INTERGENOMIC EPISTASIS AND COEVOLUTIONARY CONSTRAINT IN PLANTS AND RHIZOBIA

Studying how the fitness benefits of mutualism differ among a wide range of partner genotypes, and at multiple spatial scales, can shed light on the processes that maintain mutualism and structure coevolutionary interactions. Using legumes and rhizobia from three natural populations, I studied the symbiotic fitness benefits for both partners in 108 plant maternal family by rhizobium strain combinations. Genotype‐by‐genotype (G × G) interactions among local genotypes and among partner populations determined, in part, the benefits of mutualism for both partners; for example, the fitness effects of particular rhizobium strains ranged from uncooperative to mutualistic depending on the plant family. Correlations between plant and rhizobium fitness benefits suggest a trade off, and therefore a potential conflict, between the interests of the two partners. These results suggest that legume–rhizobium mutualisms are dynamic at multiple spatial scales, and that strictly additive models of mutualism benefits may ignore dynamics potentially important to both the maintenance of genetic variation and the generation of geographic patterns in coevolutionary interactions.

[1]  M. Kirkpatrick.  Patterns of quantitative genetic variation in multiple dimensions , 2009, Genetica.

[2]  W. Ratcliff,et al.  Rhizobitoxine producers gain more poly-3-hydroxybutyrate in symbiosis than do competing rhizobia, but reduce plant growth , 2009, The ISME Journal.

[3]  J. Stinchcombe,et al.  How much do genetic covariances alter the rate of adaptation? , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[4]  K. Heath,et al.  Stabilizing Mechanisms in a Legume-Rhizobium Mutualism , 2009, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[5]  M. Rausher,et al.  Selection for Character Displacement is Constrained by the Genetic Architecture of Floral Traits in the Ivyleaf Morning Glory , 2008, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[6]  W. Ratcliff,et al.  Poly-3-hydroxybutyrate (PHB) supports survival and reproduction in starving rhizobia. , 2008, FEMS microbiology ecology.

[7]  Troy Day,et al.  Factors Affecting the Evolution of Bleaching Resistance in Corals , 2007, The American Naturalist.

[8]  K. Heath,et al.  Context dependence in the coevolution of plant and rhizobial mutualists , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[9]  J. Hoeksema,et al.  Geographic structure in a widespread plant–mycorrhizal interaction: pines and false truffles , 2007, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[10]  M. Wade.  The co-evolutionary genetics of ecological communities , 2007, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[11]  E. Brodie,et al.  SEXUAL DIMORPHISM IN THE QUANTITATIVE-GENETIC ARCHITECTURE OF FLORAL, LEAF, AND ALLOCATION TRAITS IN SILENE LATIFOLIA , 2007, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[12]  M. Blows.  A tale of two matrices: multivariate approaches in evolutionary biology , 2007, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[13]  I. Olivieri,et al.  Recombination and selection shape the molecular diversity pattern of nitrogen‐fixing Sinorhizobium sp. associated to Medicago , 2006, Molecular ecology.

[14]  E. Simms,et al.  An empirical test of partner choice mechanisms in a wild legume–rhizobium interaction , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[15]  Jennifer A. Lau,et al.  EVOLUTIONARY RESPONSES OF NATIVE PLANTS TO NOVEL COMMUNITY MEMBERS , 2006, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[16]  J. Shykoff,et al.  PARASITE‐HOST FITNESS TRADE‐OFFS CHANGE WITH PARASITE IDENTITY: GENOTYPE‐SPECIFIC INTERACTIONS IN A PLANT‐PATHOGEN SYSTEM , 2005, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[17]  G. Garau,et al.  The Symbiotic Requirements of Different Medicago Spp. Suggest the Evolution of Sinorhizobium Meliloti and S. Medicae with Hosts Differentially Adapted to Soil pH , 2005, Plant and Soil.

[18]  T. Huguet,et al.  Interaction between Medicago truncatula lines and Sinorhizobium meliloti strains for symbiotic efficiency and nodule antioxidant activities , 2005 .

[19]  B. Roe,et al.  Sequencing the Genespaces of Medicago truncatula and Lotus japonicus1 , 2005, Plant Physiology.

[20]  Laurent Excoffier,et al.  Arlequin (version 3.0): An integrated software package for population genetics data analysis , 2005, Evolutionary bioinformatics online.

[21]  S. Strauss,et al.  A selection mosaic in the facultative mutualism between ants and wild cotton , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[22]  Michael P. Cummings,et al.  PAUP* [Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (and Other Methods)] , 2004 .

[23]  J. Fargione,et al.  A mutualism–parasitism continuum model and its application to plant–mycorrhizae interactions , 2004 .

[24]  E. Kiers,et al.  Lifestyle alternatives for rhizobia: mutualism, parasitism, and forgoing symbiosis. , 2004, FEMS microbiology letters.

[25]  J. Bull,et al.  The Evolution of Cooperation , 2004, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[26]  M. Doebeli,et al.  GENETIC CORRELATIONS AND THE COEVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS OF THREE‐SPECIES SYSTEMS , 2004, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[27]  S. Chenoweth,et al.  Orientation of the Genetic Variance‐Covariance Matrix and the Fitness Surface for Multiple Male Sexually Selected Traits , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[28]  R. Gomulkiewicz,et al.  Coevolution in Variable Mutualisms , 2003, The American Naturalist.

[29]  S. West,et al.  Host sanctions and the legume–rhizobium mutualism , 2003, Nature.

[30]  T. Bisseling,et al.  An integrated physical, genetic and cytogenetic map around the sunn locus of Medicago truncatula. , 2003, Genome.

[31]  F. Messina,et al.  Environment‐dependent reversal of a life history trade‐off in the seed beetle Callosobruchus maculatus , 2003, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[32]  D. Cook,et al.  Dual Genetic Pathways Controlling Nodule Number inMedicago truncatula 1 , 2003, Plant Physiology.

[33]  J. Bever.  Negative feedback within a mutualism: host–specific growth of mycorrhizal fungi reduces plant benefit , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[34]  E D Brodie,et al.  THE EVOLUTIONARY RESPONSE OF PREDATORS TO DANGEROUS PREY: HOTSPOTS AND COLDSPOTS IN THE GEOGRAPHIC MOSAIC OF COEVOLUTION BETWEEN GARTER SNAKES AND NEWTS , 2002, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[35]  Stuart A. West,et al.  Sanctions and mutualism stability: when should less beneficial mutualists be tolerated? , 2002 .

[36]  J. Thompson,et al.  Geographic structure and dynamics of coevolutionary selection , 2002, Nature.

[37]  M. Rausher,et al.  Diffuse Selection on Resistance to Deer Herbivory in the Ivyleaf Morning Glory, Ipomoea hederacea , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[38]  R. Frankham,et al.  HOW CLOSELY CORRELATED ARE MOLECULAR AND QUANTITATIVE MEASURES OF GENETIC VARIATION? A META‐ANALYSIS , 2001, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[39]  I. Olivieri,et al.  Spatial effects and rare outcrossing events in Medicago truncatula (Fabaceae) , 2001, Molecular ecology.

[40]  James D. Bever,et al.  Coexistence under positive frequency dependence , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[41]  R. Denison.  Legume Sanctions and the Evolution of Symbiotic Cooperation by Rhizobia , 2000, The American Naturalist.

[42]  Robinson,et al.  Variability in plant-microbe interaction between Lupinus lines and Bradyrhizobium strains. , 2000, Plant science : an international journal of experimental plant biology.

[43]  M. Wade,et al.  Epistasis and the Evolutionary Process , 2000 .

[44]  S. West,et al.  Conflict of interest in a mutualism: documenting the elusive fig wasp–seed trade–off , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[45]  J. Graham,et al.  Functioning of mycorrhizal associations along the mutualism–parasitism continuum* , 1997 .

[46]  D. Cook,et al.  A Legume Ethylene-Insensitive Mutant Hyperinfected by Its Rhizobial Symbiont , 1997, Science.

[47]  R. Littell.  SAS System for Mixed Models , 1996 .

[48]  I. Olivieri,et al.  High level of polymorphism and spatial structure in a selfing plant species, Medicago truncatula (Leguminosae), shown using RAPD markers , 1996 .

[49]  P. Normand,et al.  Evidence that two genomic species of Rhizobium are associated with Medicago truncatula , 1996, Archives of Microbiology.

[50]  M. Parker.  Plant Fitness Variation Caused by Different Mutualist Genotypes , 1995 .

[51]  J. D. Fry.  THE “GENERAL VIGOR” PROBLEM: CAN ANTAGONISTIC PLEIOTROPY BE DETECTED WHEN GENETIC COVARIANCES ARE POSITIVE? , 1993, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[52]  J. Lupski,et al.  Short, interspersed repetitive DNA sequences in prokaryotic genomes , 1992, Journal of bacteriology.

[53]  J. Lupski,et al.  Distribution of repetitive DNA sequences in eubacteria and application to fingerprinting of bacterial genomes. , 1991, Nucleic acids research.

[54]  J. Bull,et al.  Distinguishing mechanisms for the evolution of co-operation. , 1991, Journal of theoretical biology.

[55]  P. Berkum.  Evidence for a third uptake hydrogenase phenotype among the soybean bradyrhizobia , 1990 .

[56]  R. Shaw,et al.  RESPONSE TO DENSITY IN A WILD POPULATION OF THE PERENNIAL HERB SALVIA LYRATA: VARIATION AMONG FAMILIES , 1986, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[57]  D. Boucher.  The Biology of mutualism :: ecology and evolution , 1985 .

[58]  M. Rose,et al.  GENETIC COVARIATION AMONG LIFE‐HISTORY COMPONENTS: THE EFFECT OF NOVEL ENVIRONMENTS , 1985, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[59]  R. Lande,et al.  GENOTYPE‐ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION AND THE EVOLUTION OF PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY , 1985, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[60]  W. Hamilton,et al.  The evolution of cooperation. , 1984, Science.

[61]  R. Lande.  QUANTITATIVE GENETIC ANALYSIS OF MULTIVARIATE EVOLUTION, APPLIED TO BRAIN:BODY SIZE ALLOMETRY , 1979, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[62]  D. Jones,et al.  The response to selection for increased nodule tissue in white clover (Trifolium repens L.) , 1971, Plant and Soil.

[63]  J. Vincent.  A manual for the practical study of root-nodule bacteria , 1971 .

[64]  R. Trivers.  The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism , 1971, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[65]  S. Shapiro,et al.  An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples) , 1965 .

[66]  K. Lesins,et al.  Genus medicago (leguminosae), a taxogenetic study , 2004, Vegetatio.

[67]  B. Simarov,et al.  COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE GENOME IN ALFALFA NODULE BACTERIA SINORHIZOBIUM MEDICAE AND SINORHIZOBIUM MELILOTI , 1999 .

[68]  J. Bever.  Dynamics within mutualism and the maintenance of diversity: inference from a model of interguild frequency dependence , 1999 .

[69]  K. Lesins,et al.  Genus Medicago (Leguminosae) , 1979, Springer Netherlands.

[70]  C. S. Gager.  Root Nodule Bacteria and Leguminous Plants , 1940 .