Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 14, Issue 4–6, pp 563–570 | Cite as

Defining tolerance as a norm of reaction

  • Ellen L. Simms

Abstract

Tolerance of an environmental factor is the ability to maintain fitness in the face of stress imposed by that factor. A tolerant genotype minimizes the decline in fitness from that achieved in a relatively benign environment to that produced in environments with more stressful levels of the factor. Hence, tolerance is a phenotypically plastic characteristic of a genotype that can be assessed only by measuring the genotype's fitness in more than one environment. The genotype's tolerance is characterized by the shape of the fitness reaction norm along the environmental gradient whereas the overall height of the function represents its general vigor.

adaptation compensation damage general vigor herbivory plant fitness tolerance stress 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrahamson, W.G. and Weis, A.E. (1997) Evolutionary Ecology across Three Trophic Levels: Goldenrods, Gallmakers, and Natural Enemies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  2. Fineblum, W.L. (1991) Genetic constraints on the evolution of resistance to host plant enemies. Ph.D. dissertation. Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Fineblum, W.L. and Rausher, M.D. (1995) Trade-off between resistance and tolerance to herbivore damage in a morning glory. Nature 377, 517-520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fry, J.D. (1992) The mixed-model analysis of variance applied to quantitative genetics: biological meaning of the parameters. Evolution 46, 540-550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fry, J.D. (1993) The ‘general vigor’ problem: can antagonistic pleiotropy be detected when genetic covariances are positive? Evolution 47, 327-333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Futuyma, D.J. and Philippi, T.E. (1987) Genetic variation and covariation in responses to host plants by Alsophila pometaria (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Evolution 41, 269-279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gomulkiewicz, R. and Kirkpatrick, M. (1992) Quantitative genetics and the evolution of reaction norms. Evolution 46, 390-411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kirkpatrick, M., Lofsvold, D. and Bulmer, M. (1990) Analysis of the inheritance, selection, and evolution of growth trajectories. Genetics 124, 979-993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Mauricio, R., Rausher, M.D. and Burdick, D.S. (1997) Variation in the defense strategies of plants: are resistance and tolerance mutually exclusive? Ecology 78, 1301-1311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pilson, D. (2000) The evolution of plant response to herbivory: simultaneously considering resistance and tolerance in Brassica rapa. Evol. Ecol. 14, 457-489 (this issue).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Simms, E.L. and Triplett, J.K. (1994) Costs and benefits of plant responses to disease: resistance and tolerance. Evolution 48, 1973-1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stowe, K.A. (1998) Experimental evolution of resistance in Brassica rapa: correlated response of tolerance in lines selected for glucosinolate content. Evolution 52, 703-712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stowe, K.A., Marquis, R.J., Hochwender, C.G. and Simms, E.L. (2000) The evolutionary ecology of tolerance to consumer damage. Annu. Rev. of Ecol Syst 31, 565-595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tiffin, P. and Rausher, M.D. (1999) Genetic constraints and selection acting on tolerance to herbivory in the common morning glory, Ipomoea purpurea. Am. Natur. 154, 700-716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ellen L. Simms
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Integrative Biology, University of California Botanical GardenUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations