Age-size plasticity for reproduction in monocarpic plants

Ecology

Volumn 87, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 2755-2764

  Burd, Martin ^a   Read, Jenny ^a   Sanson, Gordon D ^a   Jaffre, Tanguy ^b  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b INSTITUT DE RECHERCHE POUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT   (New Caledonia)

Author keywords

Growth trajectory; Life history; Monocarpy; Reaction norm; Reproductive age; Reproductive size; Semelparity

Indexed keywords

AGE STRUCTURE; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; FECUNDITY; FLOWERING; GROWTH RATE; LIFE HISTORY; MORTALITY RISK; PLANT; PLASTICITY; REPRODUCTION; THEORETICAL STUDY;

AGE; APOCYNACEAE; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BODY SIZE; FLOWER; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; PHYSIOLOGY; REPRODUCTION;

AGE FACTORS; APOCYNACEAE; BODY SIZE; FLOWERS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; REPRODUCTION;

APOCYNACEAE; CERBERIOPSIS CANDELABRA;

EID: 33845431153     PISSN: 00129658     EISSN: 00129658     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[2755:APFRIM]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Brommer, J. E. 2000. The evolution of fitness in life-history theory. Biological Reviews 75:377-404.
2. Burslem, D. F. R. P., N. C. Garwood, and S. C. Thomas. 2001. Tropical forest diversity - the plot thickens. Science 291:606-607.
3. Charnov, E. L., and W. M. Schaffer. 1973. Life history consequences of natural selection: Cole's result revisited. American Naturalist 107:791-793.
4. Cole, L. C. 1954. The population consequences of life history phenomena. Quarterly Review of Biology 29:103-137.
5. Day, T., and L. Rowe. 2002. Developmental thresholds and the evolution of reaction norms for age and size at life-history transitions. American Naturalist 159:338-350.
6. Day, T., and P. D. Taylor. 1997. Von Bertalanffy's growth equation should not be used to model age and size at maturity. American Naturalist 149:381-393.
7. de Jong, G. 2005. Evolution of phenotypic plasticity: patterns of plasticity and the emergence of ecotypes. New Phytologist 166:101-117.
8. de Jong, T., and P. G. L. Klinkhamer. 1988. Seedling establishment in the biennials Cirsium vulgare and Cynoglossum officinale in a sand-dune area: the importance of water for differential survival and growth. Journal of Ecology 76:393-402.
9. de Jong, T., P. G. L. Klinkhamer, S. A. H. Geritz, and E. van der Meijden. 1989. Why biennials delay flowering: an optimization model and field data on Cirsium vulgare and Cynoglossum officinale. Acta Botanica Neerlandica 38:41-55.
10. Foster, R. B. 1977. Tachigalia versicolor is a suicidal neotropical tree. Nature 268:624-626.
11. Harper, J. L. 1977. Population biology of plants. Academic Press, London, UK.
12. Hubbell, S. P. 1980. Seed predation and the coexistence of tree species in tropical forests. Oikos 35:214-229.
13. Hunt, R. 1982. Plant growth curves: the functional approach to plant growth analysis. Edward Arnold, London, UK.
14. Kachi, N., and T. Hirose. 1985. Population dynamics of Oenothera glazioviana in a sand-dune system with special reference to the adaptive significance of size-dependent reproduction. Journal of Ecology 73:887-901.
15. Kelly, D. 1985. On strict and facultative biennials. Oecologia 67:292-294.
16. King, D. A. 1993. Growth history of a Neotropical tree inferred from the spacing of leaf scars. Journal of Tropical Ecology 9: 525-532.
17. King, D. A. 2005. Linking tree form, allocation and growth with an allometrically explicit model. Ecological Modelling 185:77-91.
18. Kozlowski, J. 1993. Measuring fitness in life-history studies. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:84-85.
19. Lacey, E. P. 1986. Onset of reproduction in plants: size- versus age-dependency. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 1:72-75.
20. Landis, R. M., and D. R. Peart. 2005. Early performance predicts canopy attainment across life histories in subalpine forest trees. Ecology 86:63-72.
21. Leary, C. J., D. J. Fox, D. B. Shepard, and A. M. Garcia. 2005. Body size, growth and alternative mating tactics in toads: satellite males are smaller but not younger than calling males. Animal Behaviour 70:663-671.
22. Mencuccini, M. 2002. Hydraulic constraints in the functional scaling of trees. Tree Physiology 22:553-565.
23. Metcalf, J. C., K. E. Rose, and M. Rees. 2003. Evolutionary demography of monocarpic perennials. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:471-480.
24. Poorter, L., P. A. Zuidema, M. Peña-Claros, and R. G. A. Boot. 2005. A monocarpic tree species in a polycarpic world: How can Tachigali vasquezii maintain itself so successfully in a tropical rain forest community? Journal of Ecology 93:268-278.
25. Read, J., G. D. Sanson, T. Jaffré, and M. Burd. 2006. Does tree size influence timing of flowering in Cerberiopsis candelabra (Apocynaceae), a long-lived monocarpic rainforest tree? Journal of Tropical Ecology 22, in press.
26. Rees, M., A. Sheppard, D. Briese, and M. Mangel. 1999. Evolution of size-dependent flowering in Onopordum illyricum: a quantitative assessment of the role of stochastic processes. American Naturalist 154:628-651.
27. Roff, D. A. 1992. The evolution of life histories: theory and analysis. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York, USA.
28. Rose, C. S. 2005. Integrating ecology and developmental biology to explain the timing of frog metamorphosis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20:128-135.
29. Ryan, M. G., N. Phillips, and B. J. Bond. 2006. The hydraulic limitation hypothesis revisited. Plant, Cell and Environment 29:367-381.
30. Ryan, M. G., and B. J. Yoder. 1997. Hydraulic limits to tree height and tree growth. Bioscience 47:235-242.
31. Schaffer, W. M. 1974. Selection for optimal life histories: the effects of age structure. Ecology 55:291-303.
32. Silvertown, J. 1984. Death of the elusive biennial. Nature 310:271.
33. Sletvold, N. 2005. Density-dependent growth and survival in a natural population of the facultative biennial Digitalis purpurea. Journal of Ecology 93:727-736.
34. Stearns, S. C., and J. C. Koella. 1986. The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in life-history traits: predictions of reaction norms for age and size at maturity. Evolution 40:893-913.
35. Takada, T. 1995. Evolution of semelparous and iteroparous perennial plants: comparison between the density-independent and density-dependent dynamics. Journal of Theoretical Biology 173:51-60.
36. Tissue, D. T., and P. S. Nobel. 1990. Carbon relations of flowering in a semelparous clonal desert perennial. Ecology 71:273-281.
37. Veillon, J. M. 1971. Une Apocynacée monocarpique de Nouvelle-Calédonie Cerberiopsis candelabrum Vieill. Adansonia series 2 11:625-639.
38. Werner, P. A. 1975. Predictions of fate from rosette size in teasel (Dipsacus fullonum L.). Oecologia 20:197-201.
39. Wesselingh, R. A., and T. de Jong. 1995. Bidirectional selection on threshold size for flowering in Cynoglossum officinale (hound's tongue). Heredity 74:415-424.
40. Wesselingh, R. A., P. G. L. Klinkhamer, T. J. de Jong, and L. A. Boorman. 1997. Threshold size for flowering in different habitats: effects of size-dependent growth and survival. Ecology 78:2118-2132.
41. Wilbur, H. M., and J. P. Collins. 1973. Ecological aspects of amphibian metamorphosis. Science 182:1305-1314.
42. Wright, S. J., M. A. Jaramillo, J. Pavon, R. Condit, S. P. Hubbell, and R. B. Foster. 2005. Reproductive size thresholds in tropical trees: variation among individuals, species and forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology 21:307-315.
43. Young, T. P. 1981. A general model of comparative fecundity for semelparous and iteroparous life histories. American Naturalist 118:27-36.
44. Young, T. P. 1984. The comparative demography of semelparous Lobelia telekii and iteroparous Lobelia keniensis on Mount Kenya. Journal of Ecology 72:637-650.
45. Young, T. P. 1985. Lobelia telekii herbivory, mortality, and size at reproduction: variation with growth rate. Ecology 66:1879-1883.