Abstract
Theory predicts that (i) vertical transmission of parasites (i.e. when they are passed directly from a host to its offspring) selects for benign association with the host and that (ii) vertically transmitted parasites that lower their hosts' fitness cannot persist if they are not able to infect horizontally (i.e. contagiously) other host individuals in the population. In this paper, we develop a mathematical model to examine whether mutualism is a prerequisite for persistence of exclusively vertically transmitted (from maternal plant to offspring via seeds) fungal endophytes in structured grass metapopulations. Interestingly, endophyte survival does not require plant mutualism, even in a metapopulation consisting of qualitatively identical patches, if vertical transmission of the fungus is perfect, i.e. if all established seedlings in offspring of the endophyte-infected plant are infected. In more realistic situations, when the metapopulation consists of qualitatively different patches, endophyte-infected plants may persist at the metapopulation level even if the vertical transmission is imperfect (due to hyphae inviability or failure to grow into all seeds) and the endophyte decreases the host grass fitness in certain environments. These results have biological importance because they (i) question the requirement of a mutualistic nature in exclusively vertically transmitted symbionts and (ii) emphasize the importance of habitat diversity in relation to symbiont success in vertical transmission.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (109.2 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Clay K, Holah J. Fungal endophyte symbiosis and plant diversity in successional fields . Science. 1999 Sep 10;285(5434):1742–1745. doi: 10.1126/science.285.5434.1742. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Doebeli M., Knowlton N. The evolution of interspecific mutualisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Jul 21;95(15):8676–8680. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.15.8676. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gyllenberg M., Metz J. A. On fitness in structured metapopulations. J Math Biol. 2001 Dec;43(6):545–560. doi: 10.1007/s002850100113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Herre EA, Knowlton N, Mueller UG, Rehner SA. The evolution of mutualisms: exploring the paths between conflict and cooperation. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Feb;14(2):49–53. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(98)01529-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lipsitch M., Nowak M. A., Ebert D., May R. M. The population dynamics of vertically and horizontally transmitted parasites. Proc Biol Sci. 1995 Jun 22;260(1359):321–327. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1995.0099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Metz J. A., Gyllenberg M. How should we define fitness in structured metapopulation models? Including an application to the calculation of evolutionarily stable dispersal strategies. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Mar 7;268(1466):499–508. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nowak M. A., Bonhoeffer S., May R. M. Spatial games and the maintenance of cooperation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 May 24;91(11):4877–4881. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.11.4877. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
- doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
- Saikkonen K. Kentucky 31, far from home. Science. 2000 Mar 17;287(5460):1887–1887. doi: 10.1126/science.287.5460.1887a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]