4.7 Article

Evolution of complex flowering strategies: an age- and size-structured integral projection model

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2399

关键词

delayed reproduction; structured model; adaptive landscape

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We explore the evolution of delayed age- and size-dependent flowering in the monocarpic perennial Carlina vulgaris, by extending the recently developed integral projection approach to include demographic rates that depend on size and age. The parameterized model has excellent descriptive properties both in terms of the population size and in terms of the distributions of sizes within each age class. In Carlina the probability of flowering depends on both plant size and age. We use the parameterized model to predict this relationship, using the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) approach. Despite accurately predicting the mean size of flowering individuals, the model predicts a step-function relationship between the probability of flowering and plant size, which has no age component. When the variance of the flowering-threshold distribution is constrained to the observed value, the ESS flowering function contains an age component, but underpredicts the mean flowering size. An analytical approximation is used to explore the effect of variation in the flowering strategy on the ESS predictions. Elasticity analysis is used to partition the age-specific contributions to the finite rate of increase (lambda) of the survival-growth and fecundity components of the model. We calculate the adaptive landscape that defines the ESS and generate a fitness landscape for invading phenotypes in the presence of the observed flowering strategy. The implications of these results for the patterns of genetic diversity in the flowering strategy and for testing evolutionary models are discussed. Results proving the existence of a dominant eigenvalue and its associated eigenvectors in general size- and age-dependent integral projection models are presented.

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

4.7
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