Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39238109›Full record

ArticleThe New phytologist2025

How does plant chemodiversity evolve? Testing five hypotheses in one population genetic model.

Meike J Wittmann, Andrea Bräutigam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The New phytologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Meike J WittmannFaculty of Biology, Theoretical Biology, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7209-9172
Andrea BräutigamFaculty of Biology, Computational Biology, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5309-0527

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 415496540Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft BR 4627/2-2Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft WI 4544/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant chemodiversity, the diversity of plant-specialized metabolites, is an important dimension of biodiversity. However, there are so far few mathematical models to test verbal hypotheses on how chemodiversity evolved. Here, we develop such a model to test predictions of five hypotheses: the 'fluctuating selection hypothesis', the 'dominance reversal hypothesis', the interaction diversity hypothesis, the synergy hypothesis, and the screening hypothesis. We build a population genetic model of a plant population attacked by herbivore species whose occurrence fluctuates over time. We study the model using mathematical analysis and individual-based simulations. As predicted by the 'dominance reversal hypothesis', chemodiversity can be maintained if alleles conferring a defense metabolite are dominant with respect to the benefits, but recessive with respect to costs. However, even smaller changes in dominance can maintain polymorphism. Moreover, our results underpin and elaborate predictions of the synergy and interaction diversity hypotheses, and, to the extent that our model can address it, the screening hypotheses. By contrast, we found only partial support for the 'fluctuating selection hypothesis'. In summary, we have developed a flexible model and tested various verbal models for the evolution of chemodiversity. Next, more mechanistic models are needed that explicitly consider the organization of metabolic pathways.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionPlantsBiodiversityGenetics, PopulationHerbivoryModels, GeneticSelection, Geneticinteraction diversity hypothesismathematical modelphytochemical diversityplant–herbivore interactionsscreening hypothesissynergy hypothesis

Identifiers

PMID39238109
PMCPMC11711931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.