Mast seeding is a reproductive mode in plants characterized by intermittence and intra- or interspecific synchronization. Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the evolution of mast seeding, but the relative importance of each is still unclear due to the complex interactions among the various factors involved, i.e., the two components of masting (intermittence and synchronization), two potential advantages of masting (enhancement of fertility and survival), and the intensities of interactions among individuals through enhancement effects. Several masting studies have claimed that independent selective forces may operate to drive the evolution of intermittence and synchrony, although a theoretical framework for the action of these independent selective forces has not yet been established. In the present study, we investigated the relationships among these factors by analyzing a mathematical model and conducting computer simulations. We found that intense interactions among plant individuals, through the enhancement of fertility or survival, promoted synchronous reproduction while concomitantly suppressing evolution of intermittence. We also demonstrated that enhancement of either fertility or survivorship alone may be insufficient for the evolution of masting, whereas a combination of the two effects can significantly promote it. This suggested a complementary relationship between two well-known hypotheses for the origin of masting, namely, the pollen/pollinator hypothesis and the predator satiation hypothesis.
Life history Evolution Invasibility analysis
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We thank the members of the Centre for Ecological Research, Kyoto University, for their comments and encouragement. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. This research was supported financially by the Global COE Program A06 at Kyoto University and by the Core-to-Core project (20004) and KAKENHI (11007744) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) to AY.
Aikawa S, Kobayashi MJ, Satake A, Shimizu KK, Kudoh H (2010) Robust control of the seasonal expression of the Arabidopsis FLC gene in a fluctuating environment. PNAS 107:11632–11637CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Geritz SAH, Kisdi E, Meszena G, Metz JAJ (1998) Evolutionary singular strategies and the adaptive growth and branching of the evolutionary tree. Evol Ecol 12:35–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrera CM (1998) Population-level estimates of interannual variability in seed production: what do they actually tell us? Oikos 82:612–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inghe O (1990) Computer simulations of flowering rhythms in perennials—is there a new area to explore in the quest for chaos? J Theor Biol 147:449–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inghe O, Tamm CO (1988) Survival and flowering of perennial herbs. V. Patterns of flowering. Oikos 51:203–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isagi Y, Sugimura K, Sumida A, Ito H (1997) How does masting happen and synchronize? J Theor Biol 187:231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwasa Y, Satake A (2004) Mechanisms inducing spatially extended synchrony in mast seeding: the role of pollen coupling and environmental fluctuation. Ecol Res 19:13–20Google Scholar
Kelly D (1994) The evolutionary ecology of mast seeding. Trees 12:465–470Google Scholar
Kelly D, Hart DE, Allen RB (2001) Evaluating the wind pollination benefits of mast seeding. Ecology 82:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly D, Sork VL (2002) Mast seeding in perennial plants: why, how, where? Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:427–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig WD, Kelly D, Sork VL, Duncan RP, Elkinton JS, Peltonen MS, Westfall RD (2003) Dissecting components of population-level variation in seed production and the evolution of masting behavior. Oikos 102:581–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton DA, Kelly D (1988) Mast seeding over 33 years by Dacrydium cupressinum Lamb. (rimu) (Podocarpaceae) in New Zealand: the importance of economies of scale. Func Ecol 2:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satake A (2010) Diversity of plant life cycles is generated by dynamic epigenetic regulation in response to vernalization. J Theor Biol 266:595–605CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Satake A, Iwasa Y (2000) Pollen coupling of forest trees: forming synchronized and periodic reproduction out of chaos. J Theor Biol 203:63–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Satake A, Iwasa Y (2002a) Spatially limited pollen exchange and a long-range synchronization of trees. Ecology 83:993–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satake A, Iwasa Y (2002b) The synchronized and intermittent reproduction of forest trees is mediated by the Moran effect, only in association with pollen coupling. J Ecol 90:830–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvertown JW (1980) The evolutionary ecology of mast seeding in tree. Biol J Linn Soc 14:235–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tachiki Y, Iwasa Y (2008) Role of gap dynamics in the evolution of masting of trees. Evol Ecol Res 10:893–905Google Scholar
Tachiki Y, Iwasa Y (2010) Both seedling banks and specialist seed predators promote the evolution of synchronized and intermittent reproduction (masting) in trees. J Ecol 98:1398–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamauchi A (1996) Theory of mast reproduction in plants—storage-size dependent strategy. Evolution 50:1795–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar