Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5959bf8d4d-4p99k Total loading time: 0.499 Render date: 2022-12-10T09:32:13.055Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

3 - A community and ecosystem genetics approach to conservation biology and management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

Thomas G. Whitham
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Catherine A. Gehring
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Luke M. Evans
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Carri J. LeRoy
Affiliation:
The Evergreen State College
Randy K. Bangert
Affiliation:
Idaho State University
Jennifer A. Schweitzer
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee
Gerard J. Allan
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Robert C. Barbour
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
Dylan G. Fischer
Affiliation:
The Evergreen State College
Bradley M. Potts
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
Joseph K. Bailey
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
J. Andrew DeWoody
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
John W. Bickham
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Charles H. Michler
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Krista M. Nichols
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Gene E. Rhodes
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Keith E. Woeste
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The emerging field of community and ecosystem genetics has so far focused on how the genetic variation in one species can influence the composition of associated communities and ecosystem processes such as decomposition (see definitions in Table 3–1; reviews by Whitham et al. 2003, 2006; Johnson & Stinchcombe 2007; Hughes et al. 2008). A key component of this approach has been an emphasis on understanding how the genetics of foundation plant species influence a much larger community. It is reasoned that because foundation species structure their ecosystems by creating locally stable conditions and provide specific resources for diverse organisms (Dayton 1972; Ellison et al. 2005), the genetics of these species as “community drivers” are most important to understand and most likely to have cascading ecological and evolutionary effects throughout an ecosystem (Whitham et al. 2006). For example, when a foundation species’ genotype influences the relative fitness of other species, it constitutes an indirect genetic interaction (Shuster et al. 2006), and when these interactions change species composition and abundance among individual tree genotypes, they result in individual genotypes having distinct community and ecosystem phenotypes. Thus, in addition to an individual genotype having the “traditional” phenotype that population geneticists typically consider as the expression of a trait at the individual and population level, community geneticists must also consider higher-level phenotypes at the community and ecosystem level. The predictability of phenotypes at levels higher than the population can be quantified as community heritability (i.e., the tendency for related individuals to support similar communities of organisms and ecosystem processes; Whitham et al. 2003, 2006; Shuster et al. 2006).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbot, P, Withgott, JH (2004) Phylogenetic and molecular evidence for allochronic speciation in gall-forming aphids (Pemphigus). Evolution, 58, 539–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aitken, SN, Yeaman, S, Holliday, JA et al. (2008) Adaptation, migration or extirpation: climate change outcomes for tree populations. Evolutionary Applications, 1, 95–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Araki, R, Mori, M, Mori, M et al. (2005) Genetic differences in nitrate uptake in two clones of the common reed, Phragmites australis. Breeding Science, 55, 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avise, JC (2003) The best and the worst of times for evolutionary biology. BioScience, 53, 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, JK, Schweitzer, JA, Rehill, BJ et al. (2004) Beavers as molecular geneticists: a genetic basis to the foraging of an ecosystem engineer. Ecology, 85, 603–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, JK, Whitham, TG (2007) Biodiversity is related to indirect interactions among species of large effect. In: Ecological Communities: Plant Mediation in Indirect Interaction Webs (eds. Ohgushi, T, Craig, TP, Price, PW), pp. 306–328. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, JK, Wooley, SC, Lindroth, RL et al. (2006) Importance of species interactions to community heritability: a genetic basis to trophic-level interactions. Ecology Letters, 9, 78–85.Google ScholarPubMed
Bangert, RK, Lonsdorf, EV, Wimp, GM et al. (2008) Genetic structure of a foundation species: scaling community phenotypes from the individual to the region. Heredity, 100, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bangert, RK, Turek, RJ, Rehill, B et al. (2006a) A genetic similarity rule determines arthropod community structure. Molecular Ecology, 15, 1379–1392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bangert, RK, Allan, GJ, Turek, RJ et al. (2006b). From genes to geography: a genetic similarity rule for arthropod community structure at multiple geographic scales. Molecular Ecology, 15, 4215–4228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbour, RC, O'Reilly-Wapstra, JM, De Little, DW et al. (2009) A geographic mosaic of genetic variation within a foundation tree species and its community-level consequences. Ecology, 90, 1762–1772.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartelt-Ryser, J, Joshi, J, Schmid, B et al. (2005) Soil feedbacks of plant diversity on soil microbial communities and subsequent plant growth. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 7, 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bever, JD, Westover, KM, Antonovics, J (1997) Incorporating the soil community into plant population dynamics: the utility of the feedback approach. Journal of Ecology, 85, 561–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breshears, DB, Cobb, NS, Rich, PM et al. (2005) Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 102, 15144–15148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, MA, Burke, JM (2006) Letting the gene out of the bottle: the population genetics of genetically modified crops. New Phytologist, 170, 429–443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, TP, Itami, JK, Craig, JV (2007) Host-plant genotype influences survival of hybrids between Eurosta solidaginis host races. Evolution, 61, 2607–2613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawford, KM, Crutsinger, GM, Sanders, NJ (2007) Host-plant genotypic diversity mediates the distribution of an ecosystem engineer. Ecology, 88, 2114–2120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crutsinger, GM, Collins, MD, Fordyce, JA et al. (2006) Plant genotypic diversity predicts community structure and governs an ecosystem process. Science, 313, 966–968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dayton, PK (1972) Toward an understanding of community resilience and the potential effects of enrichments to the benthos at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. In: Proceedings of the Colloquium on Conservation Problems (ed. Parker BC), pp. 81–96. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas.
Dickson, LL, Whitham, TG (1996) Genetically-based plant resistance traits affect arthropods, fungi, and birds. Oecologia, 106, 400–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donaldson, JR, Lindroth, RL (2007) Genetics, environment, and their interaction determine efficacy of chemical defense in trembling aspen. Ecology, 88, 729–739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dres, M, Mallet, J (2002) Host races in plant-feeding insects and their importance in sympatric speciation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 357, 471–492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Driebe, EM, Whitham, TG (2000) Cottonwood hybridization affects tannin and nitrogen content of leaf litter and alters decomposition. Oecologia, 123, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dungey, HS, Potts, BM, Whitham, TG et al. (2000) Plant genetics affects arthropod community richness and composition: evidence from a synthetic eucalypt hybrid population. Evolution, 54, 1938–1946.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellison, AM, Bank, MS, Clinton, BD et al. (2005) Loss of a foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3, 479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English-Loeb, G, Norton, A (2006) Lack of trade-off between direct and indirect defence against grape powdery mildew in riverbank grape. Ecological Entomology, 31, 415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, LM, Allan, GJ, Shuster, SM et al. (2008) Tree hybridization and genotypic variation drive cryptic speciation of a specialist mite herbivore. Evolution, 62, 3027–3040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feder, JL, Chilcote, CA, Bush, GL (1988) Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature, 336, 61–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, DG, Hart, SC, LeRoy, CJ et al. (2007) Decoupled fine root production and total belowground carbon allocation in Populus forests. New Phytologist, 176, 415–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, DG, Hart, SC, Rehill, BJ et al. (2006) Do high-tannin leaves require more roots?Oecologia, 149, 668–675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, DG, Hart, SC, Whitham, TG et al. (2004) Ecosystem implications of genetic variation in water-use of a dominant riparian tree. Oecologia, 139, 188–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, DG, Hart, SC, Whitham, TG et al. (2006) Hidden belowground responses to defense: do highly defended leaves require more roots?Oecologia, 149, 668–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, SJ, Sim, S, Weis, AE (2007) Rapid evolution of flowering time by an annual plant in response to a climate fluctuation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 1278–1282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fritz, RS, Price, PW (1988) Genetic variation among plants and insect community structure: willows and sawflies. Ecology, 69, 845–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilpin, ME (1987) Minimum viable populations: a restoration ecology perspective. In: Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research (eds. Jorden, WR III, Gilpin, ME, Aber, JD), pp. 301–305. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Gitlin, AR, Sthultz, CM, Bowker, MA et al. (2006) Mortality gradients within and among dominant plant populations as barometers of ecosystem change during extreme drought. Conservation Biology, 20, 1477–1486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grant, PR, Grant, BR (2002) Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin's finches. Science, 296, 707–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, JA, Traavik, T (2004) Problems in monitoring horizontal gene transfer in field trials of transgenic plants. Nature Biotechnology, 23, 488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, AM, Bauer, WD, Bird, DM et al. (2003) Molecular signals and receptors: controlling rhizosphere interactions between plants and other organisms. Ecology, 84, 858–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochwender, CG, Fritz, RS (2004) Plant genetic differences influence herbivore community structure: evidence from a hybrid willow system. Oecologia, 138, 547–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hooper, DU, Bignell, DE, Brown, VK et al. (2000) Interaction between aboveground and belowground biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems: patterns, mechanisms and feedbacks. BioScience, 50, 1049–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, AR, Inouye, BD, Johnson, MTJ et al. (2008) Ecological consequences of genetic diversity. Ecology Letters, 11, 609–623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, AR, Stachowicz, JJ (2004) Genetic diversity enhances the resistance of a seagrass ecosystem to disturbance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 101, 8998–9002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Icoz, I, Stotzky, G (2008) Fate and effects of insect-resistant Bt crops in soil ecosystems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 40, 559–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, MTJ (2008) Bottom-up effects of plant genotype on aphids, ants and predators. Ecology, 89, 145–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, MTJ, Agrawal, AA (2005) Plant genotype and the environment interact to shape a diverse arthropod community on evening primrose (Oenothera biennsis). Ecology, 18, 549–551.Google Scholar
Johnson, MTJ, Lajeunesse, MJ, Agrawal, AA (2006) Additive and interactive effects of plant genotypic diversity on arthropod communities and plant fitness. Ecology Letters, 9, 24–34.Google ScholarPubMed
Johnson, MTJ, Stinchcombe, JR (2007) An emerging synthesis between community ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 22, 250–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karban, R (1989) Fine-scale adaptation of herbivorous thrips to individual host plants. Nature, 340, 60–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, S (2008) Brazil surpasses US in new transgenic crop plantings. Nature Biotechnology, 26, 260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lecerf, A, Chauvet, E (2008) Intraspecific variability in leaf traits strongly affects alder leaf decomposition in a stream. Basic and Applied Ecology, 9, 598–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeRoy, CJ, Whitham, TG, Keim, P et al. (2006) Plant genes link forests and streams. Ecology, 87, 255–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LeRoy, CJ, Whitham, TG, Wooley, SC et al. (2007) Within-species variation in foliar chemistry influences leaf-litter decomposition in a Utah river. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 26, 426–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenmayer, DB, Fischer, J, Felton, A et al. (2007) The complementarity of single-species and ecosystem-oriented research in conservation research. Oikos, 116, 1220–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddox, GD, Root, RB (1987) Resistance to 16 diverse species of herbivorous insects within a population of goldenrod, Solidago altissima: genetic variation and heritability. Oecologia, 72, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madritch, MD, Donaldson, JR, Lindroth, RL (2006) Genetic identity of Populus tremuloides litter influences decomposition and nutrient release in a mixed forest stand. Ecosystems, 9, 528–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madritch, MD, Donaldson, JR, Lindroth, RL (2007) Canopy herbivory can mediate the influence of plant genotype on soil processes through frass deposition. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 39, 1192–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madritch, MD, Hunter, MD (2002) Phenotypic diversity influences ecosystem functioning in an oak sandhills community. Ecology, 83, 2084–2090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madritch, MD, Hunter, MD (2004) Phenotypic diversity and litter chemistry affect nutrient dynamics during litter decomposition in a two species mix. Oikos, 105, 125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marvier, M, McCreedy, C, Regetz, J et al. (2007) A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on non-target invertebrates. Science, 316, 1475–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marvier, M, Van Acker, R (2005) Can crop transgenes be kept on a leash?Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, PJ, Whitham, TG (2003) Plant genotype affects long-term herbivore population dynamics and extinction: conservation implications. Ecology, 84, 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, JS, Hellman, JJ, Schwartz, MW (2007) A framework for debate of assisted migration in an era of climate change. Conservation Biology, 21, 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mopper, S (1996) Adaptive genetic structure in phytophagous insect populations. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11, 235–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mopper, S, Beck, M, Simberloff, D et al. (1995) Local adaptation and agents of selection in a mobile insect. Evolution, 49, 810–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mopper, S, Stiling, P, Landau, K et al. (2000) Spatiotemporal variation in leafminer population structure and adaptation to individual oak trees. Ecology, 81, 1577–1587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, RC, Scudder, CM, Porter, ME et al. (2005) Differential mortality in response to severe drought: implications for long-term vegetation shifts. Journal of Ecology, 93, 1085–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, GA, Hamann, A, Wang, T (2008) Accounting for population variation improves estimates of the impact of climate change on species’ growth and distribution. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 1040–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, DA, Ferris, H, Cook, DR et al. (2003) Molecular control points in rhizosphere food webs. Ecology, 84, 816–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeldt, GE, Crookston, NL, Warwell, MV et al. (2006) Empirical analyses of plant-climate relationships for the western United States. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 167, 1123–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlf, DJ (1991) Six biological reasons why the Endangered Species Act doesn't work – and what to do about it. Conservation Biology, 5, 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roinen, H, Vuorinen, J, Tahvanainen, J et al. (1993) Host preference and allozyme differentiation in shoot galling sawfly, Euura atra. Evolution, 47, 300–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosi-Marshall, EJ, Tank, JL, Royer, TV et al. (2007) Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104, 16204–16208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rudgers, JA, Whitney, KD (2006) Interactions between insect herbivores and a plant architectural dimorphism. Journal of Ecology, 94, 1249–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweitzer, JA, Bailey, JK, Fischer, DG et al. (2008) Plant-soil microorganism interactions: a heritable relationship between plant genotype and associated soil microorganisms. Ecology, 89, 773–781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schweitzer, JA, Bailey, JK, Hart, SC et al. (2005a) Nonadditive effects of mixing cottonwood genotypes on litter decomposition and nutrient dynamics. Ecology, 86, 2834–2840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweitzer, JA, Bailey, JK, Hart, SC et al. (2005b) The interaction of plant genotype and herbivory decelerate leaf litter decomposition and alter nutrient dynamics. Oikos, 110, 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweitzer, JA, Bailey, JK, Rehill, BJ et al. (2004) Genetically based trait in a dominant tree affects ecosystem processes. Ecology Letters, 7, 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scriber, JM (1986) Origins of the regional feeding abilities in the tiger swallowtail butterfly: ecological monophagy and the Papilio glaucus australis subspecies in Florida. Oecologia, 71, 94–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaffer, ML (1981) Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience, 31, 131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuster, SM, Lonsdorf, EV, Wimp, GM et al. (2006) Community heritability measures the evolutionary consequences of indirect genetic effects on community structure. Evolution, 60, 991–1003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silfver, T, Mikola, J, Rousi, M et al. (2007) Leaf litter decomposition differs among genotypes in a local Betula pendula population. Oecologia, 152, 707–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D (1998) Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passé in the landscape era?Biological Conservation, 83, 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sthultz, CM, Gehring, CA, Whitham, TG (2009) Deadly combination of genes and drought: increased mortality of herbivore-resistant trees in a foundation species. Global Change Biology 15, 1949–1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stireman, JO III, Nason, JD, Heard, S (2005) Host-associated genetic differentiation in phytophagous insects: general phenomenon or isolated exceptions? Evidence from a goldenrod-insect community. Evolution, 59, 2573–2587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stireman, JO III, Nason, JD, Heard, S et al. (2006) Cascading host-associated genetic differentiation in parasitoids of phytophagous insects. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 273, 523–530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, JN (1994) The Coevolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, JN (2005) The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Tovar-Sanchez, E, Oyama, K (2006) Effect of hybridization of the Quercus crassifolia x Quercus crassipes complex on the community structure of endophagous insects. Oecologia, 147, 702–713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treseder, KK, Vitousek, PM (2001) Potential ecosystem-level effects of genetic variation among populations of Metrosideros polymorpha from a soil fertility gradient in Hawaii. Oecologia, 126, 266–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Ommeren, RJ, Whitham, TG (2002) Changes in interactions between juniper and mistletoe mediated by shared avian frugivores: parasitism to potential mutualism. Oecologia, 130, 281–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Via, S (2001) Sympatric speciation in animals: the ugly duckling grows up. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 16, 381–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vijn, I, das Neves, L, van Kammen, A et al. (1993) Nod factors and nodulation in plants. Science, 260, 1764–1765.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wade, MJ (2007) The co-evolutionary genetics of ecological communities. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watrud, LS, Lee, HE, Fairbrother, A et al. (2004) Evidence for landscape-level, pollen-mediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bentgrass with CP4 EPSPS as a marker. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 101, 14533–14538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitham, TG, Bailey, JK, Schweitzer, JA et al. (2006) A framework for community and ecosystem genetics: from genes to ecosystems. Nature Reviews Genetics, 7, 510–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitham, TG, DiFazio, SP, Schweitzer, JA et al. (2008) Extending genomics to natural communities and ecosystems. Science, 320, 492–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitham, TG, Young, WP, Martinsen, GD et al. (2003) Community and ecosystem genetics: a consequence of the extended phenotype. Ecology, 84, 559–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimp, GM, Martinsen, GD, Floate, KD et al. (2005) Plant genetic determinants of arthropod community structure and diversity. Evolution, 59, 61–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimp, GM, Wooley, S, Bangert, RK et al. (2007) Plant genetics predicts intra-annual variation in phytochemistry and arthropod community structure. Molecular Ecology, 16, 5057–5069.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimp, GM, Young, WP, Woolbright, SA et al. (2004) Conserving plant genetic diversity for dependent animal communities. Ecology Letters, 7, 776–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfenbarger, LL, Naranjo, SE, Lundgren, JG et al. (2008) Bt crop effects on functional guilds of non-target arthropods: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 3, e2118. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, TK, Keese, MC (1990) Host plant-induced assortative mating in Enchenopa tree hoppers. Evolution, 44, 619–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zapiola, M, Campbell, C, Butler, M et al. (2008) Escape and establishment of transgenic glyphosate-resistant creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) in Oregon, USA: a 4-year study. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 486–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12
Cited by

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×