Secondary reproduction in the herbaceous monocarp Lobelia inflata: time-constrained primary reproduction does not result in increased deferral of reproductive effort

Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Patrick William Hughes¹  Andrew M Simons¹ 

[1] Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada K1S 5B6

关键词: Lobelia inflata;    Facultative iteroparity;    Iteroparity;    Semelparity;    Life-history evolution;   

Others  :  834675
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6785-14-15

 received in 2014-01-18, accepted in 2014-05-06,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Although semelparity is a life history characterized by a single reproductive episode within a single reproductive season, some semelparous organisms facultatively express a second bout of reproduction, either in a subsequent season (“facultative iteroparity”) or later within the same season as the primary bout (“secondary reproduction”). Secondary reproduction has been explained as the adaptive deferral of reproductive potential under circumstances in which some fraction of reproductive success would otherwise have been lost (due, for example, to inopportune timing). This deferral hypothesis predicts a positive relationship between constraints on primary reproduction and expression of secondary reproduction. The herbaceous monocarp Lobelia inflata has been observed occasionally to express a secondary reproductive episode in the field. However, it is unknown whether secondary reproduction is an example of adaptive reproductive deferral, or is more parsimoniously explained as the vestigial expression of iteroparity after a recent transition to semelparity. Here, we experimentally manipulate effective season length in each of three years to test whether secondary reproduction is a form of adaptive plasticity consistent with the deferral hypothesis.

Results

Our results were found to be inconsistent with the adaptive deferral explanation: first, plants whose primary reproduction was time-constrained exhibited decreased (not increased) allocation to subsequent secondary reproduction, a result that was consistent across all three years; second, secondary offspring—although viable in the laboratory—would not have the opportunity for expression under field conditions, and would thus not contribute to reproductive success.

Conclusions

Although alternative adaptive explanations for secondary reproduction cannot be precluded, we conclude that the characteristics of secondary reproduction found in L. inflata are consistent with predictions of incomplete or transitional evolution to annual semelparity.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Hughes and Simons; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cole L: The population consequences of life history phenomena. Q Rev Biol 1954, 29:103-137.
• [2]Charnov E, Schaffer W: Life-history consequences of natural selection: Cole’s result revisited. Am Nat 1973, 107:791-793.
• [3]Fritz R, Stamp N, Halverson T: Iteroparity and semelparity in insects. Am Nat 1982, 120:264-268.
• [4]Stegmann UE, Eduard Linsenmair K: Assessing the semelparity hypothesis: egg-guarding and fecundity in the Malaysian treehopper pyrgauchenia tristaniopsis. Ethol 2002, 108:857-869.
• [5]Tallamy DW, Brown WP: Semelparity and the evolution of maternal care in insects. Anim Behav 1999, 57:727-730.
• [6]Young TP, Augspurger CK: Ecology and evolution of long-lived semelparous plants. Trends Ecol Evol 1991, 6:285-289.
• [7]Young T: A general model of comparative fecundity for semelparous and iteroparous life histories. Am Nat 1981, 118:27-36.
• [8]Young TP: Evolution of semelparity in mount Kenya lobelias. Evol Ecol 1990, 4:157-171.
• [9]Young T: The Comparative Demography of Semelparous Lobelia Telekii and Iteroparous Lobelia Keniensis on Mount Kenya. J Ecol 1984, 72:637-650.
• [10]Crespi B, Teo R: Comparative phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of semelparity and life history in salmonid fishes. Evolution 2002, 56:1008-1020.
• [11]Futami K, Akimoto SI: Facultative second oviposition as an adaptation to egg loss in a semelparous crab spider. Ethol 2005, 111:1126-1138.
• [12]Kirkendall LR, Stenseth NC: On defining “Breeding Once”. Am Nat 1985, 125:189-204.
• [13]Kraaijeveld K, Kraaijeveld-Smit FJL, Adcock GJ: Does female mortality drive male semelparity in dasyurid marsupials? Proc Biol Sci 2003, 270(Suppl):S251-S253.
• [14]Maltby L, Calow P: Intraspecific life-history variation in erpobdella octoculata (Hirudinea: Erpobdellidae). II. Testing theory on the evolution of semelparity and iteroparity. J Anim Ecol 1986, 55:739-750.
• [15]Martins E, Bonato V: Partial semelparity in the neotrpoical didelphid marsupial gracilinanus microtarsus. J Mammal 2006, 87:915-920.
• [16]Meunier J, Wong JWY, Gómez Y, Kuttler S, Röllin L, Stucki D, Kölliker M: One clutch or two clutches? Fitness correlates of coexisting alternative female life-histories in the European earwig. Evol Ecol 2012, 26:669-682.
• [17]Orzack SH, Tuljapurkar S: Population dynamics in variable environments. VII. The demography and evolution of iteroparity. Am Nat 1989, 133:901-923.
• [18]Ranta E, Tesar D, Kaitala V: Local extinctions promote co-existence of semelparous and iteroparous life histories. Evol Ecol Res 2001, 3:759-766.
• [19]Schneider J, Salomon M, Lubin Y: Limited adaptive life-history plasticity in a semelparous spider, stegodyphus lineatus (Eresidae). Evol Ecol Res 2003, 5:731-738.
• [20]Su Z, Peterman RM: Performance of a Bayesian state-space model of semelparous species for stock-recruitment data subject to measurement error. Ecol Model 2012, 224:76-89.
• [21]Unwin M, Kinnison MT, Quinn TP: Exceptions to semelparity: postmaturation survival, morphology, and energetics of male chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1999, 56:1172-1181.
• [22]Christiansen JS, Præbel K, Siikavuopio SI, Carscadden JE: Facultative semelparity in capelin Mallotus villosus (Osmeridae)-an experimental test of a life history phenomenon in a sub-arctic fish. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol 2008, 360:47-55.
• [23]Morse D: Numbers of broods produced by the crab spider Misumena vatia (Araneae, Thomisidae). J Arachnol 1994, 22:195-199.
• [24]Schneider J, Lubin Y: Does high adult mortality explain semelparity in the spider Stegodyphus lineatus (Eresidae). Oikos 1997, 79:92-100.
• [25]Lesica P, Shelly J: Effects of reproductive mode on demography and life history in Arabis fecunda (Brassicaceae). Am J Bot 1995, 82:752-762.
• [26]Verkaar H, Schenkeveld A: On the ecology of short-lived forbs in chalk grasslands: semelparity and seed output of some species in relation to various levels of nutrient supply. New Phytol 2006, 98:673-682.
• [27]Lesica P, Young TP: A demographic model explains life-history variation in Arabis fecunda. Funct Ecol 2005, 19:471-477.
• [28]Murphy E, Rodhouse P: Rapid selection effects in a short-lived semelparous squid species exposed to exploitation : inferences from the optimisation of life-history functions. Evol Ecol 1999, 13:517-537.
• [29]Roff DA: The Evolution of Life Histories: Theory and Analysis. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1992.
• [30]Paige KN, Whitham TG: Overcompensation in response to mammalian herbivory: the advantage of being eaten. Am Nat 1987, 129:407-416.
• [31]Simons AM, Johnston MO: The cost of compensation. Am Nat 1999, 153:683-687.
• [32]Young JO, Ironmonger JW: A comparative study of the life histories of 3 species of leeches in British lakes of different trophic levels. Arch Hydrobiol 1982, 94:218-250.
• [33]Baird DJ, Linton LR, Davies RW: Life-history evolution and post-reproductive mortality risk. J Anim Ecol 1986, 55:295-302.
• [34]Davies RW, Dratnal E: Differences in energy allocaton during growth and reproduction by semelparous and iteroparous Nephelopsis obscura (Erpobdellidae). Arch Hydrobiol 1996, 138:45-55.
• [35]Young TP: Semelparity and iteroparity. Nat Educ Knowl 2010, 3:2.
• [36]Lammers T: Revision of the infrageneric classification of Lobelia L. (Campanulaceae: Lobelioideae). Ann Mo Bot Gard 2011, 98:37-62.
• [37]Bowden WM: Phylogenetic relationships of twenty-one species of Lobelia L. section Lobelia. Bull Torrey Bot Club 1959, 86:94-108.
• [38]Caruso CM, Peterson SB, Ridley CE: Natural selection on floral traits of Lobelia (Lobeliaceae): spatial and temporal variation. Am J Bot 2003, 90:189-204.
• [39]Simons AM, Johnston MO: Suboptimal timing of reproduction in Lobelia inflata may be a conservative bet-hedging strategy. J Evol Biol 2003, 16:233-243.
• [40]Bäurle I, Dean C: The timing of developmental transitions in plants. Cell 2006, 125:655-664.
• [41]Flood RG, Halloran GM: Flowering behaviour of four annual grass species in relation to temperature and photoperiod. Ann Bot 1982, 49:469-475.
• [42]Hautekèete N, Piquot Y, Van Dijk H: Investment in survival and reproduction along a semelparity-iteroparity gradient in the Beta species complex. J Evol Biol 2001, 14:795-804.
• [43]Johnson PG, Shite DB: Flowering responses of selected annual bluegrass genotypes under different photoperiod and cold treatments. Crop Sci 1997, 37:1543-1547.
• [44]Karban R, Agrawal A, Thaler J, Adler L: Induced plant responses and information content about risk of herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 1999, 14:443-447.
• [45]Karban R: Plant behaviour and communication. Ecol Lett 2008, 11:727-739.
• [46]Ratcliff WC, Hawthorne P, Travisano M, Denison RF: When stress predicts a shrinking gene pool, trading early reproduction for longevity can increase fitness, even with lower fecundity. PLoS One 2009, 4:e6055.
• [47]Roff DA: Life History Evolution. New York: Sinauer Associates; 2001:527.
• [48]Simons AM, Johnston MO: Environmental and genetic sources of diversification in the timing of seed germination: implications for the evolution of bet hedging. Evolution 2006, 60:2280-2292.
• [49]Stearns S, Koella J: The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in life-history traits: predictions of reaction norms for age and size at maturity. Evolution 1986, 40:893-913.
• [50]Stearns S: Life-history tactics: a review of the ideas. Q Rev Biol 1976, 51:3-47.
• [51]Wolfe LM, Mazer SJ: Patterns of phenotypic plasticity and their fitness consequences in wild radish (Raphanus sativus: Brassicaceae). Int J Plant Sci 2005, 166:631-640.
• [52]Bernier G, Périlleux C: A physiological overview of the genetics of flowering time control. Plant Biotechnol J 2005, 3:3-16.
• [53]Harris GP: Photoperiodism in glasshouse carnation - effectiveness of light sources in promoting flower initiation. Ann Bot 1968, 125:187.
• [54]Imaizumi T, Kay S a: Photoperiodic control of flowering: not only by coincidence. Trends Plant Sci 2006, 11:550-558.
• [55]Lane H, Cathey H, Evans L: The dependence of flowering in several long-day plants on the spectral composition of light extending the photoperiod. Am J Bot 1965, 52:1006-1014.
• [56]Preston K: Architectural constraints on flower number in a photoperiodic annual. Oikos 1998, 81:279-288.
• [57]Salisbury F: Photoperiodism and the flowering process. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 1960, 12:293-326.
• [58]Searle I, Coupland G: Induction of flowering by seasonal changes in photoperiod. EMBO J 2004, 23:1217-1222.
• [59]Simons AM, Johnston MO: Variation in seed traits of lobelia inflata (campanulaceae): sources and fitness consequences. Am J Bot 2000, 87:124-132.
• [60]Freeman R, Brody A, Neefus C: Flowering phenology and compensation for herbivory in Ipomopsis aggregata. Oecologia 2003, 136:394-401.
• [61]Juenger T, Bergelson J: Pollen and resource limitation of compensation to herbivory in scarlet gilia, ipomopsis aggregata. Ecology 1997, 78:1684-1695.
• [62]Pilson D, Decker K: Compensation for herbivory in wild sunflower: response to simulated damage by the head-clipping weevil. Ecology 2002, 83:3097-3107.
• [63]Trumble J, Kolodnyhirsh D, Ting I: Plant compensation for arthropod herbivory. Annu Rev Entomol 1993, 38:93-119.
• [64]Schmitt J, Dudley S, Pigliucci M: Manipulative approaches to testing adaptive plasticity: phytochrome mediated shade-avoidance responses in plants. Am Nat 1999, 154:S43-54.
• [65]Bradshaw W: Variable iteroparity as a life-history tactic in the pitcher-plant mosquito wyeomyia smithii. Evolution 1986, 40:471-478.
• [66]Hughes PW, Simons AM: The continuum between semelparity and iteroparity: plastic expression of parity in response to season length manipulation in Lobelia inflata. BMC Evol Biol 2014, 14(90):1-11.
• [67]Simons AM, Goulet JM, Bellehumeur KF: The effect of snow depth on overwinter survival in Lobelia inflata. Oikos 2010, 119:1685-1689.
• [68]Simons AM, Johnston MO: Plasticity and the genetics of reproductive behaviour in the monocarpic perennial, Lobelia inflata (Indian tobacco). Heredity 2000, 85(July):356-365.
• [69]Hughes PW, Jaworski AF, Davis CS, Aitken SM, Simons AM: Development of polymorphic loci for Indian tobacco (Lobelia inflata). Appl Plant Sci 2014, 2:130096.
• [70]Harville DA: Maximum likelihood approaches to variance component estimation and to related problems. J Am Stat Assoc 1977, 358:320-338.
• [71]Piepho HP, Buchse A, Emrich K: A hitchhiker’s guide to mixed models for randomized experiments. J Agron Crop Sci 2003, 189:310-322.
• [72]Hughes PW, Simons AM: Data describing secondary reproduction in Lobelia inflata. Dryad Digital Repository; 2014. https://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.m02bt webcite