The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Antagonism between local dispersal and self-incompatibility systems in a continuous plant population.

Posted 26 May 2009 by Reed A. Cartwright

The final chapter of my dissertation has finally been published in Molecular Ecology. I don't have time to go into detail, so I'll just cite the abstract that covers much of the motivation and large-scale results.
Abstract: Many self-incompatible plant species exist in continuous populations in which individuals disperse locally. Local dispersal of pollen and seeds facilitates inbreeding because pollen pools are likely to contain relatives. Self-incompatibility promotes outbreeding because relatives are likely to carry incompatible alleles. Therefore, populations can experience an antagonism between these forces. In this study, a novel computational model is used to explore the effects of this antagonism on gene flow, allelic diversity, neighborhood sizes, and identity-by-descent. I confirm that this antagonism is sensitive to dispersal levels and linkage. However, the results suggest that there is little to no difference between the effects of gametophytic and sporophytic SI on unlinked loci. More importantly both GSI and SSI affect unlinked loci in a manner similar to obligate outcrossing without mating types. This suggests that the primary evolutionary impact of self-incompatibility systems may be to prevent selfing, and prevention of biparental inbreeding might be a beneficial side effect.
The citation of the paper is
Cartwright RA (2009) Antagonism between local dispersal and self-incompatibility systems in a continuous plant population. Molecular Ecology 18:2327-2336. [doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04180.x]
Unfortunately, there is not a free version available yet online. The research was partially funded by NIH, so a copy should show up in pubmed in several months. Until then, you can email me at reed+2009b@pandasthumb.org, and I'll send you a reprint. If you want to know how I fulfill the reprint requests, see this post on De Rerum Natura.

24 Comments

The Sanity Inspector · 26 May 2009

Sorry to go off-topic so soon, and with a bit of self-spammage at that. However, here is a nifty neologism that I hope catches on: "peer refused science".

Dave C · 26 May 2009

While I've only read the abstract, and I'm certainly unqualified to judge it, I must say that what I understood sounded very interesting. Congrats, Reed!

Frank B · 26 May 2009

This is the first time I have heard about self-incompatibility in plant pollination. That's fascinating. Good work, Reed! I doubt IDists will quotemine your work, because it would be too incomprehensible to them.

fnxtr · 26 May 2009

Cool.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum · 26 May 2009

The Sanity Inspector said: Sorry to go off-topic so soon, and with a bit of self-spammage at that. However, here is a nifty neologism that I hope catches on: "peer refused science".
Ah caint see the text for the background

DS · 26 May 2009

Congratulations Reed. That's one of my favorite journals.

Gary Hurd · 26 May 2009

Congratulations and best wishes. (I'll look forward to reading you recent publication. I place it near the top of the stack).

Henry J · 26 May 2009

This suggests that the primary evolutionary impact of self-incompatibility systems may be to prevent selfing,

Does "selfing" mean using its own pollen to fertilize its own seeds? (Sort of a roundabout way of cloning?) Henry

Bob O'H · 27 May 2009

w00t! Well done!

For those that don't know, Molecular Ecology is a top journal in the field (err, the field of molecular ecology).

Stanton · 27 May 2009

Henry J said:

This suggests that the primary evolutionary impact of self-incompatibility systems may be to prevent selfing,

Does "selfing" mean using its own pollen to fertilize its own seeds? (Sort of a roundabout way of cloning?) Henry
Yes, "selfing" is short for "self-pollinating" or "self-fertilizing," and it is a crude way of cloning, though it's more akin to inbreeding.

SC · 27 May 2009

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Dave Luckett · 27 May 2009

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Dave Wisker · 27 May 2009

I'm working through the paper. Good stuff, and in my favorite journal, too! Congratulations!

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 27 May 2009

Congrats! Looks interesting to outsiders even.
Frank B said: I doubt IDists will quotemine your work, because it would be too incomprehensible to them.
More likely they will try to forget about it, because self-incompatibility looks like such a great design that one wonders why it isn't universal. Think of all the trouble we have with human inbreeding, such as resulting problems to grasp reality. :-O

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 27 May 2009

The Sanity Inspector said: a nifty neologism that I hope catches on: "peer refused science".
LOL! Peer rejoiced science.

Keelyn · 27 May 2009

Frank B said: I doubt IDists will quotemine your work, because it would be too incomprehensible to them.
Since when has incomprehesibility of the subject matter been a deterrent to IDiots? Although, I suspect that Torbjorn may have a point as well. Anyway, I never thought plants would interest me. Excellent read.

Henry J · 27 May 2009

More likely they will try to forget about it, because self-incompatibility looks like such a great design that one wonders why it isn’t universal. Think of all the trouble we have with human inbreeding, such as resulting problems to grasp reality. :-O

On the grasping reality part, aren't opposeable thumbs supposed to avert that problem? ;) Henry

Ichthyic · 28 May 2009

excellent! Congrats, Reed.

Sylvilagus · 29 May 2009

Humans could never evolve from plants! I mean what are the odds. All your doing is like experiments and simulations and stuff. That can never prove anything. Intelligent Design is more intelligent than science. My pastor told me that "selfing" is a sin and you Darwiniasts just promote sin and unbelieving in stuf.

John Kwok · 29 May 2009

Only a delusional twit like yourself would reach such an inane conclusion:
Sylvilagus said: Humans could never evolve from plants! I mean what are the odds. All your doing is like experiments and simulations and stuff. That can never prove anything. Intelligent Design is more intelligent than science. My pastor told me that "selfing" is a sin and you Darwiniasts just promote sin and unbelieving in stuf.
Your breathtaking inanity IS NOT WHAT Reed said. Why? He's not discussing human evolution nor is he trying to apply his research - which is based solely on plants - and try to make some general comments about human evolution.

Keelyn · 29 May 2009

Sylvilagus said: Humans could never evolve from plants! I mean what are the odds. All your doing is like experiments and simulations and stuff. That can never prove anything. Intelligent Design is more intelligent than science. My pastor told me that "selfing" is a sin and you Darwiniasts just promote sin and unbelieving in stuf.
May I hope this is really just a very bad parody. I mean - what are the odds?

John Kwok · 29 May 2009

I'd like to think that this is a bad parody of a"SNL" skit uttered by Dana Carvey's Church Lady, but I wouldn't place a bet on it:
Keelyn said:
Sylvilagus said: Humans could never evolve from plants! I mean what are the odds. All your doing is like experiments and simulations and stuff. That can never prove anything. Intelligent Design is more intelligent than science. My pastor told me that "selfing" is a sin and you Darwiniasts just promote sin and unbelieving in stuf.
May I hope this is really just a very bad parody. I mean - what are the odds?

Sylvilagus · 2 June 2009

John Kwok said: Only a delusional twit like yourself would reach such an inane conclusion:
Sylvilagus said: Humans could never evolve from plants! I mean what are the odds. All your doing is like experiments and simulations and stuff. That can never prove anything. Intelligent Design is more intelligent than science. My pastor told me that "selfing" is a sin and you Darwiniasts just promote sin and unbelieving in stuf.
Your breathtaking inanity IS NOT WHAT Reed said. Why? He's not discussing human evolution nor is he trying to apply his research - which is based solely on plants - and try to make some general comments about human evolution.
OK OK I plead guilty to a bad parody. I thought I had posted on here occasionally enough so that I wouldn't be confused with a creationist. Besides, "Darwiniasts"?!?! "Selfing is a sin" ?!?!?! "unbelieving" ?!?!? I even twisted my grammar. I guess you've just become more jaded by real creationist crap than I have until no parody is beyond suspicion of being the real thing. My hat's off to you all for your long-term efforts on our behalf.

John Kwok · 2 June 2009

I'm in a bit of a testy mood since I'm trying to shake off the last vestiges of what was probably a mild case of the "swine" flu. But your parody sounded too much like the genuine article to me. Maybe you should show your next effort to Dana Carvey or Tina Fey before trying to post it again here at PT:
Sylvilagus said:
John Kwok said: Only a delusional twit like yourself would reach such an inane conclusion:
Sylvilagus said: Humans could never evolve from plants! I mean what are the odds. All your doing is like experiments and simulations and stuff. That can never prove anything. Intelligent Design is more intelligent than science. My pastor told me that "selfing" is a sin and you Darwiniasts just promote sin and unbelieving in stuf.
Your breathtaking inanity IS NOT WHAT Reed said. Why? He's not discussing human evolution nor is he trying to apply his research - which is based solely on plants - and try to make some general comments about human evolution.
OK OK I plead guilty to a bad parody. I thought I had posted on here occasionally enough so that I wouldn't be confused with a creationist. Besides, "Darwiniasts"?!?! "Selfing is a sin" ?!?!?! "unbelieving" ?!?!? I even twisted my grammar. I guess you've just become more jaded by real creationist crap than I have until no parody is beyond suspicion of being the real thing. My hat's off to you all for your long-term efforts on our behalf.