4.5 Article

Bet-hedging for variability in life cycle duration: bigger and later-emerging chestnut weevils have increased probability of a prolonged diapause

Journal

OECOLOGIA
Volume 132, Issue 2, Pages 167-174

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-002-0969-6

Keywords

coin-flipping plasticity; risk-spreading; Curculio elephas; dimorphic variation; dormancy evolution

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Diversified bet-hedging for life cycle duration is defined as within-generation variability in cycle length expressed by a single genotype maximising mean geometric fitness. Such plasticity is not predictive, i.e. it is not a response to cues from the environment that has a predictive value for the decision at hand. In evolutionary terms, diversified bet-hedging is perceived as an adaptation to environmental stochasticity. However, clear evidence of bet-hedging is scarce and exists only for a few desert plant species and one desert bee. In temperate insects, diversified bet-hedging for life cycle duration has been suspected in the chestnut weevil, but proximate factors responsible for individual variation are still unknown. From field experiments, we show that the frequency of the long cycle depends on larval weight and on the date when a larva abandons the fruit, but not on larval burying depth in the soil. Since the two first factors are known to depend on food and temperature and cannot lead to predictive plasticity, we give evidence of bet hedging in this temperate species. Indeed, despite a cost associated with prolonged diapause (extra mortality and loss of reproductive opportunity), a previous study showed that plasticity for life cycle duration, such as discussed in this paper, maximises mean geometric fitness and persistence probability in the chestnut weevil. We propose the hypothesis that the variation in life cycle duration depends on individual variability of metabolic resources such as lipids.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available