Presentation Information
[C09-05]Positive feedback between flowering interval and rhizome length in the evolution of Bamboos
*Eisaku Umeda1, Yuuya Tachiki1 (1. Tokyo Metropolitan University (Japan))
Keywords:
mass flowering,flowering habit,reproductive strategy,individual based model,spatially explicit model
Bamboos are monocarpic perennials that exhibit long-term clonal growth, and then death after gregarious flowering. The flowering interval, clonal growth period, ranges from 3 to 120 years [1]. Why bamboo waits so long has been discussed for decades, yet a decisive theory is awaited.
There is a geographic cline in the flowering interval, which is short in tropics and becomes longer in temperate regions [2]. A similar latitudinal trend is observed in rhizome morphology, with tropical species having short rhizomes and temperate species possessing long, slender rhizomes [3]. We hypothesized that rhizome length and flowering interval have jointly evolved, and investigated how these two trait evolved simultaneously with a spatially-explicit individual-based model.
We demonstrate that a positive feedback exists between the evolution of flowering interval and that of rhizome length. Longer rhizomes reduce kin competition for space and enhance the efficiency of clonal growth, thereby favoring the evolution of longer flowering intervals [4].
Conversely, when the flowering interval is extended, plants experience increased kin competition through clonal growth, which in turn favors the evolution of longer rhizomes as a means of mitigating such competition. Here, we explore this kin-competition-mediated evolution of rhizome length and flowering interval, and discuss its potential relationship with the geographic patterns observed in bamboos.
[1] Janzen, D. H. (1976). Why bamboos wait so long to flower. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 7, 347–391.
[2] Campbell, J.J.N. (1985). Bamboo flowering patterns: a global view with special reference to East Asia. Journal of the American Bamboo Society, 6, 17–35.
[3] Makita, A. (1998). The significance of the mode of clonal growth in the life history of bamboos. Plant Species Biology, 13(2–3), 85–92.
[4] Tachiki, Y. et al. (2015). A spatially explicit model for flowering time in bamboos: long rhizomes drive the evolution of delayed flowering. Journal of Ecology, 103(3), 585–593.
There is a geographic cline in the flowering interval, which is short in tropics and becomes longer in temperate regions [2]. A similar latitudinal trend is observed in rhizome morphology, with tropical species having short rhizomes and temperate species possessing long, slender rhizomes [3]. We hypothesized that rhizome length and flowering interval have jointly evolved, and investigated how these two trait evolved simultaneously with a spatially-explicit individual-based model.
We demonstrate that a positive feedback exists between the evolution of flowering interval and that of rhizome length. Longer rhizomes reduce kin competition for space and enhance the efficiency of clonal growth, thereby favoring the evolution of longer flowering intervals [4].
Conversely, when the flowering interval is extended, plants experience increased kin competition through clonal growth, which in turn favors the evolution of longer rhizomes as a means of mitigating such competition. Here, we explore this kin-competition-mediated evolution of rhizome length and flowering interval, and discuss its potential relationship with the geographic patterns observed in bamboos.
[1] Janzen, D. H. (1976). Why bamboos wait so long to flower. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 7, 347–391.
[2] Campbell, J.J.N. (1985). Bamboo flowering patterns: a global view with special reference to East Asia. Journal of the American Bamboo Society, 6, 17–35.
[3] Makita, A. (1998). The significance of the mode of clonal growth in the life history of bamboos. Plant Species Biology, 13(2–3), 85–92.
[4] Tachiki, Y. et al. (2015). A spatially explicit model for flowering time in bamboos: long rhizomes drive the evolution of delayed flowering. Journal of Ecology, 103(3), 585–593.