Within-genus size distributions in angiosperms: Small is better

Dombroskie, Sarah L.; Aarssen, Lonnie W.

doi:10.1016/j.ppees.2010.06.002

Cited by 23 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The structure of most natural vegetation contradicts the size-advantage hypothesisthat is, most species are relatively small, and size distributions of resident species within vegetation are right-skewed at virtually every scale (Aarssen and Schamp 2002;Niklas et al 2003;Aarssen et al 2006;Poorter et al 2008;Moles et al 2009;Schamp and Aarssen 2009;Dombroskie and Aarssen 2010;McGlone et al 2010), including also in the present old-field study site (Tracey and Aarssen 2011). Even in later stages of succession, as larger species accumulate over time and cause the local competitive exclusion of some smaller species, other relatively small species take their place and species body size distributions typically remain strongly right-skewed (Schamp and Aarssen 2009;Waugh and Aarssen 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Revising traditional theory on the link between plant body size and fitness under competition: evidence from old‐field vegetation

Tracey

Aarssen

2014

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The selection consequences of competition in plants have been traditionally interpreted based on a “size-advantage” hypothesis – that is, under intense crowding/competition from neighbors, natural selection generally favors capacity for a relatively large plant body size. However, this conflicts with abundant data, showing that resident species body size distributions are usually strongly right-skewed at virtually all scales within vegetation. Using surveys within sample plots and a neighbor-removal experiment, we tested: (1) whether resident species that have a larger maximum potential body size (MAX) generally have more successful local individual recruitment, and thus greater local abundance/density (as predicted by the traditional size-advantage hypothesis); and (2) whether there is a general between-species trade-off relationship between MAX and capacity to produce offspring when body size is severely suppressed by crowding/competition – that is, whether resident species with a larger MAX generally also need to reach a larger minimum reproductive threshold size (MIN) before they can reproduce at all. The results showed that MIN had a positive relationship with MAX across resident species, and local density – as well as local density of just reproductive individuals – was generally greater for species with smaller MIN (and hence smaller MAX). In addition, the cleared neighborhoods of larger target species (which had relatively large MIN) generally had – in the following growing season – a lower ratio of conspecific recruitment within these neighborhoods relative to recruitment of other (i.e., smaller) species (which had generally smaller MIN). These data are consistent with an alternative hypothesis based on a ‘reproductive-economy-advantage’ – that is, superior fitness under competition in plants generally requires not larger potential body size, but rather superior capacity to recruit offspring that are in turn capable of producing grand-offspring – and hence transmitting genes to future generations – despite intense and persistent (cross-generational) crowding/competition from near neighbors. Selection for the latter is expected to favor relatively small minimum reproductive threshold size and hence – as a tradeoff – relatively small (not large) potential body size.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Revising traditional theory on the link between plant body size and fitness under competition: evidence from old‐field vegetation

Tracey

Aarssen

2014

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, faster growth can lead to structure problems (Arendt 1997;Arendt and Wilson 1999) and reduced locomotory performance that can increase predation risk (Lankford et al 2001). Furthermore, at the macroevolutionary level, there can be advantages to being smaller such as increased potential for adaptive evolution (Bromham et al 1996;Dombroskie and Aarssen 2010). These reasons might explain why different studies have found either no change or a decrease in body size through time (Jablonski 1997;Alberdi et al 1998;Knouft and Page 2003;Moen 2006;Churchill et al 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking macrotrends and microrates: Re-evaluating microevolutionary support for Cope's rule

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1Cope's rule, wherein a lineage increases in body size through time, was originally 2 motivated by macro-evolutionary patterns observed in the fossil record. More recently, some 3 authors have argued that evidence exists for generally positive selection on individual body size 4 in contemporary populations, providing a micro-evolutionary mechanism for Cope's rule. If 5 larger body size confers individual fitness advantages as the selection estimates suggest, thereby 6 explaining Cope's rule, then body size should increase over micro-evolutionary time scales. We 7 test this corollary by assembling a large database of studies reporting changes in phenotypic 8 body size through time in contemporary populations, as well as studies reporting average 9 breeding values for body size through time. Trends in body size were quite variable with an 10 absence of any general trend, and many populations trended toward smaller body sizes. Although 11 selection estimates appear to support Cope's rule, our results suggest that actual rates of 12 phenotypic change for body size do not. We discuss potential reasons for this discrepancy and its 13 implications for the understanding of Cope's rule. 14 15

show abstract

“…This “size advantage,” however, is not reflected in plant body size distributions which show that most species are actually relatively small, at virtually all scales (Aarssen, Schamp, & Pither, ; Dombroskie & Aarssen, ; Tracey & Aarssen, ). Being able to grow to a large body size will be adaptive under competition (in terms of reproductive success), but only if large body size can be attained.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, according to traditional theory, superior competitive ability in plants requires the capacity for a relatively large plant body size (Goldberg, 1996;Grace, 1990;Grime, 1973), and the vast majority of previous studies have quantified variation in plant competitive ability in terms of measures that reflect ability to impose growth suppression on neighbors (Aarssen & Keogh, 2002). This "size advantage," however, is not reflected in plant body size distributions which show that most species are actually relatively small, at virtually all scales (Aarssen, Schamp, & Pither, 2006;Dombroskie & Aarssen, 2010;Tracey & Aarssen, 2011). Being able to grow to a large body size will be adaptive under competition (in terms of reproductive success), but only if large body size can be attained.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What does body size mean, from the “plant's eye view”?

Tracey

Stephens

Schamp

et al. 2016

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alternative metrics exist for representing variation in plant body size, but the vast majority of previous research for herbaceous plants has focused on dry mass. Dry mass provides a reasonably accurate and easily measured estimate for comparing relative capacity to convert solar energy into stored carbon. However, from a “plant's eye view”, its experience of its local biotic environment of immediate neighbors (especially when crowded) may be more accurately represented by measures of “space occupancy” (S–O) recorded in situ—rather than dry mass measured after storage in a drying oven. This study investigated relationships between dry mass and alternative metrics of S–O body size for resident plants sampled from natural populations of herbaceous species found in Eastern Ontario. Plant height, maximum lateral canopy extent, and estimated canopy area and volume were recorded in situ (in the field)—and both fresh and dry mass were recorded in the laboratory—for 138 species ranging widely in body size and for 20 plants ranging widely in body size within each of 10 focal species. Dry mass and fresh mass were highly correlated (r 2 > .95) and isometric, suggesting that for some studies, between‐species (or between‐plant) variation in water content may be unimportant and fresh mass can therefore substitute for dry mass. However, several relationships between dry mass and other S–O body size metrics showed allometry—that is, plants with smaller S–O body size had disproportionately less dry mass. In other words, they have higher “body mass density” (BMD) — more dry mass per unit S–O body size. These results have practical importance for experimental design and methodology as well as implications for the interpretation of “reproductive economy”—the capacity to produce offspring at small body sizes—because fecundity and dry mass (produced in the same growing season) typically have a positive, isometric relationship. Accordingly, the allometry between dry mass and S–O body size reported here suggests that plants with smaller S–O body size—because of higher BMD—may produce fewer offspring, but less than proportionately so; in other words, they may produce more offspring per unit of body size space occupancy.

show abstract

Within-genus size distributions in angiosperms: Small is better

Cited by 23 publications

References 29 publications

Revising traditional theory on the link between plant body size and fitness under competition: evidence from old‐field vegetation

Revising traditional theory on the link between plant body size and fitness under competition: evidence from old‐field vegetation

Linking macrotrends and microrates: Re-evaluating microevolutionary support for Cope's rule

What does body size mean, from the “plant's eye view”?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About