4.4 Article

Life-History Variation in Contrasting Habitats: Flowering Decisions in a Clonal Perennial Herb (Veratrum album)

期刊

AMERICAN NATURALIST
卷 172, 期 5, 页码 E196-E213

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/591683

关键词

demographic variation; evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS); integral projection models; monocarpic ramets; population dynamics; reproductive mode

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [NER/A/S/2002/00940/2] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantifying intraspecific demographic variation provides a powerful tool for exploring the diversity and evolution of life histories. We investigate how habitat-specific demographic variation and the production of multiple offspring types affect the population dynamics and evolution of delayed reproduction in a clonal perennial herb with monocarpic ramets (white hellebore). In this species, flowering ramets produce both seeds and asexual offspring. Data on ramet demography are used to parameterize integral projection models, which allow the effects of habitat-specific demographic variation and reproductive mode on population dynamics to be quantified. We then use the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) approach to predict the flowering strategy-the relationship between flowering probability and size. This approach is extended to allow offspring types to have different demographies and density-dependent responses. Our results demonstrate that the evolutionarily stable flowering strategies differ substantially among habitats and are in excellent agreement with the observed strategies. Reproductive mode, however, has little effect on the ESSs. Using analytical approximations, we show that flowering decisions are predominantly determined by the asymptotic size of individuals rather than variation in survival or size-fecundity relationships. We conclude that habitat is an important aspect of the selective environment and a significant factor in predicting the ESSs.

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

4.4
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