Cooperation and competition in heterogeneous environments: The evolution of resource sharing in clonal plants

Krisztián Mágori, B. Oborny, Ulf Dieckmann, G. Meszéna

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Plant species show great variation in the degree of physiological integration between developmental units (modules). When this physiological integration is minimal, individual modules are self-supporting and compete with other modules. When there is greater physiological integration, modules remain physiologically connected and 'cooperate' by sharing resources like water, nutrients and photoassimilates taken up from their local environments. Thus, local differences in habitat quality can be diminished within a group of modules. Here we examine how the evolutionarily optimal amount of integration depends on habitat type - with habitats being characterized by the proportion of resource-rich and resource-poor sites and by the turnover rate between them. Two main questions are addressed: First, how does spatial heterogeneity influence natural selection for or against integration? Second, can adaptation, under reasonable ecological conditions, stabilize partial integration? A non-spatial version of the model, which assumes well-mixed populations, predicts the complete physiological independence of modules as the only evolutionarily stable outcome in any realistic habitat type. By contrast, a spatially explicit version of the model reveals the adaptive advantage of integration in typical high-risk habitats, where resource-rich sites are sparsely distributed in space and transient in time. We conclude that habitat diversity without spatial population structure is sufficient to explain the evolutionary loss of physiological integration. But only the additional consideration of spatial population structure can convincingly explain any backward transition and the stable existence of partial integration.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)787-817
Number of pages31
JournalEvolutionary Ecology Research
Volume5
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2003

Fingerprint

clonal organism
Ecosystem
resource
habitats
habitat type
population structure
habitat
habitat quality
natural selection
Population
Water Resources
turnover
Genetic Selection
co-operation
nutrient
Food
nutrients
water

Keywords

  • Adaptive dynamics
  • Cellular automata
  • Clonal growth
  • Competition
  • Cooperation
  • Patchy habitats
  • Physiological integration
  • Plant development
  • Spatially structured populations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology
  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Genetics
  • Genetics(clinical)

Cite this

Cooperation and competition in heterogeneous environments : The evolution of resource sharing in clonal plants. / Mágori, Krisztián; Oborny, B.; Dieckmann, Ulf; Meszéna, G.

In: Evolutionary Ecology Research, Vol. 5, No. 6, 10.2003, p. 787-817.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{95d75a5a5e0f405c97b90be8dd723191,
title = "Cooperation and competition in heterogeneous environments: The evolution of resource sharing in clonal plants",
abstract = "Plant species show great variation in the degree of physiological integration between developmental units (modules). When this physiological integration is minimal, individual modules are self-supporting and compete with other modules. When there is greater physiological integration, modules remain physiologically connected and 'cooperate' by sharing resources like water, nutrients and photoassimilates taken up from their local environments. Thus, local differences in habitat quality can be diminished within a group of modules. Here we examine how the evolutionarily optimal amount of integration depends on habitat type - with habitats being characterized by the proportion of resource-rich and resource-poor sites and by the turnover rate between them. Two main questions are addressed: First, how does spatial heterogeneity influence natural selection for or against integration? Second, can adaptation, under reasonable ecological conditions, stabilize partial integration? A non-spatial version of the model, which assumes well-mixed populations, predicts the complete physiological independence of modules as the only evolutionarily stable outcome in any realistic habitat type. By contrast, a spatially explicit version of the model reveals the adaptive advantage of integration in typical high-risk habitats, where resource-rich sites are sparsely distributed in space and transient in time. We conclude that habitat diversity without spatial population structure is sufficient to explain the evolutionary loss of physiological integration. But only the additional consideration of spatial population structure can convincingly explain any backward transition and the stable existence of partial integration.",
keywords = "Adaptive dynamics, Cellular automata, Clonal growth, Competition, Cooperation, Patchy habitats, Physiological integration, Plant development, Spatially structured populations",
author = "Kriszti{\'a}n M{\'a}gori and B. Oborny and Ulf Dieckmann and G. Mesz{\'e}na",
year = "2003",
month = "10",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "787--817",
journal = "Evolutionary Ecology Research",
issn = "1522-0613",
publisher = "Evolutionary Ecology Research",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cooperation and competition in heterogeneous environments

T2 - The evolution of resource sharing in clonal plants

AU - Mágori, Krisztián

AU - Oborny, B.

AU - Dieckmann, Ulf

AU - Meszéna, G.

PY - 2003/10

Y1 - 2003/10

N2 - Plant species show great variation in the degree of physiological integration between developmental units (modules). When this physiological integration is minimal, individual modules are self-supporting and compete with other modules. When there is greater physiological integration, modules remain physiologically connected and 'cooperate' by sharing resources like water, nutrients and photoassimilates taken up from their local environments. Thus, local differences in habitat quality can be diminished within a group of modules. Here we examine how the evolutionarily optimal amount of integration depends on habitat type - with habitats being characterized by the proportion of resource-rich and resource-poor sites and by the turnover rate between them. Two main questions are addressed: First, how does spatial heterogeneity influence natural selection for or against integration? Second, can adaptation, under reasonable ecological conditions, stabilize partial integration? A non-spatial version of the model, which assumes well-mixed populations, predicts the complete physiological independence of modules as the only evolutionarily stable outcome in any realistic habitat type. By contrast, a spatially explicit version of the model reveals the adaptive advantage of integration in typical high-risk habitats, where resource-rich sites are sparsely distributed in space and transient in time. We conclude that habitat diversity without spatial population structure is sufficient to explain the evolutionary loss of physiological integration. But only the additional consideration of spatial population structure can convincingly explain any backward transition and the stable existence of partial integration.

AB - Plant species show great variation in the degree of physiological integration between developmental units (modules). When this physiological integration is minimal, individual modules are self-supporting and compete with other modules. When there is greater physiological integration, modules remain physiologically connected and 'cooperate' by sharing resources like water, nutrients and photoassimilates taken up from their local environments. Thus, local differences in habitat quality can be diminished within a group of modules. Here we examine how the evolutionarily optimal amount of integration depends on habitat type - with habitats being characterized by the proportion of resource-rich and resource-poor sites and by the turnover rate between them. Two main questions are addressed: First, how does spatial heterogeneity influence natural selection for or against integration? Second, can adaptation, under reasonable ecological conditions, stabilize partial integration? A non-spatial version of the model, which assumes well-mixed populations, predicts the complete physiological independence of modules as the only evolutionarily stable outcome in any realistic habitat type. By contrast, a spatially explicit version of the model reveals the adaptive advantage of integration in typical high-risk habitats, where resource-rich sites are sparsely distributed in space and transient in time. We conclude that habitat diversity without spatial population structure is sufficient to explain the evolutionary loss of physiological integration. But only the additional consideration of spatial population structure can convincingly explain any backward transition and the stable existence of partial integration.

KW - Adaptive dynamics

KW - Cellular automata

KW - Clonal growth

KW - Competition

KW - Cooperation

KW - Patchy habitats

KW - Physiological integration

KW - Plant development

KW - Spatially structured populations

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2542489719&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2542489719&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:2542489719

VL - 5

SP - 787

EP - 817

JO - Evolutionary Ecology Research

JF - Evolutionary Ecology Research

SN - 1522-0613

IS - 6

ER -