4.4 Article

Evolutionary and Ecological Consequences of Multiscale Variation in Pollen Receipt for Seed Production

期刊

AMERICAN NATURALIST
卷 185, 期 1, 页码 E14-E29

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/678982

关键词

evolution of reproductive allocations; pollen limitation; resource limitation; stochastic environments

资金

  1. US National Science Foundation [DMS-1022639]
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  3. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  4. Division Of Mathematical Sciences [1022639] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Variation in resource availability can select for traits that reduce the negative impacts of this variability on mean fitness. Such selection may be particularly potent for seed production in flowering plants, as they often experience variation in pollen receipt among individuals and among flowers within individuals. Using analytically tractable models, we examine the optimal allocations for producing ovules, attracting pollen, and maturing seeds in deterministic and stochastic pollen environments. In deterministic environments, the optimal strategy attracts sufficient pollen to fertilize every ovule and mature every zygote into a seed. Stochastic environments select for allocations proportional to the risk of seed production being limited by zygotes or seed maturation. When producing an ovule is cheap and maturing a seed is expensive, among-plant variation selects for attracting more pollen at the expense of producing fewer ovules and having fewer resources for seed maturation. Despite this increased allocation, such populations are likely to be pollen limited. In contrast, within-plant variation generally selects for an overproduction of ovules and, to a lesser extent, pollen attraction. Such populations are likely to be resource limited and exhibit low seed-to-ovule ratios. These results highlight the importance of multiscale variation in the evolution and ecology of resource allocations.

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