4.7 Article Book Chapter

An ideal weed: plasticity and invasiveness in Polygonum cespitosum

期刊

YEAR IN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
卷 1360, 期 -, 页码 101-119

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE PUBL
DOI: 10.1111/nyas.12946

关键词

plant invasion; genetic variation; rapid evolution; ecological generalists; range expansion; norm of reaction; population differentiation

资金

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The introduced Asian plant Polygonum cespitosum has only recently become invasive in northeastern North America, spreading into sunny as well as shaded habitats. We present findings from a multiyear case study of this ongoing species invasion, drawing on field environmental measurements, glasshouse plasticity and resurrection experiments, and molecular genetic (microsatellite) data. We focus in particular on patterns of individual phenotypic plasticity (norms of reaction), their diversity within and among populations in the species' introduced range, and their contribution to its potential to evolve even greater invasiveness. Genotypes from introduced-range P. cespitosum populations have recently evolved to express greater adaptive plasticity to full sun and/or dry conditions without any loss of fitness in shade. Evidently, this species may evolve the sort of general-purpose genotypes hypothesized by Herbert Baker to characterize an ideal weed. Indeed, we identified certain genotypes capable of extremely high reproductive output across contrasting conditions, including sunny, shaded, moist, and dry. Populations containing these high-performance genotypes had consistently higher fitness in all glasshouse habitats; there was no evidence for local adaptive differentiation among populations from sunny, shaded, moist, or dry sites. Norm of reaction data may provide valuable insights to invasion biology: the presence of broadly adaptive, high-performance genotypes can promote a species' ecological spread while providing the fuel for increased invasiveness to evolve.

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