Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T23:38:18.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 16 - Sex allocation in hermaphrodite plants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2009

Peter G.L. Klinkhamer
Affiliation:
Institute of Evolutionary and Ecological, Sciences, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
Tom J. de Jong
Affiliation:
Institute of Evolutionary and Ecological Sciences, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
Ian C. W. Hardy
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Get access

Summary

Summary

The flowers of hermaphrodite plants have both male and female parts. Hermaphrodite plants can change their allocation to both sexual functions in various ways, such as by changing the production ratios of pollen grains to ovules within flowers and of flowers to fruits. We discuss the problems involved in measuring sex allocation, trade-offs and fitness gain curves and present a simple model for the evolutionary stable allocation to fruits and flowers. The model provides an explanation for the low fruit-to-flower ratio found in many species and for the increasing allocation to female function with increasing selfing rate. Theoretical models predict that evolutionary stable sex allocation depends on plant size and this prediction is supported by literature data on monocarpic hermaphrodites and on monoecious species.

Introduction

By far the most common mode of plant reproduction is through hermaphrodite flowers. Although such flowers serve both male and female functions, this does not mean that hermaphrodites are invariant in their sexual behaviour. Substantial variation in intraspecific sex allocation has been found and related to environmental conditions or plant size. A large body of theoretical literature is now accumulating that predicts how allocation to male and female reproduction should vary with a variety of factors such as pollination type, resource status, selfing rate, selective abortion, population structure, dispersal mechanisms, etc. Unfortunately empirical evidence lags far behind, mostly because the required measurements are notoriously difficult to collect and the methods full of pitfalls.

Type
Chapter
Information
Sex Ratios
Concepts and Research Methods
, pp. 333 - 348
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bickel, A M & Freeman, D C (1993) Effects of pollen vector and plant geometry on floral sex ratio in monoecious plants. American Midland Naturalist, 130, 239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broyles, S B & Wyatt, R (1990) Paternity analysis in a natural population of Asclepias exaltata: multiple paternity functional gender, and the pollen donation hypothesis. Evolution, 44, 1454–1468Google Scholar
Broyles, S B & Wyatt, R (1997) The pollen donation hypothesis revisited: a response to Queller. American Naturalist, 149, 595–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunet, J (1992) Sex allocation in hermaphrodite plants. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 79–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D R (1998) Variation in lifetime fitness in Ipomopsis aggregata: tests of sex allocation theory. American Naturalist, 152, 338–353CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, D R (2000) Experimental tests of sex-allocation theory in plants. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15, 227–231CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casper, B B (1984) On the evolution of embryo abortion in the herbaceous perennial Cryptantha flava. Evolution, 38, 1337–1349CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casper, B B (1988) Evidence for selective embryo abortion in Cryptantha flava. American Naturalist, 132, 318–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, D & Charlesworth, B (1981) Allocation of resources to male and female function in hermaphrodites. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 15, 57–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, D & Morgan, M T (1991) Allocation of resources to sex functions in flowering plants. Philosophical Transactions Royal Society London, series B, 332, 91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnov E L (1982) The Theory of Sex Allocation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Charnov, E L (1987) On sex allocation and selfing in higher plants. Evolutionary Ecology, 1, 30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnov, E L & Dawson, E L (1989) Environmental sex determination with overlapping generations. American Naturalist, 134, 806–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruden, R W (1977) Pollen-ovule ratios: a conservative indicator of breeding systems in flowering plants. Evolution, 31, 32–46CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damgaard, C & Loeschke, V (1994) Genotypic variation for reproductive characters, and the influence of pollen-ovule ratio on selfing rate in rape seed (Brassica napus). Journal Evolutionary Biology, 7, 599–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, T & Aarssen, L W (1997) A time commitment hypothesis for size-dependent gender. Evolution, 51, 988–993CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, Jong T J & Klinkhamer, P G L (1989) Size dependency of sex allocation in plants. Functional Ecology, 3, 201–206Google Scholar
, Jong T J & Klinkhamer, P G L (1994) Plant size and reproductive success through female and male function. Journal of Ecology, 82, 399–402Google Scholar
, Jong T J, Klinkhamer, P G L & Rademaker, M C J (1999) How geitonogamous selfing affects sex allocation in hermaphrodite plants. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 12, 166–176Google Scholar
Devlin, B, Clegg, J & Ellstrand, N C (1992) The effect of flower production on male reproductive success in wild radish populations. Evolution, 46, 1030–1042CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dudash, M R (1991) Plant size effects on male and female reproduction in hermaphrodite Sabiata angularis (Gentianaceae). Ecology, 72, 1004–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlen, J (1991) Why do plants produce surplus flowers? A reserve-ovary model. American Naturalist, 138, 918–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emms, S K (1993) On measuring fitness gain curves in plants. Ecology, 74, 1750–1756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, D C, Harper, K T & Charnov, E L (1980) Sex change in plants: old and new observations and new hypotheses. Oecologia, 47, 222–232CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, D C, Lovett, Doust J, El-Keblawy, A, Miglia, K J & McArthur, E D (1997) Sexual specialization and inbreeding avoidance in the evolution of dioecy. Botanical Review, 63, 65–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, D A & Willson, M F (1986) Sex allocation in functionally hermaphroditic plants: a review and critique. Botanical Review, 52, 157–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder, L D & Barrett, S C H (1995a) Mating costs of large floral displays in hermaphrodite plants. Nature, 373, 512–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder LD & Barrett SCH (1995b) Pollen dispersal and mating patterns in animal-pollinated plants. In: D G Lloyd & S C H Barrett (eds) Floral Biology, Studies on Floral Evolution in Animal-Pollinated Plants, pp 140–190. New York: Chapman & Hall
Helenurm, K & Schaal, B A (1996) Genetic load, nutrient limitation, and seed production in Lupinus texensis (Fabaceae). American Journal of Botany, 83, 1585–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hessing, M B (1988) Geitonogamous pollination and its consequences in Geranium caespitosum. American Journal of Botany, 75, 1324–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwasa, Y (1991) Sex change evolution and cost of reproduction. Behavioral Ecology, 2, 56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinkhamer PGL & de Jong TJ (1997) Size-dependent allocation to male and female reproduction. In: F A Bazzaz & J Grace (eds) Plant Resource Allocation, pp 211–229. Physiological Ecology Series. San Diego: Academic Press
Klinkhamer, P G L, , Jong T J & Metz, H (1995) Why plants can be too attractive – a discussion of measures to estimate male fitness. Journal of Ecology, 82, 191–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinkhamer, P G L, , Jong T J & Metz, H (1997) Sex and size in cosexual plants. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12, 260–265CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koelewijn, H P & Hunscheid, M P H (2000) Intraspecific variation in sex allocation in hermaphroditePlantago coronopus (L.) Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 13, 302–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozł, owski J & Stearns, S C (1989) Hypotheses for the production of excess zygotes: models for bet-hedging and selective abortion. Evolution, 43, 1369–1377Google Scholar
Kudo, G (1993) Size-dependent resource allocation pattern and gender variation of Anemone debilis Fisch. Plant Species Biology, 8, 29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, D G (1983) Evolutionarily stable sex ratios and sex allocations. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 69, 543–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd DG (1984) Gender allocations in outcrossing cosexual plants. In: J Dirzo & J Sarukhan (eds) Perspectives on Plant Population Ecology, pp 277–300. Sunderland MA: Sinauer
Lloyd, D G (1987) Allocations to pollen, seeds and pollination mechanisms in self-fertilizing plants. Functional Ecology, 1, 83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, D L & Ellstrand, N C (1988) Effective mate choice in wild radish: evidence for selective seed abortion and its mechanism. American Naturalist, 131, 739–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melser C (2001) Selective seed abortion and offspring quality. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leiden
Melser, C, Rademaker, M C J & Klinkhamer, P G L (1997) Selection on pollen donors by Echium vulgare (Boraginaceae). Sexual Plant Reproduction, 10, 305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melser, C, Bijleveld, A & Klinkhamer, P G L (1999) Late acting inbreeding depression in both male and female function of Echium vulgare (Boraginaceae). Heredity, 83, 162–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, M T (1993) Fruit to flower ratios and trade-offs in size and number. Evolutionary Ecology, 7, 219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, R R, Stanton, L S & Mazer, S J (1989) Effects of mate size and mate number on male reproductive success in plants. Ecology, 70, 71–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, I M (1995) Reproductive allocation and the fitness consequences of selfing in two sympatric species of Epilobium (Onagraceae) with contrasting mating systems. American Journal of Botany, 82, 1007–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Queller, D (1997) Pollen removal, paternity, and the male function of flowers. American Naturalist, 149, 585–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rademaker, M C J & , Jong T J (1998) Effects of flower number on estimated pollen transfer in a natural population of three hermaphroditic species: an experiment with fluorescent dye. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 11, 623–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rademaker, M C J & , Jong T J (1999) The shape of the female gain curve for Cynoglossum officinale and Echium vulgare: quantifying seed dispersal and seedling survival in the field. Plant Biology, 1, 451–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rademaker, M C J & Klinkhamer, P G L (1999) Size-dependent sex allocation in Cynoglossum officinale for different genotypes under uniform favourable conditions. Plant Biology, 1, 108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoen, D J (1982) Male reproductive effort and breeding system in a hermaphrodite plant. Oecologia, 53, 255–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoen, D J & Lloyd, D G (1992) Self- and cross-fertilization in plants. III Methods for studying modes and functional aspects of self-fertilization. International Journal of Plant Science, 153, 381–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoen, D J & Stewart, S C (1986) Variation in male reproductive investment and male reproductive success in white spruce. Evolution, 40, 1109–1120CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smouse, P E & Meagher, T R (1994) Genetic analysis of male reproductive contributions in Chamaelirium luteum (L) Gray (Liliaceae). Genetics, 136, 313–322Google Scholar
Snow AA, Spira TP, Simpson R & Klips RA (1995) The ecology of geitonogamous pollination. In: D G Lloyd & S C H Barrett (eds) Floral Biology, Studies on floral evolution in animal-pollinated plants, pp 191–216, New York: Chapman & Hall
Spalik, K (1991) On evolution of andromonoecy and ‘overproduction’ of flowers: a resource allocation model. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 42, 325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stearns S C (1992) The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Stephenson, A G (1981) Flower and fruit abortion: proximate causes and ultimate functions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 12, 253–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, A G & Winsor, J A (1986) Lotus corniculatus regulates offspring quality through selective fruit abortion. Evolution, 40, 453–458CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutherland, S (1986a) Floral sex ratios, fruit set and resource allocation in plants. Ecology, 67, 991–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, S (1986b) Patterns of fruit set: what controls fruit-flower ratios in plants?Evolution, 40, 117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Noordwijk A J & , Jong G (1986) Acquisition and allocation of resources: their influence on variation in life history tactics. American Naturalist, 128, 342–350Google Scholar
Vrieling, K, Saumitou-Laprade, P, Meelis, E & Epplen, J T (1997) Multilocus fingerprints in the plant Cynoglossum officinale L. and their use in the estimation of selfing. Molecular Ecology, 6, 587–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willson M F & Burley N (1983) Mate Choice in Plants: Tactics, Mechanisms and Consequences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Willson, M F & Rathcke, B J (1974) Adaptive design of the floral display of Asclepias syriaca L. American Midland Naturalist, 92, 47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, P, Thomson, J D, Stanton, M L & Rigney, L P (1994) Beyond floral Batemania: gender biases in selection for pollination success. American Naturalist, 143, 283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×