SPATIOTEMPORAL VARIATION IN LEAFMINER POPULATION STRUCTURE AND ADAPTATION TO INDIVIDUAL OAK TREES

By S. Mopper, P. Stiling, Keli R. Landau, Daniel Simberloff, P. Zandt. 2000

101 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Conceptual issues in local adaptation (2004, background): “In the spirit of this approach Mopper et al. (2000) have demonstrated that older demes of a leafmining lepidopteran (those on older trees) show more pronounced local adaptation to their individual host trees than young demes, despite being less differentiated from one another in neutral markers.”
Local adaptation, evolutionary potential and host–parasite coevolution: interactions between migration, mutation, population size and generation time (2002, background): “Indeed, most transplant experiments showed that parasites perform better on sympatric than on allopatric hosts (Parker, 1985; Lively, 1989; Ebert, 1994; Manning et al., 1995; Morand et al., 1996; Koskela et al. 2000; Lively & Dybdahl 2000; see Kaltz & Shykoff, 1998 for a review).”
Timing is everything? Phenological synchrony and population variability in leaf‐chewing herbivores of Quercus (2008, background): “Mopper and colleagues ( Mopper & Simberloff, 1995; Mopper et al. , 1995, 2000 ; Mopper, 2005 ) have shown that synchrony with host plant phenology is particularly important for populations of endophagous insects such as leaf-miners, for which spatial variability in phenology prevents gene flow and…”