Comparison of Morphological Characteristics of Field Bindweed Leaves (Convolvulus arvensis L.) in the Urban Environment

Khlebova, L. P.; Ereschenko, Olga; Kuznetzova, Liudmila

doi:10.14258/izvasu(2014)3.2-18

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The empirical evidence for fitness‐dependent ecological plasticity of recombination comes from experiments in which a pair of different genotypes (stress‐tolerant and stress‐sensitive) were exposed to the same pairs of environments (benign and stressful) – to compare the stressor‐induced changes in recombination rates. Unfortunately, such studies remain very limited: to the best of our knowledge, they include only a few species (fruit fly, 10,28,30,50 tomato, 52 and durum wheat 59 ) and a few ecological stressors (alcohol intoxication, 50 extreme temperatures, 10,52,59 and desiccation 28,30 ). Nevertheless, all of them show, more or less convincingly, that genotypes which are more sensitive to an ecological stressor tend to display greater increases in recombination rates when exposed to this stressor, even though this inference is sometimes complicated by initially higher recombination rates in the stress‐tolerant genotypes caused by their previous evolution.…”

Section: Recombination Plasticity: Forms and Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling the evolution of recombination plasticity: A prospective review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meiotic recombination is one of the main sources of genetic variation, a fundamental factor in the evolutionary adaptation of sexual eukaryotes. Yet, the role of variation in recombination rate and other recombination features remains underexplored. In this review, we focus on the sensitivity of recombination rates to different extrinsic and intrinsic factors. We briefly present the empirical evidence for recombination plasticity in response to environmental perturbations and/or poor genetic background and discuss theoretical models developed to explain how such plasticity could have evolved and how it can affect important population characteristics. We highlight a gap between the evidence, which comes mostly from experiments with diploids, and theory, which typically assumes haploid selection. Finally, we formulate open questions whose solving would help to outline conditions favoring recombination plasticity. This will contribute to answering the long‐standing question of why sexual recombination exists despite its costs, since plastic recombination may be evolutionary advantageous even in selection regimes rejecting any non‐zero constant recombination.

show abstract