For the graph provided Please read the figure caption and complete the following:Note: the A&B in each question below does not correspond to the A & B portions of the graph, they are just intended...

For the graph provided Please read the figure caption and complete the following:

Note: the A&B in each question below does not correspond to the A & B portions of the graph, they are just intended as things for you to consider (& articulate) when answering the questions (1-4).

1. Define what information is presented on the graph (if there are X & Y axes make sure to specify what information is presented on each axis)
   
   
   
   
   1. Including Units
   
   
   
   
   2. Do you feel this is an accurate graph for the data given?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   




2. Explainwhat information you obtained from the graph (be sure to include: what it means in relation to the topic and why it is essential?)




3. Explain the source(s) the authors used to create the graph (surveys, experimental research, medically reportable data, etc.; this can be found in the caption).
   
   
   
   
   1. You cannot simply cite the source the graph came from.
   
   
   
   
   2. You will need to use this information to explain the graph
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   




4. What are the author(s) conclusions?
   
   
   
   
   1. Do you agree with their conclusion? If so, why? If not, why not?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

You can either write your answers in an essay format or separate answers by question (1-4). If you answer in essay format, make sure you address all the questions, though they do not have to be in order. If you answer with separate statements for each question, make sure to include all the necessary information each time you use it if you decide to answer by question.

Resources


:

Figure

Article Summary:


Over four decades ago, John Maynard Smith showed that a mutation causing asexual reproduction should rapidly spread in a dioecious sexual population. This asexual (female) need not mate with a male to produce sons and daughters. Instead, she simply clones herself, producing asexual daughters. Evolutionary theory predicts that this asexual lineage will spread rapidly through the population, the per-capita birth rate of an asexual population would exceed that of a sexual population, because asexual females do not invest in sons, eventually driving the sexual lineages rapidly extinct. The reason is that sexual females must spend 50% of their resources making sons, which cannot themselves make offspring, hence, there is a cost of sexual reproduction that Maynard Smith called the “cost of males.”Assuming all else is otherwise equal among sexual and asexual females, the cost is expected to be two-fold in outcrossing populations with separate sexes and equal sex ratios, the reason is that sexual females must spend 50% of their resources making sons, which cannot themselves make offspring. The growth rate of the sexual population is thus predicted to be half that of the asexual population. Maynard Smith’s model led to one of the most interesting questions in evolutionary biology:why is there sex?There are, however, no direct estimates of the proposed cost of sex, and yet sex abounds in nature. Since the development of this theory, evolutionary biologists have sought advantages for sex that could explain its paradoxical persistence. Here, we measured the increase in frequency of asexual snails in natural, mixed population of sexual and asexual snails in large outdoor mesocosms. We take a step back and ask: do sexual forms pay a two-fold cost? Though the cost of sex is a critical assumption of the paradox of sex, there are no direct estimates of the cost. To estimate the cost of sex, we conducted an experiment using snails collected from a natural population where sexual and asexual individuals coexist and found that the asexual snails increased in frequency in all four years. We then extended Maynard Smith’s model to predict the change in frequency of asexual forms based on the two-fold cost of sex, so that we could estimate the cost of sex-based upon our experimental data, consistent with the “all-else equal” assumption. We found that the observed increase in asexual frequency matched that predicted for a two-fold cost of sex. Our results are thus consistent with theoretical predictions, we found that the increase in frequency of asexual snails closely matched that predicted under a two-fold cost. Hence, for sex to be maintained in natural populations, there must be strong selection favoring sexual over asexual reproduction.