title: Aging in a long-lived clonal tree.
abstract: From bacteria to multicellular animals, most organisms exhibit declines in survivorship or reproductive performance with increasing age ("senescence"). Evidence for senescence in clonal plants, however, is scant. During asexual growth, we expect that somatic mutations, which negatively impact sexual fitness, should accumulate and contribute to senescence, especially among long-lived clonal plants. We tested whether older clones of Populus tremuloides (trembling aspen) from natural stands in British Columbia exhibited significantly reduced reproductive performance. Coupling molecular-based estimates of clone age with male fertility data, we observed a significant decline in the average number of viable pollen grains per catkin per ramet with increasing clone age in trembling aspen. We found that mutations reduced relative male fertility in clonal aspen populations by about 5.8 x 10(-5) to 1.6 x 10(-3) per year, leading to an 8% reduction in the number of viable pollen grains, on average, among the clones studied. The probability that an aspen lineage ultimately goes extinct rises as its male sexual fitness declines, suggesting that even long-lived clonal organisms are vulnerable to senescence.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, United States of America. dilara.ally@gmail.com
authors.forename: Dilara
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Ally
authors.forename: Kermit
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Ritland
authors.forename: Sarah P
authors.initials: SP
authors.lastname: Otto
mesh_terms: D001955:British Columbia; D002999:Clone Cells; D009154:Mutation; D032107:Populus / Q000235:genetics / Q000254:growth & development*; D012098:Reproduction / Q000235:genetics / Q000502:physiology; D013997:Time Factors; D014197:Trees / Q000235:genetics / Q000254:growth & development
references.citation: Cell. 2007 Feb 23;128(4):641-5
references.pmid: 17320501
references.citation: Trends Plant Sci. 2008 May;13(5):216-20
references.pmid: 18328774
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Sep 28;96(20):11393-8
references.pmid: 10500187
references.citation: Ecology. 2009 Jun;90(6):1427-33
references.pmid: 19569355
references.citation: Theor Popul Biol. 2004 Jun;65(4):339-51
references.pmid: 15136009
references.citation: Q Rev Biol. 2009 Jun;84(2):131-76
references.pmid: 19606595
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2008 Nov;17(22):4897-911
references.pmid: 19140980
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Apr 1;100(7):4055-9
references.pmid: 12655071
references.citation: Genetica. 1993;91(1-3):11-9
references.pmid: 8125262
references.citation: Genetics. 1991 Oct;129(2):555-62
references.pmid: 1743491
references.citation: PLoS Biol. 2005 Feb;3(2):e45
references.pmid: 15685293
references.citation: Am Nat. 1997 Oct;150(4):462-90
references.pmid: 18811287
references.citation: Oecologia. 2007 May;152(1):71-81
references.pmid: 17180370
references.citation: Genetics. 2008 Aug;179(4):2061-73
references.pmid: 18660535
references.citation: Evolution. 1984 Mar;38(2):417-426
references.pmid: 28555915
references.citation: Science. 2008 Oct 3;322(5898):86-9
references.pmid: 18832643
references.citation: Oecologia. 2004 Mar;139(1):55-65
references.pmid: 14740291
references.citation: Genetics. 1999 Dec;153(4):1885-98
references.pmid: 10581293
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Jan 6;95(1):394-9
references.pmid: 9419386
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1983 Mar;80(5):1387-91
references.pmid: 6572396
references.citation: J Mol Evol. 2003 Feb;56(2):223-33
references.pmid: 12574868
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 1992 Dec;7(12):417-20
references.pmid: 21236084