Abstract
One of the best-supported patterns in life history evolution is that organisms cope with environmental fluctuations by buffering their most important vital rates against them. This demographic buffering hypothesis is evidenced by a tendency for temporal variation in rates of survival and reproduction to correlate negatively with their contribution to fitness. Here, we show that widespread evidence for demographic buffering can be artefactual, resulting from natural relationships between the mean and variance of vital rates. Following statistical scaling, we find no significant tendency for plant life histories to be buffered demographically. Instead, some species are buffered, whereas others have labile life histories with higher temporal variation in their more important vital rates. We find phylogenetic signal in the strength and direction of variance–importance correlations, suggesting that clades of plants are prone to being either buffered or labile. Species with simple life histories are more likely to be demographically labile. Our results suggest important evolutionary nuances in how species deal with environmental fluctuations.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boyce, M. S., Haridas, C. V., Lee, C. T. & Group, N. S. D. W. Demography in an increasingly variable world. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 141–148 (2006).
Gillespie, J. H. Natural selection for variances in offspring numbers: a new evolutionary principle. Am. Nat. 111, 1010–1014 (1977).
Lewontin, R. C. & Cohen, D. On population growth in a randomly varying environment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 62, 1056–1060 (1969).
Gaillard, J.-M. & Yoccoz, N. G. Temporal variation in survival of mammals: a case of environmental canalization? Ecology 84, 3294–3306 (2003).
Sæther, B.-E. & Bakke, Ø. Avian life history variation and contribution of demographic traits to the population growth rate. Ecology 81, 642–653 (2000).
Chantepie, S. et al. Age-related variation and temporal patterns in the survival of a long-lived scavenger. Oikos 125, 167–178 (2016).
Pfister, C. A. Patterns of variance in stage-structured populations: evolutionary predictions and ecological implications. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 213–218 (1998).
Gaillard, J.-M., Festa-Bianchet, M. & Yoccoz, N. G. Population dynamics of large herbivores: variable recruitment with constant adult survival. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 58–63 (1998).
Gaillard, J.-M., Festa-Bianchet, M., Yoccoz, N., Loison, A. & Toigo, C. Temporal variation in fitness components and population dynamics of large herbivores. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 367–393 (2000).
Heppell, S. S. Application of life-history theory and population model analysis to turtle conservation. Copeia 1998, 367–375 (1998).
Koons, D. N., Pavard, S., Baudisch, A. & Metcalf, J. E. Is life‐history buffering or lability adaptive in stochastic environments? Oikos 118, 972–980 (2009).
Morris, W. F. & Doak, D. F. Buffering of life histories against environmental stochasticity: accounting for a spurious correlation between the variabilities of vital rates and their contributions to fitness. Am. Nat. 163, 579–590 (2004).
Bjørkvoll, E. et al. Demographic buffering of life histories? Implications of the choice of measurement scale. Ecology 97, 40–47 (2016).
Link, W. A. & Doherty, P. F. Jr Scaling in sensitivity analysis. Ecology 83, 3299–3305 (2002).
Jongejans, E., De Kroon, H., Tuljapurkar, S. & Shea, K. Plant populations track rather than buffer climate fluctuations. Ecol. Lett. 13, 736–743 (2010).
Levine, J. M. & Rees, M. Effects of temporal variability on rare plant persistence in annual systems. Am. Nat. 164, 350–363 (2004).
Jensen, J. L. W. V. Sur les fonctions convexes et les inégalités entre les valeurs moyennes. Acta Math. 30, 175–193 (1906).
Ruel, J. J. & Ayres, M. P. Jensen’s inequality predicts effects of environmental variation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 361–366 (1999).
Li, S. L. & Ramula, S. Demographic strategies of plant invaders in temporally varying environments. Popul. Ecol. 57, 373–380 (2015).
Caswell, H. Matrix Population Models (Wiley, 2001).
Salguero-Gomez, R. et al. The COMPADRE plant matrix database: an open online repository for plant demography. J. Ecol. 103, 202–218 (2015).
Hadfield, J. D. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22 (2010).
Chevin, L. M. & Lande, R. Adaptation to marginal habitats by evolution of increased phenotypic plasticity. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 1462–1476 (2011).
Lande, R. Adaptation to an extraordinary environment by evolution of phenotypic plasticity and genetic assimilation. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 1435–1446 (2009).
Melbourne, B. A. & Hastings, A. Extinction risk depends strongly on factors contributing to stochasticity. Nature 454, 100–103 (2008).
McDonald, J. L., Stott, I., Townley, S. & Hodgson, D. J. Transients drive the demographic dynamics of plant populations in variable environments. J. Ecol. 104, 306–314 (2016).
Childs, D. Z., Metcalf, C. & Rees, M. Evolutionary bet-hedging in the real world: empirical evidence and challenges revealed by plants. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, rspb20100707 (2010).
Chesson, P. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 343–366 (2000).
Stott, I., Townley, S., Carslake, D. & Hodgson, D. J. On reducibility and ergodicity of population projection matrix models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 242–252 (2010).
Lefkovitch, L. The study of population growth in organisms grouped by stages. Biometrics 21, 1–18 (1965).
Stott, I., Hodgson, D. J. & Townley, S. popdemo: an R package for population demography using projection matrix analysis. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 797–802 (2012).
R Development Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2016).
Salguero-Gómez, R. et al. Fast–slow continuum and reproductive strategies structure plant life-history variation worldwide. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 230–235 (2016).
The Global Invasive Species Database (ISSG, 2014); http://www.issg.org/database/welcome/
Invasive Species Compendium (CABI, 2014); http://www.cabi.org/isc/
Australian Weed List (Australian government, 2014); http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/index.html
Australian Plant Census (CHAH, 2006); http://biodiversity.org.au/apni.reference/181584
European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Database (EPPO, 2014); http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/databases.htm
Plants Database (USDA, 2014); http://plants.usda.gov/checklist.html
Plummer, M., Best, N., Cowles, K. & Vines, K. CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News 6, 7–11 (2006).
Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P. & Van Der Linde, A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 64, 583–639 (2002).
Revell, L. J. phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 217–223 (2012).
Revell, L. J. Two new graphical methods for mapping trait evolution on phylogenies. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 754–759 (2013).
Felsenstein, J. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 124,1–15 (1985).
Bremer, B. et al. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 141, 399–436 (2009) .
Stevens, P. F. & Davis, H. & Garden, M. B. Angiosperm Phylogeny Website (Missouri Botanical Garden, 2001).
Webb, C. O. & Donoghue, M. J. Phylomatic: tree assembly for applied phylogenetics. Mol. Ecol. Notes 5, 181–183 (2005).
Maddison, W. P. & Maddison, D. R. Mesquite: A Modular System for Evolutionary Analysis (Mesquite, 2001).
Federhen, S. The NCBI taxonomy database. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D136–D143 (2012).
Webb, C. O., Ackerly, D. D. & Kembel, S. W. Phylocom: software for the analysis of phylogenetic community structure and trait evolution. Bioinformatics 24, 2098–2100 (2008).
Wikström, N., Savolainen, V. & Chase, M. W. Evolution of the angiosperms: calibrating the family tree. Proc. R. Soc. B 268, 2211–2220 (2001).
Hadfield, J. & Nakagawa, S. General quantitative genetic methods for comparative biology: phylogenies, taxonomies and multi‐trait models for continuous and categorical characters. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 494–508 (2010).
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) UK, grant NE/L007770/1, and supported by NERC IOF grant NE/N006798/1. T.H.G.E. is funded by NERC Fellowship NE/J018163/1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Research was conceived by D.J.H., T.E., M.F., S.T. and J.L.M. Analyses were carried out by J.L.M. with advice from D.J.H. Phylogeny was provided by M.F. Results were interpreted by J.L.M. and D.J.H. Invasiveness data were provided by K.J. The manuscript was written by J.L.M. and D.J.H. with advice and revisions from all authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Supplementary information
Supplementary information
Supplementary Results, Supplementary Figs 1–7, Supplementary Table 1 (PDF 335 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McDonald, J., Franco, M., Townley, S. et al. Divergent demographic strategies of plants in variable environments. Nat Ecol Evol 1, 0029 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-016-0029
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-016-0029