The continuum between semelparity and iteroparity: plastic expression of parity in response to season length manipulation in Lobelia inflata

BMC Evolutionary Biology

Andrew M Simons¹  P William Hughes¹ 

[1] Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa K1S 5B6, Canada

关键词: Phenotypic plasticity;    Reproductive effort;    Life-history theory;    Iteroparity;    Semelparity;   

Others  :  856638
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2148-14-90

 received in 2014-01-21, accepted in 2014-04-17,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Semelparity and iteroparity are considered to be distinct and alternative life-history strategies, where semelparity is characterized by a single, fatal reproductive episode, and iteroparity by repeated reproduction throughout life. However, semelparous organisms do not reproduce instantaneously; typically reproduction occurs over an extended time period. If variation in reproductive allocation exists within such a prolonged reproductive episode, semelparity may be considered iteroparity over a shorter time scale.

This continuity hypothesis predicts that “semelparous” organisms with relatively low probability of survival after age at first reproduction will exhibit more extreme semelparity than those with high probability of adult survival. This contrasts with the conception of semelparity as a distinct reproductive strategy expressing a discrete, single, bout of reproduction, where reproductive phenotype is expected to be relatively invariant. Here, we manipulate expected season length—and thus expected adult survival—to ask whether Lobelia inflata, a classic “semelparous” plant, exhibits plasticity along a semelparous-iteroparous continuum.

Results

Groups of replicated genotypes were manipulated to initiate reproduction at different points in the growing season in each of three years. In lab and field populations alike, the norm of reaction in parity across a season was as predicted by the continuity hypothesis: as individuals bolted later, they showed shorter time to, and smaller size at first reproduction, and multiplied their reproductive organs through branching, thus producing offspring more simultaneously.

Conclusions

This work demonstrates that reproductive effort occurs along a semelparous-iteroparous continuum within a “semelparous” organism, and that variation in parity occurs within populations as a result of phenotypic plasticity.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Hughes and Simons; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Stearns S: The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1992:262.
• [2]Roff DA: The Evolution of Life Histories: Theory and Analysis. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1992.
• [3]Roff DA: Life History Evolution. New York: Sinauer Associates; 2001:527.
• [4]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 2011, 26:669-682.
• [5]Cole L: The population consequences of life history phenomena. Q Rev Biol 1954, 29:103-137.
• [6]Charnov E, Schaffer W: Life-history consequences of natural selection: Cole’s result revisited. Am Nat 1973, 107:791-793.
• [7]Young T: A general model of comparative fecundity for semelparous and iteroparous life histories. Am Nat 1981, 118:27-36.
• [8]Bulmer M: Selection for iteroparity in a variable environment. Am Nat 1985, 126:63-71.
• [9]Kirkendall LR, Stenseth NC: On defining “Breeding Once”. Am Nat 1985, 125:189-204.
• [10]Young TP, Augspurger CK: Ecology and evolution of long-lived semelparous plants. Trends Ecol Evol 1991, 6:285-289.
• [11]Morse D: Numbers of broods produced by the crab spider Misumena vatia (Araneae, Thomisidae). J Arachnol 1994, 22:195-199.
• [12]Golding DW, Yuwono E: Latent capacities for gametogenic cycling in the semelparous invertebrate Nereis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1994, 91:11777-11781.
• [13]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.
• [14]Montti L, Campanello PI, Goldstein G: Flowering, die-back and recovery of a semelparous woody bamboo in the Atlantic Forest. Acta Oecol 2011, 37:361-368.
• [15]Futami K, Akimoto SI: Facultative second oviposition as an adaptation to egg loss in a semelparous crab spider. Ethology 2005, 111:1126-1138.
• [16]Rocha F, Guerra A, González AF: A review of reproductive strategies in cephalopods. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2001, 76:291-304.
• [17]Young TP: Semelparity and Iteroparity. Nat Educ Knowl 2010, 3:2.
• [18]Fritz R, Stamp N, Halverson T: Iteroparity and semelparity in insects. Am Nat 1982, 120:264-268.
• [19]Roff D: Optimizing development time in a seasonal environment: the “ups and downs” of clinal variation. Oecologia 1980, 45:202-208.
• [20]Crespi B, Teo R: Comparative phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of semelparity and life history in salmonid fishes. Evolution 2002, 56:1008-1020.
• [21]Harper JL: 1977: Population biology of plants. London, UK: Academic Press; 1977.
• [22]Bradshaw AD: Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv Genet 1965, 13:115-155.
• [23]Schlichting C: The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1986, 17:667-698.
• [24]Stearns S: The evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity. Bioscience 1989, 39:436-445.
• [25]Hendry AP, Morbey YE, Berg OK, Wenburg JK: Adaptive variation in senescence: reproductive lifespan in a wild salmon population. Proc R Soc B 2004, 271:259-266.
• [26]Morbey YE, Abrams PA: The interaction between reproductive lifespan and protandry in seasonal breeders. J Evol Biol 2004, 17:768-778.
• [27]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.
• [28]Cohen D: Maximizing final yield when growth is limited by time or by limiting resources. J Theor Biol 1971, 33:299-307.
• [29]King D, Roughgarden J: Graded allocation between vegetative and reproductive growth for annual plants in growing seasons of random length. Theor Popul Biol 1982, 22:1-16.
• [30]King D, Roughgarden J: Energy allocation patterns of the California grassland annuals Plantago erecta and Clarkia rubicunda. Ecology 1983, 64:16-24.
• [31]Amir S, Cohen D: Optimal reproductive efforts and the timing of reproduction of annual plants in randomly varying environments. J Theor Biol 1990, 147:17-42.
• [32]Thomson FJ, Moles AT, Auld TD, Kingsford RT: Seed dispersal distance is more strongly correlated with plant height than with seed mass. J Ecol 2011, 99:1299-1307.
• [33]Diggle PK: Architectural effects and the interpretation of patterns of fruit and seed development. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 1995, 26:531-552.
• [34]Ollerton J, Lack A: Relationships between flowering phenology, plant size and reproductive success in Lotus corniculatus (Fabaceae). Plant Ecol 1998, 139:35-47.
• [35]Simons AM: Fluctuating natural selection accounts for the evolution of diversification bet hedging. Proc Biol Sci 2009, 276:1987-1992.
• [36]Bolmgren KD, Cowan P: Time - size tradeoffs: a phylogenetic comparative study of flowering time, plant height and seed mass in a north-temperate flora. Oikos 2008, 117:424-429.
• [37]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.
• [38]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.
• [39]Simons AM, Johnston MO: Variation in seed traits of Lobelia inflata (Campanulaceae): sources and fitness consequences. Am J Bot 2000, 87:124-132.
• [40]Larsen S, Andreasen C: Light and heavy turfgrass seeds differ in germination percentage and mean germination thermal time. Crop Sci 2004, 44:1710-1720.
• [41]Stanton ML: Seed size and emergence time within a stand of wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.): the establishment of a fitness hierarchy. Oecologia 1985, 67:524-531.
• [42]Zeineddine M, Jansen VA: To age, to die: parity, evolutionary tracking and Cole’s paradox. Evolution 2009, 63:1498-1507.
• [43]Simons AM, Johnston MO: Plasticity and the genetics of reproductive behaviour in the monocarpic perennial, Lobelia inflata (Indian tobacco). Heredity 2000, 85:356-365.
• [44]Hughes PW, Jaworski AF, Davis CS, Aitken SA, Simons AM: Development of polymorphic microsatellite markers for Indian Tobacco, Lobelia inflata (Campanulaceae). Appl Plant Sci 2014, 2:130096.
• [45]Simons AM: Selection for increased allocation to offspring number under environmental unpredictability. J Evol Biol 2007, 20:813-817.
• [46]Pinheiro J, Bates D: Mixed Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. New York, USA: Springer; 2000:548.
• [47]Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White J-SS: Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 2009, 24:127-135.
• [48]Venables WN, Dichmont CM: GLMs, GAMs and GLMMs: an overview of theory for applications in fisheries research. Fish Res 2004, 70:319-337.
• [49]Hughes PW, Simons AM: Reproductive traits of Lobelia inflata. Data Dryad; 2014. https://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.2d218 webcite