Functional trade‐offs increase species diversity in experimental plant communities

Ben-Hur, Eyal; Fragman‐Sapir, Ori; Hadas, Rivka; Singer, Alexander; Kadmon, Ronen

doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01850.x

Cited by 49 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(175 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Optical densities (OD) was converted into cell densities by comparing counts of colony-forming units to ODs at a number of different cell concentrations. Growth curves were created identically for the ancestor, REL606, except at many more concentrations of maltotriose (1,2,4,8,16,32,64 and 128 mg ml À 1 ). These data were used to measure the RYTO.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…T rade-offs between life-history traits are seen as a key part of the processes that maintain the rich biodiversity observed in microbes 1 , plants 2 , insects 3 and rain forests 4 . Due to its importance to biodiversity theory, a search for trade-off data has become the subject of a burgeoning experimental literature using microbial populations in the laboratory 1,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biophysical mechanisms that maintain biodiversity through trade-offs

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trade-offs are thought to arise from inevitable, biophysical limitations that prevent organisms from optimizing multiple traits simultaneously. A leading explanation for biodiversity maintenance is a theory that if the shape, or geometry, of a trade-off is right, then multiple species can coexist. Testing this theory, however, is difficult as trait data is usually too noisy to discern shape, or trade-offs necessary for the theory are not observed in vivo. To address this, we infer geometry directly from the biophysical mechanisms that cause trade-offs, deriving the geometry of two by studying nutrient uptake and metabolic properties common to all living cells. To test for their presence in vivo we isolated Escherichia coli mutants that vary in a nutrient transporter, LamB, and found evidence for both trade-offs. Consistent with data, population genetics models incorporating the trade-offs successfully predict the co-maintenance of three distinct genetic lineages, demonstrating that trade-off geometry can be deduced from fundamental principles of living cells and used to predict stable genetic polymorphisms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Biophysical mechanisms that maintain biodiversity through trade-offs

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies suggest that large seeds are more viable than small seeds, and the probability of seedling emergence increases with increasing seed size (Ben-Hur et al, 2012;BenHur and Kadmon, 2015), although such studies have focused on variation between rather than within species. This trend is broadly interpreted in the context of a competition-colonization tradeoff, where large seeds have a competitive advantage due to superior ecophysiological performance, while small seeds (in large numbers) exploit opportunities in less competitive environments.…”

Section: Responses To Changes In Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant and Animal Reproductive Strategies: Lessons from Offspring Size and Number Tradeoffs

Dani

Kodandaramaiah

2017

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The tradeoff between offspring size and number is ubiquitous and manifestly similar in plants and animals despite fundamental differences between the evolutionary histories of these two major life forms. Fecundity (offspring number) primarily affects parental fitness, while offspring size underpins the fitness of parents and offspring. We provide an overview of theoretical models dealing with offspring size and fitness relationships. We follow that with a detailed examination of life-history constraints and environmental effects on offspring size and number, separately in plants and animals. The emphasis is on seed plants, but we endeavor to also summarize information from distinct animal groups-insects, fishes, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Furthermore, we analyse genetic controls on offspring size and number in two model organisms-Arabidopsis and Drosophila. Despite the deep evolutionary divergence between plants and animals, we find four trends in reproductive strategy that are common to both lineages: (i) offspring size is generally less variable than offspring number, (ii) offspring size increases with increasing parent body size, (iii) maternal genes restrict offspring size and increase offspring numbers, while zygotic genes act to increase offspring size; such parent-offspring conflicts are enhanced when there is sibling rivalry, and (iv) variation in offspring size increases under sub-optimal (harsh) environmental conditions. The most salient difference between plants and animals is that the latter tend to produce larger (fewer) offspring under sub-optimal conditions while seed plants invest in smaller (many) seeds, suggesting that maternal genetic control over offspring size increases in plants but decreases in animals with parental care. The time is ripe for greater experimental exploration of genetic controls on reproductive allocation and parent-offspring conflicts in plants and animals under sub-optimal (harsh) environments.

show abstract

“…Seed size has been considered an important functional trait that determines the occurrence and distribution of plant species in ecological communities (Moles et al, 2005;Ben-Hur et al, 2012). Community composition can be influenced by this trait as a result of dispersal limitation processes, since the capacity of propagule movement in the landscape through wind or vertebrate dispersers is affected by seed size (Fenner and Thompson, 2005), and by seedling establishment limitation processes, since seed mass may determine seedling fitness under different water, light and nutrient conditions (Leishman and Westoby, 1994;Bond et al, 1999;Seiwa, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%