Fisher's automatic advantage of self-fertilization does not apply in cleistogamous species

IF 2.4 2区生物学 Q2 PLANT SCIENCES

American Journal of Botany Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1002/ajb2.16390

Pierre-Olivier Cheptou

{"title":"Fisher's automatic advantage of self-fertilization does not apply in cleistogamous species","authors":"Pierre-Olivier Cheptou","doi":"10.1002/ajb2.16390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Premise</h3>\n \n <p>In hermaphroditic plants, the evolution of self-fertilization is driven by two major forces; the cost of outcrossing or Fisher's automatic advantage of selfing and inbreeding depression. Seminal theoretical works have established that an inbreeding depression threshold of 0.5 governs the evolution. Below that threshold, selfing evolves, above that, outcrossing evolves. Does this threshold apply to cleistogamous plants?</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>I developed a model using a Lloydian approach to analyze the evolution of cleistogamy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>I showed that the inbreeding depression threshold does not apply in cleistogamous species, and that because cleistogamous (closed) flowers do not export pollen, Fisher's advantage of selfing is totally cancelled.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>In line with model predictions, I discuss the fact that cleistogamous species often exhibit low inbreeding depression in empirical studies.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":7691,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Botany","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Botany","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajb2.16390","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PLANT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Premise

In hermaphroditic plants, the evolution of self-fertilization is driven by two major forces; the cost of outcrossing or Fisher's automatic advantage of selfing and inbreeding depression. Seminal theoretical works have established that an inbreeding depression threshold of 0.5 governs the evolution. Below that threshold, selfing evolves, above that, outcrossing evolves. Does this threshold apply to cleistogamous plants?

Methods

I developed a model using a Lloydian approach to analyze the evolution of cleistogamy.

Results

I showed that the inbreeding depression threshold does not apply in cleistogamous species, and that because cleistogamous (closed) flowers do not export pollen, Fisher's advantage of selfing is totally cancelled.

Conclusions

In line with model predictions, I discuss the fact that cleistogamous species often exhibit low inbreeding depression in empirical studies.

查看原文本刊更多论文

费雪的自交优势并不适用于一夫一妻制物种。

前提：在雌雄同体植物中，自交的进化主要受两种力量的驱动：外交的成本或费希尔自交的自动优势以及近交抑制。重要的理论著作已经确定，0.5 的近交抑郁阈值控制着进化。低于该阈值，自交进化，高于该阈值，外交进化。这个阈值是否适用于裂殖植物？我用劳埃德方法建立了一个模型来分析裂殖进化：结果：我发现近交抑郁阈值不适用于裂殖物种，而且由于裂殖（封闭）花不输出花粉，费雪的自交优势被完全抵消：根据模型预测，我讨论了在实证研究中，裂殖物种通常表现出较低的近交抑郁这一事实。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

American Journal of Botany 生物-植物科学

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

6.70%

发文量

171

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： The American Journal of Botany (AJB), the flagship journal of the Botanical Society of America (BSA), publishes peer-reviewed, innovative, significant research of interest to a wide audience of plant scientists in all areas of plant biology (structure, function, development, diversity, genetics, evolution, systematics), all levels of organization (molecular to ecosystem), and all plant groups and allied organisms (cyanobacteria, algae, fungi, and lichens). AJB requires authors to frame their research questions and discuss their results in terms of major questions of plant biology. In general, papers that are too narrowly focused, purely descriptive, natural history, broad surveys, or that contain only preliminary data will not be considered.