Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T19:58:10.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Population size is not a reliable indicator of seed germination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2024

Jerry M. Baskin  and
Carol C. Baskin Open the ORCID record for Carol C. Baskin [Opens in a new window]
Jerry M. Baskin
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA
Carol C. Baskin*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546, USA
*
Corresponding author: Carol C. Baskin; Email: carol.baskin@uky.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Small isolated plant populations are one of the consequences of fragmentation of natural habitats by humans. We asked what effect does the creation of smaller populations from larger ones has on the plant fitness-related trait seed germination. Using information on 119 species (142 species entries) in 50 families, we found that seeds in only 35.2% of the species entries from larger populations germinated to higher percentages than those from smaller populations. In the other entries, seeds from large and small populations germinated equally well (57.7% of total entries) or seeds from small populations germinated better (7.0% of total entries) than those from large populations. These results indicate that population size is not a reliable predictor of seed germinability. Furthermore, there was little relationship between seed germination and either seed mass, genetic diversity or degree of population isolation, or between population size and genetic diversity.

Keywords

habitat fragmentationpopulation genetic diversitypopulation isolationpopulation sizeseed germinationseed mass

Information

Type
Review Paper
Information
Seed Science Research , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , December 2023 , pp. 213 - 225
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Fragmentation of the Earth's natural terrestrial ecosystems by humans has resulted in small, isolated populations of many species. Three genetic consequences of these small populations are genetic drift (random loss of alleles from a population and long-term accumulation of recessive deleterious alleles [genetic drift load]), inbreeding (resulting in inbreeding depression) and isolation (resulting in reduced gene flow, or lack thereof, between populations) (Barrett and Kohn, Reference Barrett, Kohn, Falk and Holsinger1991; Ellstrand and Elam, Reference Ellstrand and Elam1993; Young et al., Reference Young, Boyle and Brown1996; Keller and Waller Reference Keller and Waller2002; Lienert, Reference Lienert2004; Honnay et al., Reference Honnay, Jacquemyn, Bossuyt and Hermy2005; Aguilar et al., Reference Aguilar, Quesada, Ashworth, Herrerias-Diego and Lobo2008; Jacquemyn et al., Reference Jacquemyn, De Meester, Jongejans and Honnay2012; Haddad et al., Reference Haddad, Brudvig, Clobert, Davies, Gonzalez, Holt, Lovejoy, Sexton, Austin, Collins, Cook, Damschen, Ewers, Foster, Jenkins, King, Laurance, Levey, Margules, Melbourne, Nicholls, Orrock, Song and Townshend2015). Thus, theoretically, these genetic consequences of fragmentation increase homozygosity, resulting in the loss of fitness. The primary aim of this paper was to review the effect of habitat fragmentation/population size on seed germination, a fitness-related trait (e.g. Reed and Frankham, Reference Reed and Frankham2003; Reed, Reference Reed2005; Angeloni et al., Reference Angeloni, Ouborg and Leimu2011). We hypothesized that seeds of the same species from large populations generally germinate to higher percentages than those from small populations.

Methods

During the past 10 years or so, we have collected information from the scientific literature on the effect of habitat fragmentation/small population size on the fitness trait seed germination. Here, we summarize the results for 119 species (142 species entries). Compared with germination responses of seeds from large populations (‘control’, Wl), we placed the germination responses of seeds from small populations (‘treatments’, Ws) into three categories: (1) negative effect, seeds from small populations (fragments) germinated to lower percentages than those from large populations (continuous vegetation type/large fragments) (Wl > Ws), or percentage of germination was positively correlated (related) to population size; (2) no effect (none), seeds from small populations germinated equally as well as those from large populations (Wl = Ws), or no correlation (relationship) between germination percentage and population size and (3) positive, seeds from small populations germinated better than those form large populations (Wl < Ws), or germination percentage was negatively correlated (related) with population size. To determine to which of the three responses categories (i.e. negative, none or positive effect) seeds of a small population belonged (i.e. the effect of germination of a large population on germination of small population), we used the significant/non-significant results of statistical tests reported by the authors of the papers. Plant nomenclature follows Plants of the World Online.

Results and conclusions

We found information on population size and germination for 119 species in 50 families (Table 1). Sixteen of the species were included in more than one study, making a total of 142 species entries in Table 1. Surprisingly, for 82 of the 142 entries (57.7%) there was no effect (none) on the small population (Wl = Ws), i.e. no difference in germination percentages of seeds from large and small populations (or no relationship between germination percentage and population size). For 50 of the 142 entries (35.2%), the response was negative for the small population (Wl > Ws), i.e. a higher germination percentage for seeds from large than small populations (or germination was positively related to population size). For 10 of the 142 entries (7.0%), the response was positive for the small population (Wl < Ws), i.e. a higher germination percentage for seeds from small than large populations (or germination percentage was negatively related to population size). Eight of the 16 species included in more than one study responded differently to fragmentation (i.e. same species, different effect); seven species none and negative and one species positive and negative (Table 1).

Table 1.

Effect of habitat fragmentation (larger → smaller population size) on seed germination

1 There was no effect of fragmentation on progeny performance.

2 Seed mass was not significantly different between continuous forest and fragments.

3 Population structure, i.e. proportions of seedling, infant, juvenile, immature and reproductive stages, was not affected in the smaller fragments.

4 There was a significant correlation between log population size and the Shannon index of gene diversity.

5 There was no significant relationship between population size and genetic variation. Percent germination was correlated with seed size and percent viable seeds.

6 Neither percentage nor rate (speed) of germination was correlated with population size. Germination in nearly all populations was 100%. Neither fruit mass nor seedling characteristics was correlated with population size.

7 Seed germination was not influenced by population size, density or centrality, i.e. small peripheral populations did not differ from large central populations. Seed mass was higher in large than in small populations.

8 Seed germination percentage decreased with a decrease in population size (Ne), but time to germination was not affected by population or by site productivity.

9 There was a positive relationship between population size (number of rosettes) and genetic diversity. Seedling survival was used as the measure of fitness.

10 Germination percentage was not related to population isolation.

11 Germination of Euphorbia palustris and Senecio paludosus was negatively affected by population isolation, but apparently isolation had no effect on germination of Lathyrus palustris, Sanguisorba officinalis or Veronica longifolium. Mean seed mass was significantly higher in small than in large populations of L. palustris, but apparently population size had no effect on mean seed mass of the other four species. In all five species, germination percentage was positively related to seed size.

12 All seeds from both large and small populations germinated when sown in the field. Seeds germinated as soon as the snow melted in spring.

13 Germination percentages were very high, and germination rate was rapid.

14 Mean germination percentage was >65 in all 19 study populations, but there was a significant positive relationship between log population size and mean germination percentage in laboratory trials. Some measures of genetic variation were positively correlated with population size. The relationship between measures of isolation and final germination percentage was not significant.

15 In two years of the three-year study, seed set was positively associated with population size.

16 There was no effect of population size or degree of isolation on germination.

17 There was no effect of population size on seed mass.

18 Seed mass was greater in large than in small populations.

19 Seed size was not related to germination percentage.

20 There was no relationship between population genetic diversity and germination percentage.

21 There was no effect of seed mass on germination.

22 There was no effect of size or degree of isolation of local habitat islands on seed germination percentage.

23 Seed mass was positively correlated with population size.

24 Seed mass and germination percentage were not significantly affected by inbreeding levels.

25 There was no significant correlation between population size and genetic diversity.

26 Seed germination percentage increased with heterozygosity, i.e. seeds from more inbred populations germinated to lower percentages. Population of origin significantly affected germination percentage.

27 There was no clear relationship between seed germination proportion (number of germinated seeds/total number of developed seeds) and population size or degree of isolation. There also was no relationship between seed mass and population size.

28 Seed germination percentages were higher in large than in small populations but were unrelated to population isolation. Non-germinated seeds were assumed to be dead, not dormant. If this assumption is correct, then 100% of the viable seeds germinated across all population sizes, and there were many non-viable seeds in the smallest populations, which the author thought might be due to inbreeding depression. The high percentage of (presumably) non-viable seeds from the smallest populations is surprising because the author says that he used ‘Full-sized, healthy-looking seeds … ’ in his germination studies.

29 There was no correlation between seed germination percentage and genetic diversity; however, population size was positively related to genetic diversity.

30 Seed germination percentage was significantly lower in population MN1 than in populations MN2, MN3 and MN4. MN1 had a much lower Ne/N ratio [number of genetically effective individuals (Ne)/total number of individuals (N)] than did the other three populations. Germination percentage was positively correlated with the Ne/N ratio.

31 Seed germination percentage was significantly higher in large than in small (monospecific) stands due to a higher proportion of seeds with developed embryos in large than in small stands. However, the proportions of seeds that were viable and that germinated were almost identical, regardless of stand size.

32 The lower density of seedlings in small forest fragments than in large forests was the result of much higher seed consumption by wood mice in the small fragments.

33 There was no relationship between seed germination percentage/seed viability (seed viability per cone = seed germination percentage + positive results with tetrazolium test for non-germinated seeds). The authors concluded that ‘ … the proportion of viable seeds per cone in W. whytei is not affected by population fragmentation, tree diameter and crown position in the forest canopy.’

34A Frugivory was 2.4 times higher in continuous forest than in forest fragments. Seeds eaten by birds germinated 1.7 and 3.7 times higher percentages than non-eaten seeds from continuous forest and fragment, respectively.

34B Genetic diversity was higher in the large than in small populations, but germination of was not related to population size.

35 Seed mass was not significantly different between continuous forests and fragments.

36 Genetic diversity was higher in large than in small populations.

37 Trees in continuous forest were more likely to set seeds than isolated trees in pastures. Seed mass and seedling vigour also were higher for trees in primary forest than in isolated trees.

38 Seed mass increased significantly with population size.

39 Seed mass did not increase significantly with population size.

40 Strength of inbreeding depression did not differ with population size.

41 Genetic diversity did not differ between very small, small, medium and large populations.

42 Seed mass did not differ between fragment sizes.

43 Germination of (scarified) seeds from continuous forest (75%) was significantly higher than that of (scarified) seeds from trees in isolation (58%). However, there was no significant difference in days to emergence between seeds of continuous forest and isolated trees. Undamaged seeds were planted for the germination tests; thus, differences in germination percentages were not due to inviable seeds. Genetic diversity was comparable for seeds from trees in continuous forest and isolated trees.

44 There was no relationship between population size and seed mass. However, there was a positive relationship between seed mass and seed germination percentage.

45 Seed germination percentages were high for all populations, but there were significant differences among the three inbred classes, with fewer seeds germinating in the most highly inbred population than in the other two populations.

46 Abundance of normal acorns was the same (or perhaps even higher in small than in large populations). However, acorn consumption by mice was much higher in the small than in large populations, thus accounting for the lower seedling establishment in small than in large populations.

47 There was a significant negative correlation between population size and seed mass.

48 There was no correlation between seed germination percentage and either population size or genetic variation.

49 Seed germination percentage was highest in the smallest population, which also had the highest genetic diversity.

50 Seed mass was independent of population size.

51 Total fitness of selfed progeny in small populations was 19% higher than that of selfed progeny in large populations.

52 Seed germination percentage did not differ between island population types, i.e. considering size of population and distance (degree of isolation) from other populations.

53 Seed germination percentage was not affected by either area or isolation (i.e. size or distance of island).

54 Compared to large populations, small populations had lower individual fitness, and crosses between them produced offspring with greater heterosis (hybrid vigour); however, there was no difference in inbreeding depression between small and large populations. The 68% lower individual fitness of within-population outcrosses in small than in large populations is consistent with fixation of deleterious alleles by genetic drift.

55 Seeds were larger in small than in large fragments.

56 Six years after fragmentation, seed mass was higher in the fragments than in the continuous population.

57 Mean seed mass was significantly correlated with seed germination percentage.

58 Inbreeding load was not significantly different among populations, but it did differ among maternal families.

59 Seed mass did not differ among populations.

60 Seed mass differed significantly among populations and was highest in the largest population.

61 The large population produced more seeds per fruit than the small populations.

62 Vigour of progeny from continuous large forests was higher than that of progeny from fragmented forests, which the authors thought was associated with reduced number of sires in the fragments. Genetic diversity of adult trees and their progeny did not differ between continuous forests and fragments. Seed mass had a positive effect on germination and seedling emergence.

63 Genetic diversity of the adult population was not associated with seed germination.

64 There was no difference in seed mass between large and small populations.

65 Genetic diversity was negatively correlated with relative population size (RPS) in Eucalyptus aggregata. RPS of E. aggregata = Actual population size (APS) values for E. aggregata/APS of E. aggregata + E. rubicola + E. viminalis + E. dalympleana. Seed germination percentage of E. aggregata increased with RPS.

66 There was no clear relationship between genetic diversity and population size.

67 Seed size was smaller in large than in small populations.

68 There was no significant difference in genetic diversity among the six populations.

69 There was no difference in mean mass of seeds from trees in woodland and of those from isolated trees.

70 Seed mass was independent of population size.

71 There was no relationship between population size, degree of isolation or fragment size and seed germination percentage.

72 There was a significant positive correlation between number of seeds produced per fruit and an increase in population size for each of the three study years.

73 Seed germination percentage was low (<3%) and did not vary between seeds from continuous forest and fragment.

74 Ligustrum lucidum is a non-native invasive evergreen tree in the Argentinian Chaco Serrano phytogeographical region, the study area. Reproductive success of this species was much lower in fragments than in a continuous forest.

75 This species is naturally patchily distributed. We considered central populations as large and isolated populations as small. Inbreeding depression of seed germination was not influenced by population type, i.e. central versus isolated.

76 Seed germination percentage (proportion of seeds planted that germinated and survived through the winter) was significantly higher in populations with high genetic effective population size (21.1%) than in populations with low genetic effective population size (8.7%).

77 Athough the relative performance index (RP) was –0.16, indicating that seeds from the small population germinated better than those from the large population (see Baskin and Baskin, Reference Baskin and Baskin2015), the germination percentages for seeds from large and small populations were not statistically different.

78 Fruiting success and seedling recruitment were not related to genetic diversity of the populations.

79 Seed germination percentage decreased with increase in population isolation.

80 The smallest and most isolated population in the study had the lowest seed germination percentage.

81 Number of seedlings per flowering plant was significantly higher in populations with a high amount of genetic variation.

82 Seed size was greater in large than in small populations.

83 Although seed germination percentages between large (75) and small (72) populations were statistically significant, relative performance index was only 0.04, indicating that there was no difference in germination of seeds from large and small populations (see Baskin and Baskin, Reference Baskin and Baskin2015).

84 There was significantly lower seed production, lower seed mass, higher embryo abortion and lower seed germination percentages in the small fragmented than in the large continuous population. Seed germination percentages was positively related to seed mass, and the differences between the large and small populations were still significant after accounting for seed mass.

85 Seed germination percentage was higher in small than in medium or large populations.

86 Large-flowered plants produced seeds with greater mass than small-flowered plants.

87 Seed germination percentage was not associated with population size, population isolation or genetic diversity.

88 Mean seed germination percentage was positively correlated with seed size.

89 In the smallest population (N = 11), there was a positive relationship between seed size and germination percentages. However, in the other three populations (N = 40, 1235 and 2291) there was no relationship between seed size and germination percentage.

90 There was a significant negative correlation between population size and seed mass.

91 Both mean seed mass and number of fathers per seed crop influenced the proportion of seeds that germinated.

92 There was no significant correlation between genetic variation of adult plants and population size.

93 Seed mass in this naturally patchily distributed species did not differ significantly between islands in the St. Lawrence River and the mainland in eastern Ontario, Canada. Although there was a negative correlation between population isolation and seed germination percentage, it was not significant.

94 Although there was a significant positive exponential relationship between population size and seed germination percentage, germination was <20% in all populations (small → large), and it was ≤ca. 6% in all populations except the largest one.

95 Neither seed germination percentage nor seed mass differed between non-fragments (NF), fragments (F) and fragments connected by corridors (F + C), i.e. WNF = WF = WF + C.

96 There was no relationship between seed germination percentage and genetic diversity.

97 Populations differed significantly in seed germination percentage, but population size was not related to germination percentage.

Thirty-three of the 142 species entries contained useful information on seed mass of plants from large (Wl) and small (Ws) populations: 9, Wl > Ws; 18, Wl = Ws and 6, Wl < Ws. Thus, in 24 of the 33 entries (72.7%) seed mass of small populations was equal to or greater than that of large populations (see footnotes of Table 1). Various other aspects related to population size of the 142 species entries are included in the footnotes of Table 1. These include population genetic diversity and population size (5, Wl > Ws; 9, Wl = Ws; 0, Wl < Ws), seed germination percentage and genetic diversity (3, Wl > Ws; 9, Wl = Ws; 0, Wl < Ws) and seed germination percentage and seed mass (10,Wl > Ws; 7, Wl = Ws; 0, Wl < Ws). Furthermore, except in one study in which germination percentage decreased with an increase in population isolation (footnote 79) and in another study in which germination percentage decreased with isolation for two species and did not change for three species (footnote 11), seed germination percentage showed no significant relationship to degree of population isolation (footnotes 10, 14, 16, 22, 27, 28, 43, 52, 53, 71, 87 and 93 for Table 1). Thus, the great majority of these 14 studies (18 species) showed that population isolation had no effect on seed germination.

Here, we also report the results (not in Table 1 or footnotes) of 15 studies (12 species) on germination of seeds from species at the centre (Wc) versus the margin (Wm) of their geographical range: 3, Wc > Wm (Summerfield, Reference Summerfield1973; Cerabolini et al., Reference Cerabolini, Andreis, Ceriani, Pierce and Raimondi2004; Giménez-Benavides et al., Reference Giménez-Benavides, Escudero and Iriondo2007, Reference Giménez-Benavides, Escudero and Iriondo2008; Tsaliki and Diekmann, Reference Tsaliki and Diekmann2009); 7, Wc = Wm (Lammi et al., Reference Lammi, Siikamäki and Mustajärvi1999; Groom and Preuninger, Reference Groom and Preuninger2000; Mosseler et al., Reference Mosseler, Major, Simpson, Daigle, Lange, Park, Johnsen and Rajora2000; Castro et al., Reference Castro, Zamora, Hódar and Gómez2004, Reference Castro, Zamora, Hódar and Gómez2005; Vaupel and Matthies, Reference Vaupel and Matthies2012; Tabassum and Leishman, Reference Tabassum and Leishman2018; Pelletier and de Lafontaine, Reference Pelletier and de Lafontaine2023) and 2, Wc < Wm (Yakimowski and Eckert, Reference Yakimowski and Eckert2007; Bartle et al., Reference Bartle, Moles and Bonser2013). Thus, in nine of the 12 (75%) entries seeds of plants at the range margin germinated equally well or better than those at the centre of the range. Finally, we report the results (not in Table 1 or footnotes) of seven papers (10 species) on germination of seeds of species from the forest (or other vegetation type) interior (Wi) versus those from the edge of the forest or other vegetation type (We): 1, Wi > We (Piechowski, Reference Piechowski2007); 5, Wi = We (Restrepo and Vargas, Reference Restrepo and Vargas1999; Ramos et al., Reference Ramos, José, Solferini and Santos2007; Schmucki and de Blois, Reference Schmucki and de Blois2009; Christianini and Oliveira, Reference Christianini and Oliveira2012) and 4, Wi < We (López-Barrera and Newton, Reference López-Barrera and Newton2005; Suzán-Azpiri et al., Reference Suzán-Azpiri, Ponce-González, Malda-Barrera, Cambrón-Sandoval and Carrillo-Angeles2017). Thus, for nine of the 10 (90%) entries seeds of plants at the edge of the population germinated equally well or better than those of plants in the centre of the population.

Creation of edge effects via forest fragmentation undoubtedly will have negative effects on seed germination of recalcitrant species, especially in the tropics (Wen and Cai, Reference Wen and Cai2014; also see Wen, Reference Wen2011), where many of the non-pioneer tree species have recalcitrant seeds (Tweddle et al., Reference Tweddle, Dickie, Baskin and Baskin2003; Yu et al., Reference Yu, Baskin, Baskin, Tang and Cao2008; Pritchard et al., Reference Pritchard, Sershen, Tsan, Wen, Jaganathan, Calvi, Pence, Mattana, Ferraz, Seal, Baskin and Baskin2022).

Our hypothesis that seeds from large populations generally germinate better than those from small populations is not supported. Seed germination percentage did not differ in the majority of cases (57.7%) in which seeds from large and small populations were compared, and in 7.0% of the comparisons seeds from small populations actually germinated better than those from large populations. Thus, population size is not consistently and positively related to seed germination percentage, i.e. not a reliable predictor of seed germination. Neither was there an overall positive relationship between seed germination and either seed mass or genetic diversity. In 12 of 14 studies that included population isolation and germination, population isolation had no effect on germination; in a 13th study isolation had a negative effect on germination and in a 14th study isolation had a negative effect on two species and no effect on three species. Our limited information suggests that in the majority of species seeds from marginal populations germinate about equally well or better than those from central populations and that seeds from the edge of a forest germinate about equally well or better than those from the forest interior.

The results of our ‘vote-counting’ method (see Gurevitch et al., Reference Gurevitch, Curtis and Jones2001) to determine the relationship between population size and seed germination percentage do not agree with those of a meta-analysis (M-A) by Aguilar et al. (Reference Aguilar, Cristóbal-Pérez, Balvino-Olvera, Aguilar-Aguilar, Aguirre-Acosta, Ashworth, Lobo, Martén-Rodríguez, Fuchs, Sanchez-Montoya, Bernardello and Quesada2019), who found an overall negative habitat fragmentation effect (Hedges’ d about −0.6) on seed germination. We think that an M-A may not be an appropriate way to get a reliable conclusion from our global dataset on population size versus seed germination for two reasons (e.g. Bailar, Reference Bailar1997; Lee, Reference Lee2019). First, one of the statistical advantages of M-A is that it increases the number of replicates in a study, thereby increasing statistical power. Thus, to be used correctly in an M-A the individual experiments (studies) that are pooled in an M-A need to be similar (i.e. replicates of each other). In doing an M-A of seed germination studies on a global scale, the so-called replicates include different kinds of seed dormancy and experimental procedures using seeds from plants that grow in different climates and vegetation types.

A second concern about M-A is that one number (effect size) summarizes the results of the whole field of research, in our case the effect of fragmentation/population size on seed germination. It seems to us that using a single number based on variable methodology (inconsistent protocol and context-dependent source experiments and different classes and degrees of dormancy) to represent germination responses of numerous plant taxa may convey the wrong impression to conservationists, ecologists and seed biologists.

For the 49 species included in the Aguilar et al. M-A that we include in our review, we tallied our designations of (1) no effect (none), (2) positive effect and (3) negative effect of fragmentation/population size on seed germination. For 31 of the 49 (63.3%) species, we recorded no effect (none) of fragmentation/population size on seed germination, and for 2 (4.1%) and 16 (32.7%) species there was a positive and negative effect of fragmentation/population size on germination, respectively. The percentages for the three categories based on the 49 species are similar to those reported for these three categories based on 119 species (142 species entries), namely 57.7, 35.2 and 7.0% for none, negative and positive, respectively.

We wonder if it is possible to get a reliable conclusion on seed germination in relation to anything on a global scale via M-A when there is wide variation in methodology in the individual studies used in the M-A.

Competing interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

Aguilar, R, Quesada, M, Ashworth, L, Herrerias-Diego, Y and Lobo, J (2008) Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation in plant populations: susceptible signals in plant traits and methodological approaches. Molecular Ecology 17, 5177–5188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aguilar, R, Ashworth, L, Calviño, A and Quesada, M (2012) What is left after sex in fragmented habitats? Assessing the quantity and quality of progeny in the endemic tree Prosopis caldenia (Fabaceae). Biological Conservation 152, 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguilar, R, Cristóbal-Pérez, J, Balvino-Olvera, J, Aguilar-Aguilar, MJ, Aguirre-Acosta, N, Ashworth, L, Lobo, JA, Martén-Rodríguez, S, Fuchs, EJ, Sanchez-Montoya, G, Bernardello, G and Quesada, M (2019) Habitat fragmentation reduces plant progeny quality: a global synthesis. Ecology Letters 22, 1163–1173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aguilar-Aguilar, MJ, Cristobal-Pérez, EJ, Lobo, J, Fuchs, EJ, Oyama, K, Martén-Rodríguez, A, Herrerías-Diego, Y and Quesada, M (2023) Gone with the wind: negative genetic and progeny fitness consequences of habitat fragmentation in the wind pollinated dioecious tree Brosimum alicastrum. American Journal of Botany 110, e16157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguirre-Acosta, N, Kowaljow, E and Aguilar, R (2014) Reproductive performance of the invasive tree Ligustrum lucidum in a subtropical dry forest: does habitat fragmentation boost or limit invasion? Biological Invasions 16, 1397–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albrecht, MA, Dell, ND and Long, QG (2020) Seed germination traits in the rare sandstone rockhouse endemic Solidago albopilosa (Asteraceae). Journal of the Torrey Botanical Club 147, 172–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angeloni, F, Ouborg, NJ and Leimu, R (2011) Meta-analysis on the association of population size and life history with inbreeding depression in plants. Biological Conservation 144, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angeloni, F, Vergeer, P and Wagemaker, CAM (2014) Within and between population variation in inbreeding depression in the locally threatened perennial Scabiosa columbaria. Conservation Genetics 15, 331–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, L and Martí, ML (2011) Forest fragmentation and seed germination of native species from the Chaco Serrano Forest. Biotropica 43, 496–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachmann, U and Hensen, I (2007) Is declining Campanula glomerata threatened by genetic factors? Plant Species Biology 22, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailar, JC III (1997) The promise and problems of meta-analysis. The New England Journal of Medicine 337, 559–561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, SCH and Kohn, JR (1991) Genetic and evolutionary consequences of small population size in plants: implications for conservation. (+ references in common bibliography). In Falk, DA and Holsinger, KE (eds), Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartle, K, Moles, AT and Bonser, SP (2013) No evidence for rapid evolution of seed dispersal ability in range edge populations of the invasive species Senecio madagascariensis. Austral Ecology 38, 915–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskin, JM and Baskin, CC (2015) Inbreeding depression and the cost of inbreeding on seed germination. Seed Science Research 25, 355–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, D and Krauss, SL (2013) Limited impact of fragmentation and disturbance on the mating system of tuart (Eucalyptus gomphocephala, Myrtaceae): implications for seed-source quality in ecological restoration. Australian Journal of Botany 61, 148–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadhurst, LM, Young, AG and Forrester, R (2008) Genetic and demographic responses of fragmented Acacia dealbata (Mimosaceae) populations in southeastern Australia. Biological Conservation 141, 2843–2856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruna, EM (1999) Seed germination in rainforest fragments. Nature 402, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruna, EM (2002) Effects of forest fragmentation on Heliconia acuminata seedling recruitment in central Amazonia. Oecologia 132, 235–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgos, A, Grez, AA and Bustamante, RO (2008) Seed production, pre-dispersal seed predation and germination of Nothofagus glauca (Nothofagaceae) in a temperate fragmented forest in Chile. Forest Ecology and Management 255, 1226–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrows, GE (2000) Seed production in woodland and isolated trees of Eucalyptus melliodora (yellow box, Myrtaceae) in the south western slopes of New South Wales. Australian Journal of Botany 48, 681–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, PA, Skinner, AK and Gardiner, CA (2005) Increased inbreeding and inter-species gene flow in remnant populations of the rare Eucalyptus benthamii. Conservation Genetics 6, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, PA, McNee, SA and Krauss, SL (2009) Genetic impacts of habitat loss on the rare ironstone endemic Tetratheca paynterae subsp. paynterae. Conservation Genetics 10, 1735–1746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, PA, Bradbury, D and Krauss, SL (2011) Limited pollen-mediated dispersal and partial self-incompatibility in the rare ironstone endemic Tetratheca paynterae subsp. paynterae increase the risks associated with habitat loss. Conservation Genetics 12, 1603–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buza, L, Young, A and Thrall, P (2000) Genetic erosion, inbreeding and reduced fitness in fragmented populations of the endangered tetraploid pea Swainsona recta. Biological Conservation 93, 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cascante, A, Quesada, M, Lobo, JJ and Fuchs, EA (2002) Effects of dry tropical forest fragmentation on the reproductive success and genetic structure of the tree Samanea saman. Conservation Biology 16, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castro, J, Zamora, R, Hódar, JA and Gómez, JM (2004) Seedling establishment of a boreal tree species (Pinus sylvestris) at its southernmost distribution limit: consequences of being in a marginal Mediterranean habitat. Journal of Ecology 92, 266–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castro, J, Zamora, R, Hódar, JA and Gómez, JM (2005) Ecology of seed germination of Pinus sylvestris L. at its southern, Mediterranean distribution range. Investigacion Agraris: Sistemas y Recursos Forestales 14, 143–152.Google Scholar
Cerabolini, B, Andreis, RD, Ceriani, RM, Pierce, S and Raimondi, B (2004) Seed germination and conservation of endangered species from the Italian Alps: Physoplexis comosa and Primula glaucescens. Biological Conservation 117, 351–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chanyenga, TF, Geldenhuys, CJ and Sileshi, GW (2011) Effect of population size, tree diameter and crown position on viable seed output per cone of the tropical conifer Widdringtonia whytei in Malawi. Journal of Tropical Ecology 27, 515–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiapero, AL, Aguilar, R, Galfrascoli, GM, Bernardello, G, Quesada, M and Ashworth, L (2021) Reproductive resilience to habitat fragmentation of Lithraea molleoides (Anacardiaceae), a dominant dioecious tree from the Chaco Serrano. Forest Ecology and Management 492, 119215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christianini, AV and Oliveira, PS (2012) Edge effects decrease ant-derived benefits to seedlings in a neotropical savanna. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 7, 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordeiro, NJ, Ndangalasi, HJ, McEntee, JP and Howe, HF (2009) Disperser limitation and recruitment of an endemic African tree in a fragmented landscape. Ecology 90, 1030–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costin, BJ, Morgan, JW and Young, AG (2001) Reproductive success does not decline in fragmented populations of Leucochrysum albicans subsp. albicans var. tricolor (Asteraceae). Biological Conservation 98, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vere, N, Jongejans, E, Plowman, A and Williams, E (2009) Population size and habitat quality affect genetic diversity and fitness in the clonal herb Cirsium dissectum. Oecologia 159, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Vriendt, L, Lemay, M-A, Jean, M, Renaut, S, Pellerin, S, Joly, S, Belzile, F and Poulin, M (2017) Population isolation shapes plant genetics, phenotype and germination in naturally patchy ecosystems. Journal of Plant Ecology 10, 649–659.Google Scholar
del Castillo, RF and Trujillo, S (2008) Effect of inbreeding depression on outcrossing rates among populations of a tropical pine. New Phytologist 177, 517–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donaldson, J, Nänni, I, Zachariades, C and Kemper, J (2002) Effects of habitat fragmentation on pollinator diversity and plant reproductive success in Renosterveld Shrublands of South Africa. Conservation Biology 16, 1267–1276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisto, A-K, Kuitunen, M, Lammi, A, Saari, V, Suhonen, J, Syrjäsuo, S and Tikka, PM (2000) Population persistence and offspring fitness in the rare bellflower Campanula cervicaria in relation to population size and habitat quality. Conservation Biology 14, 1413–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellstrand, NC and Elam, DR (1993) Population genetic consequences of small populations: implications for plant conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 24, 217–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, DL, Ayre, DJ, Whelan, RJ and Young, AG (2008) Relative frequency of sympatric species influences rates of interspecific hybridization, seed production and seedling performance in the uncommon Eucalyptus aggregata. Journal of Ecology 96, 1198–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, M and Matthies, D (1998) Effects of population size on performance in the rare plant Gentianella germanica. Journal of Ecology 86, 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, M, Hock, M and Paschke, M (2003) Low genetic variation reduces cross-compatibility and offspring fitness in populations of a narrow endemic plant with a self-incompatibility system. Conservation Genetics 4, 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galeuchet, DJ, Perret, C and Fischer, M (2005) Performance of Lychnis flos-cuculi from fragmented populations under experimental biotic interactions. Ecology 86, 1002–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, Z, Zhang, C and Milne, RI (2010) Seed-class structure and variation in seed and seedling traits in relation to population size of an endangered species Craigia yunnanensis (Tiliaceae). Australian Journal of Botany 58, 214–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauli, A, Vaillancourt, RE, Steane, DA, Bailey, TG and Potts, BM (2013) Effect of forest fragmentation and altitude on the mating system of Eucalyptus pauciflora (Myrtaceae). Australian Journal of Botany 61, 622–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, N, Yates, C, Byrne, M, Langley, M and Thavornkanlapachai, R (2012) The importance of recruitment patterns versus reproductive output in the persistence of a short-range endemic shrub in a highly fragmented landscape of south-western Australia. Australian Journal of Botany 60, 643–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigord, L, Picot, F and Shykoff, JA (1999) Effects of habitat fragmentation on Dombeya acutangula (Sterculiaceae), a native tree on La Réunion (Indian Ocean). Biological Conservation 88, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giménez-Benavides, L, Escudero, A and Iriondo, JM (2007) Local adaptation enhances seedling recruitment along an altitudinal gradient in a high mountain Mediterranean plant. Annals of Botany 99, 723–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giménez-Benavides, L, Escudero, A and Iriondo, JM (2008) What shapes the attitudinal range of a high mountain Mediterranean plant? Recruitment probabilities from ovule to seedling stage. Ecography 31, 731–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Di Pierro, AM, Benítez-Malvido, J, Méndez-Toribio, M, Zermeño, I, Arroyo-Rodríguez, V and Stoner, KE (2011) Effects of the physical environment and primate gut passage on the early establishment of Amplelocera hottlei Standley in rain forest fragments. Biotropica 43, 459–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Varo, JP, Albaladejo, RG, Aparicio, A and Arroyo, J (2010) Linking genetic diversity, mating patterns and progeny performance in fragmented populations of a Mediterranean shrub. Journal of Applied Ecology 47, 1242–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griemler, J and Dobeš, CH (2000) High genetic diversity and differentiation in relict lowland populations of Gentianella austriaca (A. and J. Kern.) Holub (Gentianaceae). Plant Biology 2, 628–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groom, MJ and Preuninger, TE (2000) Population type can influence the magnitude of inbreeding depression in Clarkia concinna (Onagraceae). Evolutionary Ecology 14, 155–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, PC and Bustamante, RO (2009) Abiotic alternations caused by forest fragmentation affect tree regeneration: a shade and drought tolerance gradient in the remnants of Coastal Maulino Forest. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 82, 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurevitch, J, Curtis, PS and Jones, MH (2001) Meta-analysis in ecology. Advances in Ecological Research 32, 200–247.Google Scholar
Haddad, NM, Brudvig, LA, Clobert, J, Davies, KF, Gonzalez, A, Holt, RD, Lovejoy, TE, Sexton, JO, Austin, MP, Collins, CD, Cook, WM, Damschen, EI, Ewers, RM, Foster, BL, Jenkins, CN, King, AJ, Laurance, WF, Levey, DJ, Margules, CR, Melbourne, BA, Nicholls, AO, Orrock, JL, Song, D-X and Townshend, JR (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth's ecosystems. Science Advances 1, e1500052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauser, TP and Loeschcke, V (1994) Inbreeding and mating-distance dependent offspring fitness in large and small populations of Lychnis flos-cuculi (Caryophyllaceae). Journal of Evolutionary Biology 7, 609–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heliyanto, B, He, T, Lambers, H, Veneklaas, EJ and Krauss, SL (2009) Population size effects on progeny performance in Banksia ilicifolia R.Br. (Proteaceae). HAYATI Journal of Biosciences 16, 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henríquez, CA (2004) Efecto de la fragmentacion del habitat sobre la calidad de las semillas en Lapageria rosea. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 77, 177–184. (English abstract).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensen, I and Wesche, K (2006) Relationships between population size, genetic diversity and fitness components in the rare plant Dictamnus albus in central Germany. Biodiversity and Conservation 15, 2249–2261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heschel, MS and Paige, KN (1995) Inbreeding depression, environmental stress, and population size variation in scarlet gilia (Ipomopsis aggregata). Conservation Biology 9, 126–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honnay, O, Jacquemyn, H, Bossuyt, B and Hermy, M (2005) Forest fragmentation effects on patch occupancy and population viability of herbaceous plant species. New Phytologist 166, 723–736.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hooftman, DAP, van Kleunen, M and Diemer, M (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on the fitness of two common wetland species, Carex davalliana and Succisa pratensis. Oecologia 134, 350–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacquemyn, H, Brys, R and Hermy, M (2001) Within and between plant variation in seed number, seed mass and germinability of Primula elatior: effect of population size. Plant Biology 3, 561–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquemyn, H, Vandepitte, K, Brys, R, Honnay, O and Roldán-Ruiz, I (2007) Fitness variation and genetic diversity in small, remnant populations of the food deceptive Orchis purpurea. Biological Conservation 139, 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquemyn, H, De Meester, L, Jongejans, E and Honnay, O (2012) Evolutionary changes in plant reproductive traits following habitat fragmentation and their consequences for population fitness. Journal of Ecology 100, 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquemyn, H, Waud, M, Merckx, VSFT, Lievens, B and Brys, R (2015) Mycorrhizal diversity, seed germination and long-term changes in population size across populations of the terrestrial orchid Neottia ovata. Molecular Ecology 24, 3269–3280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahmen, S and Poschlod, P (2000) Population size, plant performance, and genetic variation in the rare plant Arnica montana L. in the Rhön, Germany. Basis and Applied Ecology 1, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, TN and Kuykendall, K (2001) Effects of scarification and cold stratification on seed germination of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii. Seed Science & Technology 29, 663–668.Google Scholar
Keller, LF and Waller, DM (2002) Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17, 230–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, BF and Elle, E (2008) The inbreeding depression cost of selfing: importance of flower size and population size in Collinsia parviflora (Veronicaceae). American Journal of Botany 95, 1596–1605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kéry, M, Matthies, D and Spillmann, H-H (2000) Reduced fecundity and offspring performance in small populations of the declining grassland plants Primula veris and Gentiana lutea. Journal of Ecology 88, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolb, A (2005) Reduced reproductive success and offspring survival in fragmented populations of the forest herb Phyteuma spicatum. Journal of Ecology 93, 1226–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krauss, SL, Hermanutz, L, Hopper, SD and Coates, DJ (2007) Population-size effects on seeds and seedlings from fragmented eucalypt populations: implications for seed sourcing for ecological restoration. Australian Journal of Botany 55, 390–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lammi, A, Siikamäki, P and Mustajärvi, K (1999) Genetic diversity, population size, and fitness in central and peripheral populations of a rare plant Lychnis viscaria. Conservation Biology 13, 1069–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauterbach, D, Ristow, M and Gemeinholzer, B (2011) Genetic population structure, fitness variation and the importance of population history in remnant populations of the endangered plant Silene chlorantha (Willd.) Ehrh. (Caryophyllaceae). Plant Biology 13, 667–677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawes, MJ, Taplin, P, Bellairs, SM and Franklin, DC (2013) A trade-off in stand size effects in the reproductive biology of a declining tropical conifer Callitris intratropica. Plant Ecology 214, 169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, YH (2019) Strengths and limitations of meta-analysis. The Korean Journal of Medicine 94, 391–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lienert, J (2004) Habitat fragmentation effects on fitness of plant populations – a review. Journal for Nature Conservation 12, 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lienert, J and Fischer, M (2004) Experimental inbreeding reduces seed production and germination independent of fragmentation of populations of Swertia perennis. Basic and Applied Ecology 5, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lienert, J, Diemer, M and Schmid, B (2002) Effects of habitat fragmentation on population structure and fitness components of the wetland specialist Swertia perennis L. (Gentianaceae). Basic and Applied Ecology 3, 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llorens, TM, Yates, CJ, Byrne, M, Nistelberger, HM, Williams, MR and Coates, DJ (2013) Complex interactions between remnant shape and the mating system strongly influence reproductive output and progeny performance in fragmented populations of a bird-pollinated shrub. Biological Conservation 164, 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopes, LE and Buzato, S (2007) Variation in pollinator assemblages in a fragmented landscape and its effects on reproductive stages of a self-incompatible treelet, Psychotria suterella (Rubiaceae). Oecologia 154, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Barrera, F and Newton, A (2005) Edge type effect on germination of oak tree species in the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 217, 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luijten, SH, Dierick, A, Gerard, J, Oostermeijer, GB, Raijmann, LEL and den Nijs, HCM (2000) Population size, genetic variation, and reproductive success in a rapidly declining, self-incompatible perennial (Arnica montana) in The Netherlands. Conservation Biology 14, 1776–1787.Google Scholar
Markham, JH (2008) Population size effects on germination, growth and symbiotic nitrogen fixation in an actinorhizal plant at the edge of its range. Botany 86, 398–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathiasen, P, Rovere, AE and Premoli, AC (2007) Genetic structure and early effects of inbreeding in fragmented temperate forests of a self-incompatible tree, Embothrium coccineum. Conservation Biology 21, 232–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattana, E, Fenu, G and Bacchetta, G (2012) Seed production and in situ germination of Lamyropsis microcephala (Asteraceae), a threatened Mediterranean mountain species. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 44, 343–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mavraganis, K and Eckert, CG (2001) Effects of population size and isolation on reproductive output in Aquilegia canadensis (Ranunculaceae). Oikos 95, 300–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, C and Holderegger, R (1998) Breeding system, germination, and phenotypic differences among populations of Saxifraga aizoides (Saxifragaceae) at the periphery of its alpine distribution. Nordic Journal of Botany 18, 681–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menges, ES (1991) Seed germination percentage increases with population size in a fragmented prairie species. Conservation Biology 5, 158–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaels, JH, Shi, XJ and Mitchell, RJ (2008) Effects of population size on performance and inbreeding depression in Lupinus perennis. Oecologia 154, 651–661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mix, C (2006) Inbreeding and gene flow. The population genetics of plant species in fragmented landscapes. Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Molano-Flores, B, Koontz, JA and Feist, MA (2007) Seed germination of the Illinois-threatened Agalinis auriculata (Michx.) Blake (Orobanchaceae). Castanea 72, 116–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, JW (1999) Effects of population size on seed production and germinability in an endangered, fragmented grassland plant. Conservation Biology 13, 266–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, JW, Meyer, MJ and Young, AG (2013) Severe habitat fragmentation leads to declines in genetic variation, mate availability, and reproductive success in small populations of a once-common Australian grassland daisy. International Journal of Plant Sciences 174, 1209–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosseler, A, Major, JE, Simpson, JD, Daigle, B, Lange, K, Park, Y-S, Johnsen, KH and Rajora, OP (2000) Indicators of population viability in red spruce, Picea rubens. I. Reproductive traits and fecundity. Canadian Journal of Botany 78, 928–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nason, JD and Hamrick, JL (1997) Reproductive and genetic consequences of forest fragmentation: two case studies of neotropical canopy trees. Journal of Heredity 88, 264–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, D and Pilson, D (1997) Increased probability of extinction due to decreased genetic effective population size: experimental populations of Clarkia pulchella. Evolution 51, 354–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oakley, CG and Winn, AA (2012) Effects of population size and isolation on heterosis, mean fitness, and inbreeding depression in a perennial plant. New Phytologist 196, 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connell, LM, Mosseler, A and Rajora, OP (2006) Impacts of forest fragmentation on the reproductive success of white spruce (Picea glauca). Canadian Journal of Botany 84, 956–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olfelt, JP, Furnier, GR and Luby, JJ (1998) Reproduction and development of the endangered Sedum integrifolium ssp. leedyi (Crassulaceae). American Journal of Botany 85, 346–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oostermeijer, JGB, den Nijs, JCM, Raijmann, L and Menken, SBJ (1992) Population biology and management of the marsh gentian (Gentiana pneumonanthe L.), a rare species in The Netherlands. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 108, 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oostermeijer, JGB, van Eijck, MW and den Nijs, JCM (1994) Offspring fitness in relation to population size and genetic variation in the rare perennial plant species Gentiana pneumonanthe (Gentianaceae). Oecologia 97, 289–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ouborg, NJ and van Treuren, R (1994) The significance of genetic erosion in the process of extinction. IV. Inbreeding load and heterosis in relation to population size in the mint Salvia pratensis. Evolution 48, 996–1008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ouborg, NJ and van Treuren, R (1995) Variation in fitness-related characters among small and large populations of Salvia pratensis. Journal of Ecology 83, 369–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paland, S and Schmid, B (2003) Population size and the nature of genetic load in Gentianella germanica. Evolution 57, 2242–2251.Google ScholarPubMed
Paschke, M, Abs, C and Schmid, B (2002) Effects of population size and pollen diversity on reproductive success and offspring size in the narrow endemic Cochlearia bavarica (Brassicaceae). American Journal of Botany 89, 1250–1259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paschke, M, Bernasconi, G and Schmid, B (2003) Population size and identity influence the reaction norm of the rare, endemic plant Cochlearia bavarica across a gradient of environmental stress. Evolution 57, 496–508.Google ScholarPubMed
Paschke, M, Bernasconi, G and Schmid, B (2005) Effects of inbreeding and pollen donor provenance and diversity on offspring performance under environmental stress in the rare plant Cochlearia bavarica. Basic and Applied Ecology 6, 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, E and de Lafontaine, G (2023) Jack pine of all trades: deciphering intraspecific variability of a key adaptive trait at the rear edge of a widespread fire-embracing North American conifer. American Journal of Botany 110, e16111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, A, Bartish, IV and Peterson, J (2008) Effects of population size on genetic diversity, fitness and pollinator community composition in fragmented populations of Anthericum liliago L. Plant Ecology 198, 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, RD, Steinmeyer, F, Menz, MHM, Erickson, TE and Dixon, KW (2014) Changes in the composition and behaviour of a pollinator guild with plant population size and the consequences for plant fecundity. Functional Ecology 28, 846–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picó, FX, Mix, C, Ouborg, NJ and van Groenendael, JM (2007) Multigenerational inbreeding in Succisa pratensis: effects on fitness components. Biologia Plantarum 51, 185–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piechowski, D (2007) Reproductive ecology, seedling performance, and population structure of Parkia pendula in an Atlantic forest fragment in northeastern Brazil. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.Google Scholar
Pierce, S, Ferrario, A and Cerabolini, B (2010) Outbreeding and asymbiotic germination in the conservation of the endangered Italian endemic orchid Ophrys benacensis. Plant Biosystems 144, 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portela, RCQ and Santos, FAM (2014) Impact of forest fragment size on the population structure of three palm species (Arecaceae) in the Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest. International Journal of Tropical Biology 62, 433–442.Google ScholarPubMed
Pritchard, HW, Sershen, , Tsan, FY, Wen, B, Jaganathan, GK, Calvi, G, Pence, VC, Mattana, E, Ferraz, IDK and Seal, CE (2022) Regeneration in recalcitrant-seeded species and risks from climate change. In Baskin, CC and Baskin, JM (eds), Plant Regeneration from seeds. A Global Warming Perspective. San Diego, Academic Press/Elsevier, pp. 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qiu, J, Bai, Y, Fu, Y-B and Wilmshurst, JF (2010) Spatial variation in temperature thresholds during seed germination of remnant Festuca hallii populations across the Canadian prairie. Environmental and Experimental Botany 67, 479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramos, FN, José, J, Solferini, VN and Santos, FAM (2007) Quality of seeds produced by Psyshotria tenuinervis (Rubiaceae): distance from anthropogenic and natural edges of Atlantic forest fragment. Biochemical Genetics 45, 441–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, DH (2005) Relationship between population size and fitness. Conservation Biology 19, 563–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, DH and Frankham, R (2003) Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conservation Biology 17, 230–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Restrepo, C and Vargas, A (1999) Seeds and seedlings of two neotropical montane understory shrubs respond differently to anthropogenic edges and treefall gaps. Oecologia 119, 419–426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rocha, OJ and Aguilar, G (2001) Reproductive biology of the dry forest tree Enterolobium cyclocarpum (Guanacaste) in Costa Rica: a comparison between trees left in pastures and trees in continuous forest. American Journal of Botany 88, 1607–1614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosquist, G (2001) Reproductive biology in diploid Anthericum ramosum and tetraploid A. liliago (Anthericaceae). Oikos 92, 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusterholz, H-P and Baur, B (2010) Delayed response in a plant-pollinator system to experimental grassland fragmentation. Oecologia 163, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salzer, K and Gugerli, F (2012) Reduced fitness at early life stages in peripheral versus core populations of Swiss stone pine (Pinus cembra) is not reflected by levels of inbreeding in seed families. Alpine Botany 122, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, T and Tellería, JL (1994) Influence of forest fragmentation of seed consumption and dispersal of Spanish Juniper Juniperus thurifera. Biological Conservation 70, 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, T and Tellería, JL (1997) Vertebrate predation on Holm oak, Quercus ilex, acorns in a fragmented habitat: effects on seedling recruitment. Forest Ecology and Management 98, 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, K and Jensen, K (2000) Genetic structure and AFLP variation of remnant populations in the rare plant Pedicularis palustris (Scrophulariaceae) and its relation to population size and reproductive components. American Journal of Botany 87, 678–689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmucki, R and de Blois, S (2009) Population structures and individual performances of Trillium grandiflorum in hedgerow and forest habitats. Plant Ecology 202, 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedlacek, J, Schmid, B, Matthies, D and Albrecht, M (2012) Inbreeding depression under drought stress in the rare endemic Echium wildpretii (Boraginaceae) on Tenerife, Canary Islands. PLoS ONE 7, e47415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seltmann, P, Renison, D, Cocucci, A, Hensen, I and Jung, K (2007) Fragment size, pollination efficiency and reproductive success in natural populations of wind-pollinated Polylepis australis (Rosaceae) trees. Flora 202, 547–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seltmann, P, Cocucci, A, Renison, D, Cierjacks, A and Hensen, I (2009) Mating system, outcrossing distance effects and pollen availability in the wind-pollinated treeline species Polylepis australis BITT. (Rosaceae). Basis and Applied Ecology 10, 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Severns, PM, Liston, A and Wilson, MV (2011) Habitat fragmentation, genetic diversity, and inbreeding depression in a threatened grassland legume: is genetic rescue necessary? Conservation Genetics 12, 881–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soons, MB and Heil, GW (2002) Reduced colonization capacity in fragmented populations of wind-dispersed grassland forbs. Journal of Ecology 90, 1033–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soto, TY, Rojas-Gutierrez, JD and Oakley, CG (2023) Can heterosis and inbreeding depression explain the maintenance of outcrossing in a cleistogamous perennial? American Journal of Botany 110, e16240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugiyama, N and Peterson, CJ (2013) Inter-annual higher germination from smaller than medium-sized premontane wet forest fragments for an animal-dispersed tree species in Costa Rica. Plant Ecology 214, 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summerfield, RJ (1973) Factors affecting the germination and seedling establishment of Narthecium ossifragum on mire ecosystems. Journal of Ecology 61, 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzán-Azpiri, H, Ponce-González, OO, Malda-Barrera, GX, Cambrón-Sandoval, VH and Carrillo-Angeles, IG (2017) Edge effect on the population structure and the reproductive success of two Bursera species. Ecology 95, 9–22.Google Scholar
Tabassum, S and Leishman, MR (2018) Have your cake and eat it too: greater dispersal ability and faster germination towards range edges of an invasive plant species in eastern Australia. Biological Invasions 20, 1199–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsaliki, M and Diekmann, M (2009) fitness and survival in fragmented populations of Narthecium ossifragum at the species’ range margin. Acta Oecologica 35, 415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsaliki, M and Diekmann, M (2010) Effects of habitat fragmentation and soil quality on reproduction in two heathland Genista species. Plant Biology 12, 622–629.Google ScholarPubMed
Tweddle, JC, Dickie, JB, Baskin, CC and Baskin, JM (2003) Ecological aspects of seed desiccation sensitivity. Journal of Ecology 91, 294–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdivia, CE and Simonetti, JA (2007) Decreased frugivory and seed germination rate do not reduce seedling recruitment rates of Aristotelia chilensis in a fragmented forest. Biodiversity and Conservation 16, 1593–1602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandepitte, K, Roldán-Ruiz, I and Honnay, O (2009) Reproductive consequences of mate quantity versus mate diversity in a wind-pollinated plant. Acta Oecologica 35, 548–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kleunen, M and Johnson, SD (2005) Testing for ecological and genetic effects in the invasive shrub Senna didymobotrya (Fabaceae). American Journal of Botany 92, 1124–1130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Kleunen, M, Fischer, M and Johnson, SD (2007) Reproductive assurance through self-fertilization does not vary with population size in the alien invasive plant Datura stramonium. Oikos 116, 1400–1412.Google Scholar
van Mölken, T, Jorritsma-Wienk, LD, van Hoek, PHW and de Kroon, H (2005) Only seed size matters for germination in different populations of the dimorphic Tragopogn pratensis subsp. pratensis (Asteraceae). American Journal of Botany 92, 432–437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaupel, A and Matthies, D (2012) Abundance, reproduction, and seed predation of an alpine plant decrease from the center toward range limit. Ecology 93, 2253–2262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergeer, P, Rengelink, R, Copal, A and Ouborg, NJ (2003) The interacting effects of genetic variation, habitat quality and population size on performance of Succisa pratensis. Journal of Ecology 91, 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitales, D, Pellicer, J, Vallés, and Garnatje, T (2013) Genetic structure and seed germination in Portuguese populations of Cheirolophus uliginosus (Asteraceae): implications for conservation strategies. Collectanea Botanica 32, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wen, B (2011) Changes in the moisture and germination of recalcitrant Hopea mollissima seeds (Dipterocarpaceae) in different desiccation regimes. Seed Science & Technology 39, 214–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wen, B and Cai, Y (2014) Seed viability as a function of moisture and temperature in the recalcitrant rainforest species Baccaurea ramiflora (Euphorbiaceae). Annals of Forest Science 71, 853–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widén, B (1993) Demographic and genetic effects on reproduction as related to population size in a rare, perennial herb, Senecio integrifolius (Asteraceae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 50, 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, C, Lehmann, S and Diekmann, M (2008) Determinants of reproductive success: a comparative study of five endangered river corridor plants in fragmented habitats. Biological Conservation 141, 1095–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yakimowski, SB and Eckert, CG (2007) Threatened peripheral populations in context: geographical variation in population frequency and size and sexual reproduction in a clonal woody shrub. Conservation Biology 21, 811–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, CJ, Elliott, C, Byrne, M, Coates, DJ and Fairman, R (2007) Seed production, germinability and seedling growth for a bird-pollinated shrub in fragments of kwongan in south-west Australia. Biological Conservation 136, 3060314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, A, Boyle, T and Brown, T (1996) The population genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation for plants. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11, 413–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, Y, Baskin, JM, Baskin, CC, Tang, Y and Cao, M (2008) Ecology of seed germination of eight non-pioneer tree species from a tropical seasonal rain forest in southwest China. Plant Ecology 197, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Effect of habitat fragmentation (larger → smaller population size) on seed germination