Longitudinal analysis of Plantago: Adaptive benefits of iteroparity in a short-lived, herbaceous perennial

Ecology

Volumn 91, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 441-447

  Shefferson, Richard P ^a,b   Roach, Deborah A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Inflorescence; Iteroparity; Plantago lanceolata; Reproductive schedule; Reproductive timing; Semelparity; USA; Virginia

Indexed keywords

AGE CLASS; COHORT ANALYSIS; DICOTYLEDON; FITNESS; GENETIC STRUCTURE; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; LONGITUDINAL GRADIENT; MATERNAL EFFECT; MORTALITY; PERENNIAL PLANT; POPULATION SIZE; TEMPORAL VARIATION;

ADAPTATION; ARTICLE; ECOSYSTEM; PHYSIOLOGY; PLANTAGO; REPRODUCTION; TIME;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ECOSYSTEM; PLANTAGO; REPRODUCTION; TIME FACTORS;

UNITED STATES; VIRGINIA;

PLANTAGO; PLANTAGO LANCEOLATA;

EID: 77949303728     PISSN: 00129658     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/09-0423.1     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Baskin, J. M., and C. C. Baskin. 1979. Studies of the autecology and population biology of the weedy monocarpic perennial, Pastinaca sativa. Journal of Ecology 67:601-610.
2. Bierzychudek, P. 1982. Life histories and demography of shadetolerant temperate forest herbs: a review. New Phytologist 90:757-776.
3. Bulmer, M. G. 1985. Selection for iteroparity in a variable environment. American Naturalist 126:63-71.
4. Charnov, E. L., and W. M. Schaffer. 1973. Life-history consequences of natural selection: Cole's result revisited. American Naturalist 107:791-793.
5. Cole, L. C. 1954. The population consequences of life history phenomena. Quarterly Review of Biology 29:103-137.
6. Comstock, R. E., and H. F. Robinson. 1948. The components of genetic variance in populations of biparental progenies and their use in estimating the average degree of dominance. Biometrics 4:254-266.
7. Comstock, R. E., and H. F. Robinson. 1952. Estimation of average dominance of genes. Pages 494-516 in J. W. Gowen, editor. Heterosis. Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa, USA.
8. Enríen, J., and K. Lehtilä. 2002. How perennial are perennial plants? Oikos 98:308-322.
9. Garcia, M. B., F. X. Picó, and J. Enríen. 2008. Life span correlates with population dynamics in perennial herbaceous plants. American Journal of Botany 95:258-262.
10. Gillespie, J. H. 1977. Natural selection for variances in offspring numbers: a new evolutionary principle. American Naturalist 111:1010-1014.
11. Harper, J. L., and J. White. 1974. The demography of plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5:419-463.
12. Hautekèete, N.-C., Y. Piquot, and H. van Dijk. 2002. Life span in Beta vulgaris ssp. maritima: the effects of age at first reproduction. Journal of Ecology 90:508-516.
13. Iwasa, Y., and D. Cohen. 1989. Optimal growth schedule of a perennial plant. American Naturalist 133:480-505. (Pubitemid 20417476)
14. Johnson, M. T. J. 2007. Genotype-by-environment interactions leads to variable selection on life-history strategy in common evening primrose (Oenothera biennis). Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20:190-200.
15. Lacey, E. P. 1986. The genetic and environmental control of reproductive timing in a short-lived monocarpic species Daucus carota (Umbelliferae). Journal of Ecology 74:73-86.
16. Lacey, E. P., and D. Herr. 2005. Phenotypic plasticity, parental effects, and parental care in plants? I. An examination of spike reflectance in Plantago lanceolata (Plantaginaceae). American Journal of Botany 92:920-930.
17. Lacey, E. P., L. Real, J. Antonovics, and D. G. Heckel. 1983. Variance models in the study of life histories. American Naturalist 122:114-131.
18. Law, R. 1979. The cost of reproduction in annual meadow grass. American Naturalist 113:3-16.
19. Lynch, M., and B. Walsh. 1998. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA.
20. Maron, J. L., M. Vil̀, R. Bommarco, S. Elmendorf, and P. Beardsley. 2004. Rapid evolution of an invasive plant. Ecological Monographs 74:261-280.
21. Metcalf, J. C., K. E. Rose, and M. Rees. 2003. Evolutionary demography of monocarpic perennials. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:471-480.
22. Metcalfe, N. B., and P. Monaghan. 2001. Compensation for a bad start: Grow now, pay later? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:254-260.
23. Miller, T. X., B. Tenhumberg, and S. Louda. 2008. Herbivoremediated ecological costs of reproduction shape the life history of an iteroparous plant. American Naturalist 171: 141-149.
24. Mousseau, T. A., and C. W. Fox. 1998. The adaptive significance of maternal effects. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:403-407.
25. Nussey, D. H., L. E. B. Kruuk, A. Morris, and T. H. CluttonBrock. 2007. Environmental conditions in early life influence ageing rates in a wild population of red deer. Current Biology 17:R1000-R1001.
26. Orzack, S. H., and S. Tuljapurkar. 1989. Population dynamics in variable environments. VII. The demography and evolution of iteroparity. American Naturalist 133:901-923.
27. Rees, M., D. Z. Childs, K. E. Rose, and P. J. Grubb. 2004. Evolution of size-dependent flowering in a variable environment: partitioning the effects of fluctuating selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 271:471-475. (Pubitemid 38283140)
28. 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 selection pressures. American Naturalist 154:628-651.
29. Roach, D. A. 2003. Age-specific demography in Plantago:variation among cohorts in a natural plant population. Ecology 84:749-756.
30. Roach, D. A., C. E. Ridley, and J. L. Dudycha. 2009.Longitudinal analysis of Plantago: Age-by-environment interactions reveal aging. Ecology 90:1427-1433.
31. Roach, D. A., and R. D. Wulff. 1987. Maternal effects in plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18:209-235.
32. SæiEther, B.-E., and Ø. Bakke. 2000. Avian life history variation and contribution of demographic traits to the population growth rate. Ecology 81:642-653.
33. Scheiner, S. M., K. Donohue, L. A. Dorn, S. J. Mazer, and L. M. Wolfe. 2002. Reducing environmental bias when measuring natural selection. Evolution 56:2156-2167.
34. Scheiner, S. M., R. J. Mitchell, and H. S. Callahan. 2000. Using path analysis to measure natural selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 13:423-433. (Pubitemid 30300910)
35. Shefferson, R. P. 2006. Survival costs of adult dormancy and the confounding influence of size in lady's slipper orchids, genus Cypripedium. Oikos 115:253-262.
36. Silvertown, J. 1983. Why are biennials sometimes not so few? American Naturalist 121:448-453.
37. Silvertown, J. 1986. Biennials: a reply to Kelly. American Naturalist 127:721-724.
38. Slatkin, M. 1974. Hedging one's evolutionary bets. Nature 250: 704-705.
39. Stearns, S. C. 1992. The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
40. van Tienderen, P. H., and J. van der Toorn. 1991a. Genetic differentiation between populations of Plantago lanceolata. I. Local adaptation in three contrasting habitats. Journal of Ecology 79:27-42.
41. van Tienderen, P. H., and J. van der Toorn. 1991b. Genetic differentiation between populations of Plantago lanceolata. II. Phenotypic selection in a transplant experiment in three contrasting habitats. Journal of Ecology 79:43-59.
42. Weiner, J., S. Martinez, H. Müller-Schärer, P. Stoll, and B. Schmid. 1997. How important are environmental maternal effects in plants? A study with Centaurea maculosa. Journal of Ecology 85:133-142.
43. Wesselingh, R. A., and T. J. de Jong. 1995. Bidirectional selection on threshold size for flowering in Cynoglossum officinale (hound's tongue). Heredity 74:415-424.
44. Wilbur, H. M., and J. P. Collins. 1973. Ecological aspects of amphibian metamorphosis. Science 182:1305-1314.
45. Williams, D. G., R. N. Mack, and R. A. Black. 1995. Ecophysiology of introduced Pennisetum setaceum on Hawaii: the role of phenotypic plasticity. Ecology 76:1569-1580.