natural populations through space and time can reveal genomic signatures of selection and clarify the demographic history of the investigated populations (Weigel 2012). For instance, comparing genetic and phenotypic differentiation between populations through $Q_{ST}/F_{ST}$ approaches (Leinonen et al. 2013) allows testing whether allometric parameters such as β vary between populations due to neutral differentiation such as genetic drift, or because of directional or balancing selection. This kind of approach coupling allometry with quantitative genetics and genomics has recently been applied to the model plant *Arabidopsis thaliana*. It first identified two major pleiotropic genes as responsible for allometric variation between plant growth rate and plant dry mass (Vasseur et al. 2012), suggesting that plants evolve through strong allometric increments. However, this study was performed on a population of recombinant inbred lines (RIL) artificially created by crossing two contrasted ecotypes. A similar study performed six years later on a collection of 450 ecotypes (Vasseur et al. 2018b) revealed by contrast that plant allometry has a more polygenic architecture, with many contributing genes and with the major gene identified affecting only around 1% of the phenotypic variance. Taking advantage of the extensive genetic information available for *A. thaliana*, this study also showed that genes related to allometric variations exhibited signatures of selection and they were clustered geographically along a latitudinal gradient. Despite these encouraging findings, our knowledge of the genetic determinism of organism allometries remains limited. Yet, genetic studies of allometric variations could shed light on the complex genotype to-phenotype relationships involved in the coordination of complex phenotypes. A more systematic analysis of intraspecific relationships at different levels of integration (genome, cell, organ, and whole organism) is needed, in different species and different environmental conditions. Moreover, testing the effect of natural or artificial selection in real time with experimental evolution is a promising avenue to examine the evolution of allometry and its role for organism adaptation to contrasted environments.

**Allometric scaling from genome size
to whole organisms: the grand challenge**

An alternative approach to explore phenotypic integration through the lens of allometry is to link scaling relationships at different organizational levels (i.e. from genome to cell, organ and whole organism). Each level has its own set of allometric expectations, with its own theoretical corpus. For instance, there are allometric expectations for the allometry
of genome size versus cell size (Šímová and Herben 2011), and cell size versus organism size (Gregory et al. 2000), as well as organism size versus metabolic rate or growth rate (Brown et al. 2004; Savage et al. 2008). Connecting these expectations, made at different levels and from different biological considerations, around a unifying model represents the ultimate challenge in allometry research. However, and as said above, the questions surrounding the links of cause-and-effects between relationships and organizational levels are particularly difficult to address. If in theory we could build allometric relationships to directly connect the lower level of integration—genome size—to the upper—organism size and metabolism—, in practice allometric relationships are generally strong between two successive organizational levels—e.g., genome size versus cell size, organism size versus organ size—but they decrease in predictive power with increasing phenotypic scale (Knight and Beaulieu 2008).

We advocate here that a promising avenue to solve this issue relies on the measurement of genome size. Genome size is usually estimated by DNA content in pg, which is expected to vary a lot among species because of different sources of variability in genome composition (including the number of genes but above all the amount of non-coding DNA, transposable elements, structural variations, repeated sequences, etc.) (Schubert and Vu 2016). However, this measurement of genome size misses the key point: what really matters is not the total amount of DNA, but the number of different genes that are effectively expressed during organism growth and development, as well as the amount (and repetition) of DNA segments regulating gene transcription and translation (mostly ribosomal DNA). The amount of DNA and the level of gene expression might differ a lot due to different processes. First, large portions of the genome exhibit presence/absence polymorphisms between genotypes of the same species (Tan et al. 2012; Bush et al. 2013; González et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2014; Jiang et al. 2015), which suggests strong variability in the number of expressed genes between these genotypes. To what extent this variability is related to phenotypic variation remains unknown so far (Weisweiler et al. 2019). Second, the level of heterozygosity could positively impact the number of expressed genes and/or alleles. This could partly explain the increase in organism vigour and size frequently reported in hybrids between homozygous lines (Charlesworth and Charlesworth 1999). Indeed, the number of heterozygous genes, as well as presence/absence alleles has been shown to be positively correlated to hybrid vigour in plants (Springer et al. 2009; Paschold et al. 2012; Hochholdinger and Baldauf 2018). The links between expressed genome size and plant vigour are also supported by the higher size or organs and whole organisms in polyploid lines (containing 4 N, 6 N, 8 N etc.) versus their diploid relatives (Chen 2010; Sattler et al. 2016). Consistent with allometric expectations, polyploids might exhibit

larger organs and body size due to their enlarged genomes (Otto 2007; Lavania 2016). Accordingly, endopolyploidy at the cellular level is also associated with increased cell size in both plants and animals (Leitch and Dodsworth 2001; Neiman et al. 2017). However, polyploidy could also uncouple trait covariations and, thus, alter the pattern of phenotypic integration observed in diploids. This is notably the case for the traits related to leaf physiology and resource use (López-Jurado et al. 2022). Yet, to what extent polyploidy might break allometric rules and alter scaling equations at different organization scales remains to be elucidated. Finally, epigenetic marks along the genome can repress the expression of a large number of genes. For instance, methylated regions, which have reduced RNA transcription, represent a significant portion of the genome (Seymour et al. 2014; Seymour and Becker 2017). Consistent with a link between genome methylation level and organism growth and size, the re-analysis of the amount of methylated regions measured on more than 1000 natural accessions of *A. thaliana* (Kawakatsu et al. 2016) with the growth-related traits measured on 409 accessions in common (Vasseur et al. 2018a) (but on different individuals cultivated in an independent experiment), revealed a negative correlation between individual growth rate and the fraction of methylated genome ($r = -0.044$, slope = $-0.02$, *P* = 0.002; unpublished data), which suggests that larger expressed genomes are associated with bigger plants and higher absolute growth rate. The potential allometric linkage between expressed genome size and growth rate could also rely on stoichiometric considerations. Indeed, individuals with large genomes are expected to produce more RNA (Kozłowski et al. 2003b), which is phosphorus consuming and could explain the positive relationship between growth rate and RNA/protein as well as phosphorus/protein ratios observed empirically (Elser et al. 2003). Consistently, a strong relationship has been observed between the number of ribosomal genes per cell and cell size across a large diversity of prokaryote and eukaryote organisms (Gonzalez-de-Salceda and Garcia-Pichel 2021). Collectively, these findings suggest that the number of expressed genes in the genome could be the key piece to link allometric relationships at different levels of phenotypic integration, as well as to reconcile allometry with other disciplines such as biological stoichiometry, quantitative genetics and physiology.

## Conclusion

How multiple traits at different organizational levels are phenotypically integrated to ensure the proper development of complex organisms in a coordinated way is a key question for modern biology. We advocate here that allometric

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
relationships offer a promising avenue to tackle this issue because (i) they rely on well-documented empirical observations, (ii) their mechanistic bases have been studied at different scales, and (iii) they propose a mathematical toolkit to infer hypotheses and make predictions. We argue that future directions for allometry research should focus in priority on the genetic determinism of scaling variation, taking advantage of the development of next-generation sequencing technologies, as well as on how the expressed genome size scales with higher orders of phenotypic integration, from cell to whole organism and metabolism. We hope that this article will encourage novel experiments and interdisciplinary investigations to address allometric questions at different levels of phenotypic integration.

**Acknowledgements** This work was supported by CNRS, INRAE, the French Agency for Research (ANR grant ANR-17-CE02-0018-01, 'AraBreed' to FV, DV and CV), and the European Research Council (ERC) ('CONSTRAINTS': grant ERCStG-2014-639706 to CV; 'PHENOVIGOUR': grant ERC-StG-2020-949843 to FV and AJW).

**Author contributions** All authors equally contributed to the writing of the paper.

**Declarations**

**Conflict of interest** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

**References**

Arnold SJ (1983) Morphology, performance and fitness. Integr Comp Biol 23:347–361

Arnold SJ, Bürger R, Hohenlohe PA, Ajie BC, Jones AG (2008) Understanding the evolution and stability of the G-matrix. Evolution 62(10):2451–2461

Beaulieu JM, Leitch IJ, Patel S et al (2008) Genome size is a strong predictor of cell size and stomatal density in angiosperms. New Phytol 179:975–986

Bergmann C (1847) Über die Verhältnisse der Wärme ökonomie der Thiere zu ihrer Grösse. Göttinger Studien 3:595–708

Bestová H, Segrestin J, von Schwartzenberg K et al (2021) Biological scaling in green algae: the role of cell size and geometry. Sci Rep 11(1):1–9

Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ, Loder N (1999) Geographic gradients in body size: a clarification of Bergmann's rule. Divers Distrib 5:165–174

Brosse S, Charpin N, Su G, Toussaint A, Herrera-R GA, Tedesco PA, Villéger S (2021) FISHMORPH: a global database on morphological traits of freshwater fishes. Global Ecol Biogeogr 30(12):2330–2336

Brown JH, Gillooly JF, Allen AP et al (2004) Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85:1771–1789

Bush SJ, Castillo-Morales A, Tovar-Corona JM et al (2013) Presence-absence variation in A. Thaliana is primarily associated with genomic signatures consistent with relaxed selective constraints. Mol Biol Evol 31:59–69

Capellini I, Venditti C, Barton RA (2010) Phylogeny and metabolic scaling in mammals. Ecology 91:2783–2793

Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1999) The genetic basis of inbreeding depression. Genet Res 74:329–340

Chen ZJ (2010) Molecular mechanisms of polyploidy and hybrid vigor. Trends Plant Sci 15:57–71

Cheng D-L, Li T, Zhong Q-L, Wang G-X (2010) Scaling relationship between tree respiration rates and biomass. Biol Lett 6:715–717

Coomes DA (2006) Challenges to the generality of WBE theory. Trends Ecol Evol 21:593–596

DeLong JP, Okie JG, Moses ME et al (2010) Shifts in metabolic scaling, production, and efficiency across major evolutionary transitions of life. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:12941–12945

Díaz S, Kattge J, Cornelissen JH, Wright IJ, Lavorel S, Dray S, Reu B, Kleyer M, Wirth C, Colin Prentice I, Garnier E (2016) The global spectrum of plant form and function. Nature 529(7585):167–171

Diggle PK (2014) Modularity and intra-floral integration in metameric organisms: plants are more than the sum of their parts. Philos Trans Royal Soc B Biol Sci 369(1649):20130253

Dodds PS, Rothman DH, Weitz JS (2001) Re-examination of the “3/4-law” of Metabolism. J Theor Biol 209:9–27

Elser JJ, Acharya K, Kyle M et al (2003) Growth rate–stoichiometry couplings in diverse biota. Ecol Lett 6:936–943

Enquist BJ (2002) Universal scaling in tree and vascular plant allometry: toward a general quantitative theory linking plant form and function from cells to ecosystems. Tree Physiol 22:1045–1064

Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ (2001) Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature 410:655–660

Enquist BJ, Brown JH, West GB (1998) Allometric scaling of plant energetics and population density. Nature 395:163–165

Enquist BJ, West GB, Charnov EL, Brown JH (1999) Allometric scaling of production and life-history variation in vascular plants. Nature 401:907–911

Enquist BJ, Allen AP, Brown JH et al (2007a) Biological scaling: does the exception prove the rule? Nature 445:E9–10

Enquist BJ, Kerkhoff AJ, Stark SC et al (2007b) A general integrative model for scaling plant growth, carbon flux, and functional trait spectra. Nature 449:218–222

Glazier DS (2005) Beyond the “3/4-power law”: variation in the intra- and interspecific scaling of metabolic rate in animals. Biol Rev 80:611–662

González VM, Aventín N, Centeno E, Puigdomènech P (2013) High presence/absence gene variability in defense-related gene clusters of Cucumis melo. BMC Genomics 14:782

Gonzalez-de-Salceda L, Garcia-Pichel F (2021) The allometry of cellular DNA and ribosomal gene content among microbes and its use for the assessment of microbiome community structure. Microbiome 9:173

Gould SJ (1971) Geometric similarity in allometric growth: a contribution to the problem of scaling in the evolution of size. Am Nat 105:113–136
Gregory TR, Hebert PD, Kolasa J (2000) Evolutionary implications of the relationship between genome size and body size in flat-worms and copepods. Heredity 84(Pt 2):201–208

Hochholdinger F, Baldauf JA (2018) Heterosis in plants. Curr Biol 28:R1089–R1092

Huxley JS (1932) Problems of relative growth Methuen & co. LTD, London

Jiang L, Lv Y, Li T et al (2015) Identification and characterization of presence/absence variation in maize genotype Mo17. Genes Genomics 37:503–515

John GP, Scoffoni C, Sack L (2013) Allometry of cells and tissues within leaves. Am J Bot 100:1936–1948

Kattge J, Diaz S, Lavorel S, Prentice IC, Leadley P, Bönisch G, Garnier E, Westoby M, Reich PB, Wright IJ, Cornelissen JHC (2011) TRY—a global database of plant traits. Glob Chang Biol 17(9):2905–2935

Kawakatsu T, Huang S-SC, Jupe F et al (2016) Epigenomic diversity in a global collection of arabidopsis thaliana accessions. Cell 166:492–505

Kleiber M (1932) Body size and metabolism. Energy 1:E9

Kleiber M (1947) Body size and metabolic rate. Physiol Rev 27:511–541

Klingenberg CP (1996) Multivariate allometry. In Advances in morphometrics, Springer, Boston, MA

Klingenberg CP (2008) Morphological integration and developmental modularity. Annual Rev Ecol Evol Syst 115–132

Klingenberg CP (2014) Studying morphological integration and modularity at multiple levels: concepts and analysis. Phil Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 369(1649):20130249

Klingenberg CP (2016) Size, shape, and form: concepts of allometry in geometric morphometrics. Dev Genes Evol 226(3):113–137

Klingenberg CP, Marugán-Lobón J (2013) Evolutionary covariance in geometric morphometric data: analyzing integration, modularity, and allometry in a phylogenetic context. Syst Biol 62(4):591–610

Knight CA, Beaulieu JM (2008) Genome size scaling through phenotype space. Ann Bot 101:759–766

Kolokotrones T, Savage V, Deeds EJ, Fontana W (2010) Curvature in metabolic scaling. Nature 464:753–756

Kozłowski J, Konarzewski M (2004) Is West, Brown and Enquist’s model of allometric scaling mathematically correct and biologically relevant? Funct Ecol 18:283–289

Kozłowski J, Konarzewski M, Gawelczyk AT (2003b) Cell size as a link between noncoding DNA and metabolic rate scaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:14080–14085

Kozłowski J, Konarzewski M, Gawelczyk AT (2003a) Intraspecific body size optimization produces interspecific allometries. Macroecology: concepts and consequences 299–320

Leinonen T, Scott McCairns RJ, O’Hara RB, Merilä J (2013) QST–FST comparisons: evolutionary and ecological insights from genomic heterogeneity. Nat Rev Genet 14:179–190

Leitch IJ, Dodsworth S (2001) Endopolyploidy in Plants. In: Wiley J, Ltd S (eds) eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK, pp 1–10

Lindmark M, Ohlberger J, Huss M, Gårdmark A (2019) Size-based ecological interactions drive food web responses to climate warming. Ecol Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13235

Lindstedt SL, Schaeffer PJ (2002) Use of allometry in predicting anatomical and physiological parameters of mammals. Lab Anim 36:1–19

Lines ER, Zavala MA, Purves DW, Coomes DA (2012) Predictable changes in aboveground allometry of trees along gradients of temperature, aridity and competition. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21:1017–1028

Long F, Chen YQ, Cheverud JM, Wu R (2006) Genetic mapping of allometric scaling laws. Genet Res 87:207–216

López-Jurado J, Mateos-Naranjo E, Balao F (2022) Polyploidy promotes divergent evolution across the leaf economics spectrum and plant edaphic niche in the Dianthus broteri complex. J Ecol 110(3):605–618

Malerba ME, Marshall DJ (2019) Size-abundance rules? Evolution changes scaling relationships between size, metabolism and demography. Ecol Lett 22:1407–1416

Malerba ME, White CR, Marshall DJ (2017) Eco-energetic consequences of evolutionary shifts in body size. Ecol Lett 21:54–62

Milocco L, Salazar-Ciudad I (2022) Evolution of the G matrix under nonlinear genotype-phenotype maps. Am Nat 199(3):420–435

Mori S, Yamaji K, Ishida A et al (2010) Mixed-power scaling of whole-plant respiration from seedlings to giant trees. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:1447–1451

Mouillot D, Loiseau N, Grenié M, Algar AC, Allegra M, Cadotte MW, Casajus N, Denelle P, Guéguen M, Maire A, Maitner B (2021) The dimensionality and structure of species trait spaces. Ecol Lett 24(9):1988–2009

Muir CD, Thomas-Huebner M (2013) Small interspecific variation in metabolic scaling mediates tradeoff between drought tolerance and fecundity in wild tomatoes (Solanum sect. Lycopersicon; Solanaceae). Ecophysiology And Genetics Of Phenotypic Diversification In Solanum 61

Muir CD, Thomas-Huebner M (2015) Constraint around quarter-power allometric scaling in wild tomatoes (Solanum sect. Lycopersicon; Solanaceae). Am Nat 186:421–433

Murren CJ (2002) Phenotypic integration in plants. Plant Species Biol 17(2–3):89–99

Murren CJ (2012) The integrated phenotype. Integr Comp Biol 52(1):64–76

Neiman M, Beaton MJ, Hessen DO et al (2017) Endopolyploidy as a potential driver of animal ecology and evolution. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 92:234–247

Niklas KJ, Enquist BJ (2001) Invariant scaling relationships for interspecific plant biomass production rates and body size. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:2922–2927

Niklas KJ (1994) Plant Allometry: The Scaling of Form and Process. University of Chicago Press

Ohlberger J (2013) Climate warming and ectotherm body size-from individual physiology to community ecology. Funct Ecol 27:991–1001

Orr HA (2000) Adaptation and the cost of complexity. Evolution 54:13–20

Paaby AB, Rockman MV (2013) The many faces of pleiotropy. Trends Genet 29:66–73

Paschold A, Jia Y, Marcon C et al (2012) Complementation contributes to transcriptome complexity in maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids relative to their inbred parents. Genome Res 22:2445–2454

Pélabon C, Firmat C, Bolstad GH, Voje KL, Houle D, Cassara J, Rouzic AL, Hansen TF (2014) Evolution of morphological allometry. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1320(1):58–75

Penna A, Melo D, Bernardi S, Oyarzabal MI, Marroig G (2017) The evolution of phenotypic integration: How directional selection reshapes covariation in mice. Evolution 71(10):2370–2380

Pigliucci M (2003) Phenotypic integration: studying the ecology and evolution of complex phenotypes. Ecol Lett 6(3):265–272

Pigliucci M (2007) Finding the way in phenotypic space: the origin and maintenance of constraints on organismal form. Ann Bot 100(3):433–438

Pigliucci M, Schlichting CD, Jones CS, Schwenk K (1996) Developmental reaction norms: the interactions among allometry, ontogeny and plasticity. Plant Species Biol 11(1):69–85

Poorter H, Jagodzinski AM, Ruiz-Peinado R et al (2015) How does biomass distribution change with size and differ among species? An analysis for 1200 plant species from five continents. New Phytol 208:736–749
Price CA, Enquist BJ (2007) Scaling mass and morphology in leaves: an extension of the WBE model. Ecology 88:1132–1141

Price CA, Enquist BJ, Savage VM (2007) A general model for allometric covariation in botanical form and function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:13204–13209

Price CA, Gilooly JF, Allen AP et al (2010) The metabolic theory of ecology: prospects and challenges for plant biology. New Phytol 188:696–710

Qin X, Niklas KJ, Qi L, Xiong Y, Li F (2012) The effects of domestication on the scaling of below-vs. aboveground biomass in four selected wheat (Triticum; Poaceae) genotypes. Am J Botany 99(6):1112–1117

Qin XL, Weiner J, Qi L, Xiong YC, Li FM (2013) Allometric analysis of the effects of density on reproductive allocation and Harvest Index in 6 varieties of wheat (Triticum). Field Crop Res 144:162–166

Reich PB, Tjoelker MG, Machado JL, Oleksyn J (2006) Universal scaling of respiratory metabolism, size and nitrogen in plants. Nature 439:457–461

Rubner M (1883) Ueber den einfluss der korpergrosse auf stoffund kaftwechsel. Z Biol 19:535–562

Russo SE, Wiser SK, Coomes DA (2007) Growth–size scaling relationships of woody plant species differ from predictions of the Metabolic Ecology Model. Ecol Lett 10:889–901

Sattler MC, Carvalho CR, Clarindo WR (2016) The polyploidy and its key role in plant breeding. Planta 243:281–296

Savage VM, Deeds EJ, Fontana W (2008) Sizing up allometric scaling theory. PLoS Comput Biol 4:e1000171

Schlichting CD, Pigliucci M (1995) Gene regulation, quantitative genetics and the evolution of reaction norms. Evol Ecol 9(2):154–168

Schubert I, Vu GT (2016) Genome stability and evolution: attempting a holistic view. Trends Plant Sci 21(9):749–757

Seymour DK, Becker C (2017) The causes and consequences of DNA methylome variation in plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 36:56–63

Seymour DK, Koenig D, Hagmann J et al (2014) Evolution of DNA methylation patterns in the brassicaceae is driven by differences in genome organization. PLoS Genet 10:e1004785

Shingleton AW, Frankino WA, Flatt T et al (2007) Size and shape: the developmental regulation of static allometry in insects. BioEssays 29:536–548

Sieg AE, O'Connor MP, McNair JN et al (2009) Mammalian metabolic allometry: do intraspecific variation, phylogeny, and regression models matter? Am Nat 174:720–733

Šímová I, Herben T (2011) Geometrical constraints in the scaling relationships between genome size, cell size and cell cycle length in herbaceous plants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences rspb20111284

Springer NM, Ying K, Fu Y et al (2009) Maize inbreds exhibit high levels of copy number variation (CNV) and presence/absence variation (PAV) in genome content. PLoS Genet 5:e1000734

Stahl WR (1965) Organ weights in primates and other mammals. Science 150:1039–1042

Steppan SJ, Phillips PC, Houle D (2002) Comparative quantitative genetics: evolution of the G matrix. Trends Ecol Evol 17(7):320–327

Stevenson RD, Hill MF, Bryant PJ (1995) Organ and cell allometry in Hawaiian Drosophila: how to make a big fly. Proc Biol Sci 259:105–110

Summers TC, Ord TJ (2021) The stabilising impact of natural selection on the allometry of sexual ornaments: Fish that escape locomotor constraints exhibit extravagant ornamentation. Funct Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13968

Tan S, Zhong Y, Hou H et al (2012) Variation of presence/absence genes among Arabidopsis populations. BMC Evol Biol 12:86

Tisné S, Reymond M, Vile D et al (2008) Combined genetic and modeling approaches reveal that epidermal cell area and number in leaves are controlled by leaf and plant developmental processes in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 148:1117–1127

Toussaint A, Brosse S, Bueno CG, Pärtel M, Tamme R, Carmona CP (2021) Extinction of threatened vertebrates will lead to idiosyncratic changes in functional diversity across the world. Nat Commun 12(1):1–12

Vasseur F, Violle C, Enquist BJ et al (2012) A common genetic basis to the origin of the leaf economics spectrum and metabolic scaling allometry. Ecol Lett 15:1149–1157

Vasseur F, Bontpart T, Dauzat M et al (2014) Multivariate genetic analysis of plant responses to water deficit and high temperature revealed contrasting adaptive strategies. J Exp Bot 65:6457–6469

Vasseur F, Bresson J, Wang G et al (2018a) Image-based methods for phenotyping growth dynamics and fitness components in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Methods 14:63

Vasseur F, Exposito-Alonso M, Ayala-Garay OJ et al (2018b) Adaptive diversification of growth allometry in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:748

Violle C, Navas ML, Vile D et al (2007) Let the concept of trait be functional! Oikos 116:882–892

Wagner GP, Pavlicev M, Cheverud JM (2007) The road to modularity. Nat Rev Genet 8(12):921–931

Wagner GP, Kenney-Hunt JP, Pavlicev M et al (2008) Pleiotropic scaling of gene effects and the “cost of complexity.” Nature 452:470–472

Watanabe J (2022) Statistics of eigenvalue dispersion indices: quantifying the magnitude of phenotypic integration. Evolution 76(1):4–28

Weigel D (2012) Natural variation in arabidopsis: from molecular genetics to ecological genomics. Plant Physiol 158:2–22

Weisweiler M, de Montaigu A, Ries D et al (2019) Transcriptomic and presence/absence variation in the barley genome assessed from multi-tissue mRNA sequencing and their power to predict phenotypic traits. BMC Genomics 20:787

West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1999a) A general model for the structure and allometry of plant vascular systems. Nature 400:664–667

West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1999b) The fourth dimension of life: fractal geometry and allometric scaling of organisms. Science 284:1677–1679

West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (2001) A general model for ontogenetic growth. Nature 413:628–631

West GB, Enquist BJ, Brown JH (2002) Modelling universality and scaling. Nature 420:626–627

White CR, Seymour RS (2003) Mammalian basal metabolic rate is proportional to body mass2/3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:4046–4049

Zhang J (2018) Neutral theory and phenotypic evolution. Mol Biol Evol 35:1327–1331

Zhang L-M, Luo H, Liu Z-Q et al (2014) Genome-wide patterns of large-size presence/absence variants in sorghum. J Integr Plant Biol 56:24–37

Zinner M, Lukonin I, Liberali P (2020) Design principles of tissue organisation: how single cells coordinate across scales. Curr Opin Cell Biol 67:37–45

**Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.