4.4 Article

The Influence of Perenniality and Seed Banks on Polymorphism in Plant-Parasite Interactions

期刊

AMERICAN NATURALIST
卷 174, 期 6, 页码 769-779

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/646603

关键词

natural selection; host-parasite interactions; coevolution; boom-and-bust cycle; gene-for-gene; resistance; avirulence

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  2. Volkswagen Stiftung [I/82752]
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/E/J/00000605] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antagonistic interactions, such as diseases, play an important role in natural populations. Understanding the mechanisms that promote long-term polymorphism at loci that are involved in host-parasite recognition is a fundamental problem in evolutionary ecology. Coevolution implies the existence of indirect frequency-dependent selection because the fitnesses of parasite genotypes depend on the frequencies of host genes and vice versa. Polymorphism can be maintained in both organisms if there is also negative, direct, frequency-dependent selection, when natural selection for host resistance or parasite virulence declines with increasing frequency of that trait itself. In this article, using the gene-for-gene relationship as a model, we show that two plant life-history traits, seed banks and perenniality with parasite density-dependent disease transmission, generate frequency-dependent selection on host resistance and are thus capable of stabilizing frequencies of coevolving host and parasite genes. The host population's response to selection by the parasite is modified by the contribution of past selective events stored in long-lived seed banks or in a growing population of perennial plants that have a long life span in the absence of disease. While fitness costs determine whether coevolutionary cycles occur in interacting host and parasite populations, the ecology of the two organisms determines whether stable polymorphism is maintained.

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