4.6 Article

Differentiation of reproductive and competitive ability in the invaded range of Senecio inaequidens: the role of genetic Allee effects, adaptive and nonadaptive evolution

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 192, 期 2, 页码 529-541

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03808.x

关键词

animal models; biological invasions; genetic Allee effects; interspecific competition; life history evolution; nonadaptive evolution; r and K selection; reproduction

资金

  1. German Environmental Foundation (DBU)
  2. Hans-Sauer-Foundation
  3. German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)
  4. graduate programme of the Federal State of Brandenburg
  5. European Union [MTKDCT-2006-042261]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic differentiation in the competitive and reproductive ability of invading populations can result from genetic Allee effects or r/K selection at the local or range-wide scale. However, the neutral relatedness of populations may either mask or falsely suggest adaptation and genetic Allee effects. In a common-garden experiment, we investigated the competitive and reproductive ability of invasive Senecio inaequidens populations that vary in neutral genetic diversity, population age and field vegetation cover. To account for population relatedness, we analysed the experimental results with 'animal models' adopted from quantitative genetics. Consistent with adaptive r/K differentiation at local scales, we found that genotypes from low-competition environments invest more in reproduction and are more sensitive to competition. By contrast, apparent effects of large-scale r/K differentiation and apparent genetic Allee effects can largely be explained by neutral population relatedness. Invading populations should not be treated as homogeneous groups, as they may adapt quickly to small-scale environmental variation in the invaded range. Furthermore, neutral population differentiation may strongly influence invasion dynamics and should be accounted for in analyses of common-garden experiments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据