4.8 Article

Consequences of clonality for sexual fitness: Clonal expansion enhances fitness under spatially restricted dispersal

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1501720112

Keywords

asexual reproduction; geitonogamy; genet; modularity; ramet

Funding

  1. BASF
  2. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  4. Canada Graduate Scholarship
  5. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Grant [KL1866/3-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clonality is a pervasive feature of sessile organisms, but this form of asexual reproduction is thought to interfere with sexual fitness via the movement of gametes among the modules that comprise the clone. This within-clone movement of gametes is expected to reduce sexual fitness via mate limitation of male reproductive success and, in some cases, via the production of highly inbred (i.e., self-fertilized) offspring. However, clonality also results in the spatial expansion of the genetic individual (i.e., genet), and this should decrease distances gametes and sexually produced offspring must travel to avoid competing with other gametes and offspring from the same clone. The extent to which any negative effects of clonality on mating success might be offset by the positive effects of spatial expansion is poorly understood. Here, we develop spatially explicit models in which fitness was determined by the success of genets through their male and female sex functions. Our results indicate that clonality serves to increase sexual fitness when it is associated with the outward expansion of the genet. Our models further reveal that the main fitness benefit of clonal expansion might occur through the dispersal of offspring over a wider area compared with nonclonal phenotypes. We conclude that, instead of interfering with sexual reproduction, clonal expansion should often serve to enhance sexual fitness.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available