Competitive ability not kinship affects growth of Arabidopsis thaliana accessions

New Phytologist

Volumn 185, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 322-331

  Masclaux, Frédéric ^a   Hammond, Robert L ^a   Meunier, Joël ^a   Gouhier Darimont, Caroline ^a   Keller, Laurent ^a   Reymond, Philippe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Arabidopsis thaliana; Competition; Kin recognition; Kin selection; Microarrays; Plant growth; Silique number

Indexed keywords

COMPETITIVE ABILITY; DICOTYLEDON; GROWTH RATE; KIN RECOGNITION; KINSHIP; PHYTOMASS;

ARABIDOPSIS; ARTICLE; BIOMASS; ECOLOGY; FRUIT; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; GENOME; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; PLANT GENE; REPRODUCTION;

ARABIDOPSIS; BIOMASS; ECOLOGY; FRUIT; GENES, PLANT; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOME; REPRODUCTION; SELECTION, GENETIC;

EURASIA; EUROPE;

ARABIDOPSIS; ARABIDOPSIS THALIANA;

EID: 71249158798     PISSN: 0028646X     EISSN: 14698137     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03057.x     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Aarssen LW, Keogh T. 2002. Conundrums of competitive ability in plants: what to measure? Oikos 97 : 531 542.
2. Allard RW, Adams J. 1969. Populations studies in predominantly self-pollinating species. XIII. Intergenotypic competition and population structure in barley and wheat. American Naturalist 103 : 621 645.
3. Allemeersch J, Durinck S, Vanderhaeghen R, Alard P, Maes R, Seeuws K, Bogaert T, Coddens K, Deschouwer K, Van Hummelen P et al. 2005. Benchmarking the CATMA microarray. A novel tool for Arabidopsis transcriptome analysis. Plant Physiology 137 : 588 601.
4. Andalo C, Goldringer I, Godelle B. 2001. Inter- and intragenotypic competition under elevated carbon dioxide in Arabidopsis thaliana. Ecology 82 : 157 164.
5. Antonovics J, Ellstrand NC. 1984. Experimental studies of the evolutionary significance of sexual reproduction. I. A test of the frequency-dependent selection hypothesis. Evolution 38 : 103 115.
6. Argyres AZ, Schmitt J. 1992. Neighbor relatedness and competitive performance in Impatiens capensis (Balsaminaceae): a test of the resource partitioning hypothesis. American Journal of Botany 79 : 181 185.
7. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 57 : 289 300.
8. Buchan JC, Alberts SC, Silk JB, Altmann J. 2003. True paternal care in a multi-male primate society. Nature 425 : 179 181.
9. Cahill JF Jr., Kembel SW, Gustafson DJ. 2005. Differential genetic influences on competitive effect and response in Arabidopsis thaliana. Journal of Ecology 93 : 958 967.
10. Cheplick GP. 1997. Responses to severe competitive stress in a clonal plant: differences between genotypes. Oikos 79 : 581 591.
11. Cheplick GP, Kane KH. 2004. Genetic relatedness and competition in Triplasis purpurea (Poaceae): resource partitioning or kin selection International Journal of Plant Sciences 165 : 623 630.
12. Donohue K. 2003. The influence of neighbor relatedness on multilevel selection in the Great Lakes sea rocket. American Naturalist 162 : 77 92.
13. Dudley SA, File AL. 2007. Kin recognition in an annual plant. Biology Letters 3 : 435 438.
14. Dudley SA, File AL. 2008. Yes, kin recognition in plants! Biology Letters. 4 : 69 70.
15. Gibbs KA, Urbanowski ML, Greenberg EP. 2008. Genetic determinants of self identity and social recognition in bacteria. Science 321 : 256 259.
16. Goldberg DE. 1996. Competitive ability: definitions, contingency and correlated traits. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 351 : 1377 1385.
17. Goodnight CJ. 1985. The influence of environmental variation on group and individual selection in a cress. Evolution 39 : 545 558.
18. Gustafson DJ, Gibson DJ, Nickrent DL. 2004. Competitive relationships of Andropogon gerardii (Big Bluestem) from remnant and restored native populations and select cultivated varieties. Functional Ecology 18 : 451 457.
19. Hamilton WD. 1964. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I & II. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7 : 1 52.
20. Hilson P, Allemeersch J, Altmann T, Aubourg S, Avon A, Beynon J, Bhalerao RP, Bitton F, Caboche M, Cannoot B et al. 2004. Versatile gene-specific sequence tags for Arabidopsis functional genomics: transcript profiling and reverse genetics applications. Genome Research 14 : 2176 2189.
21. Karban R, Shiojiri K. 2009. Self-recognition affects plant communication and defense. Ecology Letters 12 : 502 506.
22. Kent C, Azanchi R, Smith B, Formosa A, Levine JD. 2008. Social context influences chemical communication in Drosophila melanogaster males. Current Biology 18 : 1384 1389.
23. Klemens JA. 2007. Kin recognition in plants? Biology Letters 4 : 67 68.
24. Komdeur J. 1994. The effect of kinship on helping in the cooperative breeding Seychelles warbler (Acrocephalus sechellensis). Proceedings of the Royal Society B - Biological Sciences 256 : 47 52.
25. Langer P, Hogendoorn K, Keller L. 2004. Tug-of-war over reproduction in a social bee. Nature 428 : 844 847.
26. Latta RG, Mackenzie JL, Vats A, Schoen DJ. 2004. Divergence and variation of quantitative traits between allozyme genotypes of Avena barbata from contrasting habitats. Journal of Ecology 92 : 57 71.
27. Lehmann L, Perrin N. 2002. Altruism, dispersal, and phenotype-matching kin recognition. American Naturalist 159 : 451 468.
28. McCall C, Mitchell-Olds T, Waller DM. 1989. Fitness consequences of outcrossing in Impatiens capensis: test of the frequency-dependent and sib-competition models. Evolution 43 : 1075 1084.
29. Mehdiabadi NJ, Kronforst MR, Queller DC, Strassmann JE. 2008. Phylogeny, reproductive isolation and kin recognition in the social amoeba Dictyostelium purpureum. Evolution 63 : 542 548.
30. Milla R., Forero DM, Escudero A, Iriondo JM. 2009. Growing with siblings: a common ground for cooperation or for fiercer competition among plants? Proceedings of the Royal Society B - Biological Sciences 276 : 2531 2540.
31. Monzeglio U, Stoll P. 2008. Effects of spatial pattern and relatedness in an experimental plant community. Evolutionary Ecology 22 : 723 741.
32. Nordborg M, Hu TT, Ishino Y, Jhaveri J, Toomajian C, Zheng H, Bakker E, Calabrese P, Gladstone J, Goyal R et al. 2005. The pattern of polymorphism in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS Biology 3 : e196.
33. Pfennig DW, Collins JP. 1993. Kinship affects morphogenesis in cannibalistic salamanders. Nature 362 : 836 838.
34. Price MV, Waser DM. 1982. Population structure, frequency-dependent selection, and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Evolution 36 : 35 43.
35. Reymond P, Bodenhausen N, Van Poecke RM, Krishnamurthy V, Dicke M, Farmer EE. 2004. A conserved transcript pattern in response to a specialist and a generalist herbivore. Plant Cell 16 : 3132 3147.
36. Sanabria N, Goring D, Nurnberger T, Dubery I. 2008. Self/nonself perception and recognition mechanisms in plants: a comparison of self-incompatibility and innate immunity. New Phytologist 178 : 503 514.
37. Schmitt J, Antonovics J. 1986. Experimental studies of the evolutionary significance of sexual reproduction. IV. Effect of neighbor relatedness and aphid infestation on seedling performance. Evolution 40 : 830 836.
38. Sherborne AL, Thom MD, Paterson S, Jury F, Ollier WE, Stockley P, Beynon RJ, Hurst JL. 2007. The genetic basis of inbreeding avoidance in house mice. Current Biology 17 : 2061 2066.
39. Sherman PW. 1977. Nepotism and the evolution of alarm calls. Science 197 : 1246 1253.
40. Sundström L, Chapuisat M, Keller L. 1996. Conditional manipulation of sex ratios by ant workers - a test of kin selection theory. Science 274 : 993 995.
41. Tonsor SJ. 1989. Relatedness and intraspecific competition in Plantago lanceolata. American Naturalist 134 : 897 906.
42. Wang J, Ross KG, Keller L. 2008. Genome-wide expression patterns and the genetic architecture of a fundamental social trait. PLoS Genetics 4 : e1000127.
43. Willson MF, Hoppes WG, Goldman DA, Thomas PA, Katusic-Malmborg PL, Bothwell JL. 1987. Sibling competition in plants: an experimental study. American Naturalist 129 : 304 311.
44. Young JPW. 1981. Sib competition can favor sex in two ways. Journal of Theoretical Biology 88 : 755 756.