Data from: Life history and chemical defense interact to drive patterns of local adaptation in an annual monkeyflower
Data files
Abstract
Although chemical defenses and herbivore pressure are widely established as key targets and agents of selection, their roles in local adaptation and determining potential evolutionary responses to changing climates are often neglected. Here, we explore fitness differences between 11 rangewide M. guttatus populations in a field common garden experiment and assess the agents and targets of selection driving relative fitness patterns. We use piecewise structural equation models to disentangle associations between chemical defenses, (phenylpropanoid glycosides; PPGs), and life history traits with herbivory and fitness. While the historical environment of populations is not predictive of fitness differences between populations, >90% of variation in fitness can be predicted by the flowering time and foliar PPG defense arsenal of a population. Piecewise structural equation models indicate that life history traits, particularly earlier flowering time, are strongly and directly linked to fitness. However, herbivory, particularly fruit predation, is also an important agent of selection that creates indirect links between fitness and both chemical defenses and life history traits. Our results emphasize the multivariate nature of the agents and targets of selections in producing adaptation and suggest that future responses to selection must navigate a complex fitness landscape.
https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.p5hqbzkss
This data repository contains the metadata, phenotype data, herbivory data, and fitness data to produce all results found in the manuscript titled: ‘Life history and chemical defense interact to drive patterns of local adaptation in an annual monkeyflower’. This data describes observation and measurements taken within a field common garden site near Lookout Point Dam in Lowell, OR. Two datasets and readme files for each have been uploaded. One dataset contains data for each individual planted within the site. The second dataset contains maternal lines means for all traits and is directly derived from the individual dataset. Datasets are both uploaded as .csv files. Please read the readme files for descriptions of the data in each .csv file
Description of the data and file structure
Readme fileA (individual data) – Scharnagl et al. 2023 – Evolution
This is a comma delimited file (.csv) which contains phenotype data for 1241 individuals from the field common garden described in the main text of Scharnagl et al. in review. All data was collected by Anna Scharnagl under the direction of Nicholas Kooyers during the summer of 2019 at Lookout Point Dam common garden side near Lowell, Oregon.
Each row of this spreadsheet represents an individual plant except for the first row header. Morphological and measures in columns Q-Y were all taken at flowering – thus these measures were not taken for plants that did not flower. Missing data is encoded as ‘NA’.
Format (Column – Variable – Description)
Column A – Experiment – Whether the individual was a member of the Outcrossed Population Lines (OPLs) or the Phenotypically-Selected Lines (PSLs)
Column B – Plot – Which block the individual was planted in (1-12)
Column C – Pos – The position in the block where the individual was planted.
Column D – Pop – The population the individual originated from. For PSLs, all are given the name BIG because they originated from a cross between plant from the BEL and IM M. guttutus populations.
Column E – line – The maternal line the individual originated from. Corresponds to the same line number in the fileC.csv
Column F – daystogerm – Number of days from being placed in the greenhouse to germination
Column G– ddeath – The number of days from germination to death in the field
Column H – survflowering – Whether a plant survived to flowering (additionally some plants may have survived by never flowered)
Column I – flowersN – The number of flowers an individual produced over its lifetime
Column J – Seedcollectedflowers – the number of flowers collected from a plant (i.e. not eaten by herbivores)
Column K – propCollected – the proportion of flowers that were able to be collected (i.e. the proportion not predated)
Column L – propCollectedYN – whether ALL the flowers were collected or whether NOT all flowers were collected (i.e. was there seed predation?)
Column M – TotalFitnessFlow – Number of flowers produced by an individual including individuals that did not produce a flower as 0s
Column N – NSeeds – Number of seeds collected for each individual
Column O – totalfitnessseeds – Number of seeds collected for each individual including plants with which zero seeds were collected as 0s
Column P – flowertime – The time in days from germination to the opening of the first flower
Column Q – height – The plant height in cm (ground to apical meristem) at time of first flower
Column R – Nleaves – The number of leaves (excluding cotyledons) at time of first flower
Column S – leafherb – The amount of foliar herbivory estimated across all true leaves by Anna Scharnagl. This value is the percentage of foliar herbivory.
Column T – leafherbYN – Whether there was any evidence of foliar herbivory (Yes/No)
Column U – leafherbQ – The quantitative proportion of foliar herbivory only for plants that had herbivory
Column V– flowherb – The amount of floral herbivory estimated on the corolla of the first flower by Anna Scharnagl. The value is the percentage of floral herbivory.
Column W – flowherbYN – Whether there was any evidence of floral herbivory (Yes/No)
Column X – flowherbQ – The quantitative proportion of floral herbivory only for plants that had herbivory
Column Y – matingsys – Whether the individual was a result of a self-pollinator or a outcross
Readme fileB (line means data) – Scharnagl et al. 2023 – Evolution
This is a comma delimited file (.csv) which contains the line means for 122 maternal line means from the 1241 individuals from the field common garden described in the main text of Scharnagl et al. in review. All data was collected by Anna Scharnagl under the direction of Nicholas Kooyers during the summer of 2019 at Lookout Point Dam common garden side near Lowell, Oregon.
Each row of this spreadsheet represents a line mean except for the first row header. Chemistry was derived from the greenhouse common garden for each line. Missing data is encoded as ‘NA’.
Format (Column – Variable – Description)
Column A – Experiment – Whether the line was a member of the Outcrossed Population Lines (OPLs) or the Phenotypically-Selected Lines (PSLs)
Column B – Pop – The population the line originated from. For PSLs, all are given the name BIG because they originated from a cross between plant from the BEL and IM M. guttutus populations.
Column C – line – maternal line unique identifier
Column D – ddeath – The average number of days from germination to death in the field for a line
Column E – surv40 – The proportion of individuals in a line surviving after 40 days in the field
Column F – survflow – The proportion of individuals in a line surviving to flowering
Column G – Nflowers – The average number of flowers individuals within a line produced over their lifetimes (only using plants that produced flowers)
Column H – Nseeds – The average number of seeds that individuals within a line produced over their lifetimes (only using plants that produced seeds)
Column I – TotalFitnessFlow – The average number of flowers produced by an individual in this line (including plants that did not produce a flower)
Column J – TotalFitnessSeeds – The average number of seeds produced by an individual in this line (including plants that did not produce a seed)
Column K – flowertime – The average time in days from germination to the opening of the first flower for plants within a line
Column L – height – The average plant height in cm (ground to apical meristem) at time of first flower for plants within a line
Column M – Nleaves – The average number of leaves (excluding cotyledons) at time of first flower for plants within a line
Column N – leafherb – The average amount of foliar herbivory estimated across all true leaves by Anna Scharnagl
Column O – leafherbYN – Whether any plants within this line had any foliar herbivory
Column P – leafherbQ – The average amount of foliar herbivory estimated across all true leaves by Anna Scharnagl excluding lines with no herbivory
Column Q – flowherb – The average amount of floral herbivory estimated on the corolla of the first flower by Anna Scharnagl
Column R – flowherbYN – Whether any plants within this line had any floral herbivory
Column S – flowherbQ – The average amount of floral herbivory estimated on the corolla by Anna Scharnagl excluding lines with no herbivory
Column T – fruitherb – The average amount of flowerhead removed by seed predators
Column U – fruitherbYN – Whether any plants within this line had any fruit herbivory
Column V – fruitherbQ – The average amount of fruit predation excluding lines with no fruit predation
Column W – PPGX – The concentration of unknown PPG X of a line as measured in the greenhouse common garden (mg/g)
Column X – Unkn 10 – The concentration of Unknown PPG 10 of a line as measured in the greenhouse common garden (mg/g)
Column Y – CalcA – The concentration of calceolarioside A of a line as measured in the greenhouse common garden (mg/g)
Column Z – Conand – The concentration of conandroside of a line as measured in the greenhouse common garden (mg/g)
Column AA – Verb – The concentration of verbascoside of a line as measured in the greenhouse common garden (mg/g)
Column AB – CalcB – The concentration of calceolarioside B of a line as measured in the greenhouse common garden (mg/g)
Column AC – Mimulo – The concentration of mimuloside of a line as measured in the greenhouse common garden (mg/g)
Column AD – Unkn16 – The concentration of unknown PPG 10 of a line as measured in the greenhouse common garden (mg/g)
Column AE – totalPPGs – The total concentration of phenylpropanoid glycosides in a line as measured in the greenhouse common garden (mg/g)
Column AF – ChemPC1 – Position of a line on Chemical Principal Component Axis 1
Column AG – ChemPC2 – Position of a line on Chemical Principal Component Axis 2
Column AH – ChemPC3 – Position of a line on Chemical Principal Component Axis 3
Any queries, please contact: Nic Kooyers (nkooyers@gmail.com)
Code/Software
Please email nkooyers@gmail.com for associated code
Please see methodology in Scharangl et al. 2023 as well as information within ReadMe files. Briefly, this was trait data collected from greenhouse and field common garden experiments in central Oregon.