| Literature DB >> 31944272 |
Chad T Nihranz1,2, William S Walker2, Steven J Brown2, Mark C Mescher3, Consuelo M De Moraes3, Andrew G Stephenson1,2.
Abstract
PREMISE: Plant maternal effects on offspring phenotypes are well documented. However, little is known about how herbivory on maternal plants affects offspring fitness. Furthermore, while inbreeding is known to reduce plant reproductive output, previous studies have not explored whether and how such effects may extend across generations. Here, we addressed the transgenerational consequences of herbivory and maternal plant inbreeding on the reproduction of Solanum carolinense offspring.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990Manduca sextazzm321990; Solanaceae; fitness; flower and fruit production; herbivory; horsenettle; inbreeding depression; maternal effects; seed germination; transgenerational effects
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31944272 PMCID: PMC7064912 DOI: 10.1002/ajb2.1402
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Bot ISSN: 0002-9122 Impact factor: 3.844
Linear mixed‐effects ANOVA for the effect of herbivore‐damage treatment, maternal breeding type, and their interaction on the total number of seeds produced per maternal plant and the average mass of individual seeds. P values < 0.05 are in boldface.
| Plant trait | Source of variation | df | SS |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of seeds | Damage | 1 | 2862 | 0.015 | 0.904 |
| Breeding | 1 | 4113460 | 21.168 |
| |
| Breeding × Damage | 1 | 10235 | 0.053 | 0.820 | |
| Error | 30 | 5880847 | |||
| Seed mass (mg) | Damage | 1 | 0.001 | 0.014 | 0.907 |
| Breeding | 1 | 0.134 | 1.665 | 0.207 | |
| Breeding × Damage | 1 | 0.028 | 0.344 | 0.562 | |
| Error | 30 | 2.422 |
Figure 1Proportion of seedlings that emerged from seeds of herbivore‐damaged outbred (solid, red), undamaged outbred (dashed, red), herbivore‐damaged inbred (solid, blue), and undamaged inbred (dashed, blue) Solanum carolinense plants grown in the greenhouse.
Log‐likelihood ratio test of independence for the effect of herbivore‐damage treatment, maternal breeding type, their interaction, and maternal plant family on the proportion of Solanum carolinense seedlings that emerged. P values < 0.05 are in boldface.
| Source of variation | df |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Damage | 1 | 21.964 |
|
| Breeding | 1 | 69.237 |
|
| Breeding × Damage | 3 | 97.404 |
|
| Family | 2 | 12.131 |
|
Figure 2Average seedling emergence time (days) of offspring from (A) herbivore‐damaged and undamaged and (B) inbred and outbred Solanum carolinense parent plants. Different letters indicate significant differences between (A) herbivore‐damage treatments and (B) maternal breeding types determined by a linear mixed‐effects model ANOVA. Error bars correspond to standard errors.
Linear mixed‐effects ANOVA for the effect of herbivore‐damage treatment, maternal breeding type, and their interaction on the seedling emergence time (days). P values < 0.05 are in boldface.
| Plant trait | Source of variation | df | SS |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seedling emergence time | Damage | 1 | 471.85 | 34.688 |
|
| Breeding | 1 | 522.19 | 38.389 |
| |
| Breeding × Damage | 1 | 210.43 | 15.470 |
| |
| Error | 1069 | 14541.13 |
Log‐likelihood ratio test of independence for the effect of herbivore‐damage treatment, maternal breeding type, their interaction, and maternal plant family on the proportion of Solanum carolinense offspring that flowered in the greenhouse and field. P values < 0.05 are in boldface.
| Plant trait | Source of variation | df |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Offspring flowering in greenhouse | Damage | 1 | 4.089 |
|
| Breeding | 1 | 0.772 | 0.380 | |
| Breeding × Damage | 3 | 5.458 | 0.141 | |
| Family | 2 | 8.010 |
| |
| Offspring flowering in field | Damage | 1 | 0.190 | 0.663 |
| Breeding | 1 | 3.625 | 0.057 | |
| Breeding × Damage | 3 | 9.140 |
| |
| Family | 2 | 3.546 | 0.170 |
Linear mixed‐effects ANOVA for the effect of herbivore‐damage treatment, maternal breeding type, and their interaction on the average number of flowers and days to first flower of Solanum carolinense offspring in the greenhouse. P values < 0.05 are in boldface.
| Plant trait | Source of variation | df | SS |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of flowers | Damage | 1 | 0.52782 | 2.89353 | 0.090 |
| Breeding | 1 | 0.00003 | 0.00016 | 0.990 | |
| Breeding × Damage | 1 | 0.07627 | 0.41813 | 0.518 | |
| Error | 136 | 24.808 | |||
| Days to first flower | Damage | 1 | 43.286 | 4.0940 |
|
| Breeding | 1 | 1.006 | 0.0952 | 0.758 | |
| Breeding × Damage | 1 | 1.686 | 0.1595 | 0.690 | |
| Error | 136 | 1437.52 |
Figure 3Proportion of Solanum carolinense offspring that flowered in the field and greenhouse.
Linear mixed‐effects ANOVA for the effect of herbivore‐damage treatment, maternal breeding type, and their interaction on the average number of flowers, average number of fruit, average number of seeds per fruit, and total number of seeds per plant of Solanum carolinense offspring in the field. P values < 0.05 are in boldface.
| Plant trait | Source of variation | df | SS |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of flowers | Damage | 1 | 0.286 | 0.546 | 0.461 |
| Breeding | 1 | 5.408 | 10.344 |
| |
| Breeding × Damage | 1 | 2.387 | 4.565 |
| |
| Error | 123 | 64.3 | |||
| Number of fruit | Damage | 1 | 0.305 | 0.923 | 0.339 |
| Breeding | 1 | 2.475 | 7.499 |
| |
| Breeding × Damage | 1 | 0.497 | 1.508 | 0.222 | |
| Error | 123 | 40.591 | |||
| Number of seeds per fruit | Damage | 1 | 1518.89 | 3.189 | 0.080 |
| Breeding | 1 | 966.43 | 2.029 | 0.160 | |
| Breeding × Damage | 1 | 388.88 | 0.816 | 0.371 | |
| Error | 50 | 23816.5 | |||
| Total number of seeds | Damage | 1 | 127.8 | 0.717 | 0.401 |
| Breeding | 1 | 646.92 | 3.630 | 0.062 | |
| Breeding × Damage | 1 | 57.86 | 0.325 | 0.571 | |
| Error | 50 | 8911.5 |
Log‐likelihood ratio test of independence for the effects of herbivore‐damage treatment, maternal breeding type, their interaction, and maternal plant family on the proportion of Solanum carolinense offspring that produced fruit in the field. P values < 0.05 are in boldface.
| Source of variation | df |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Damage | 1 | 1.0364 | 0.309 |
| Breeding | 1 | 3.0755 | 0.079 |
| Breeding × Damage | 3 | 5.9416 | 0.115 |
| Family | 2 | 0.35468 | 0.838 |
Figure 4Proportion of Solanum carolinense offspring that produced fruit in the field.
Summary of the statistical findings for each experiment performed in this study. X = offspring of outbred maternal plants; S = offspring of inbred maternal plants; DAM = parent plants subjected to repeated damage by Manduca sexta larvae; UD = parent plants were not damaged by M. sexta larvae (undamaged controls). *0.05 < P < 0.10; **0.01 < P < 0.05; *** P < 0.01; – P > 0.1. Superscript a (first column) indicates that separate statistical tests were run for the X and S plants to assess the effects of herbivore damage within each breeding type. The contents of each cell in the Mean emergence time and Time to first flower columns indicate which treatment emerged or flowered significantly earlier. The contents of the cells of all other columns indicate which treatment was significantly greater.
| Source of variation | Greenhouse experiment | Field experiment | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of seeds produced by maternal parents | Seed mass (mg) | Proportion of seedlings that emerged | Mean emergence time | Proportion of offspring that flowered | Time to first flower | Average no. of flowers | Proportion of offspring that flowered | Average no. of flowers | Proportion of offspring that produced fruit | Average no. of fruit | Average no. of seeds per fruit | Total no. of seeds per plant | |
| Damage | – | – |
*** DAM |
*** DAM |
** DAM |
** DAM |
* DAM | – | – | – | – |
* DAM | – |
| Breeding |
*** X | – |
*** X |
*** X | – | – | – |
* X |
*** X |
* X |
** X | – |
* X |
| Breeding × Damage | – | – | *** | *** | – | – | – | ** | ** | – | – | – | – |
| Family | – | – | *** | – | ** | – | – | – | – | – | – | * | * |
| X‐DAM vs. X‐UDa | – | – |
*** X‐DAM | – |
** X‐DAM | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| S‐DAM vs. S‐UDa | – | – |
*** S‐DAM |
** S‐DAM | – | – | – |
** S‐DAM | – |
* S‐DAM | – | – | – |