Similar gender dimorphism in the costs of reproduction across the geographic range of Fraxinus ornus

Annals of Botany

Volumn 99, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 183-191

  Verdú, Miguel ^a   Spanos, Kostas ^b   Čaňová, Ingrid ^c   Slobodník, Branko ^c   Paule, Ladislav ^c  

^a CDIS UV Generalitat Valenciana)   (Spain)

^b INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS   (Greece)

^c TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN ZVOLEN   (Slovakia)

Author keywords

Costs of reproduction; Fraxinus ornus; Meta analysis; Sexual dimorphism

Indexed keywords

ANGIOSPERM; ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS; GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATION; REPRODUCTIVE COST; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; SEED DISPERSAL; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM;

FRAXINUS; FRAXINUS ORNUS;

WATER;

ARTICLE; CLIMATE; FLOWER; FRAXINUS; GEOGRAPHY; PHYSIOLOGY; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; SOUTHERN EUROPE;

CLIMATE; FLOWERS; FRAXINUS; GEOGRAPHY; MEDITERRANEAN REGION; REPRODUCTION; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; WATER;

EID: 34047232952     PISSN: 03057364     EISSN: 10958290     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcl241     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bawa KS. 1980. Evolution of dioecy in flowering plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11: 15-39.
2. Barrett SCH. 2002. The evolution of plant sexual diversity. Nature Reviews, Genetics 3: 274-284.
3. Bierzychudek P, Eckhart V. 1988. Spatial segregation of the sexes of dioecious plants. American Naturalist 132: 34-43.
4. Bond WJ, Maze KE. 1999. Survival costs and reproductive benefits of floral display in a sexually dimorphic dioecious shrub, Leucadendron xanthoconus. Evolutionary Ecology 13: 1-18.
5. Cohen J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
6. Cox PA. 1981. Niche partitioning between sexes of dioecious plants. American Naturalist 117: 295-307.
7. Dawson TE, Bliss LC. 1989. Patterns of water use and the tissue water relations in the dioecious shrub, Salix arctica: the physiological basis for habitat partitioning between the sexes. Oecologia 79: 332-343.
8. Dawson TE, Ehleringer JR. 1993. Gender-specific physiology, carbon isotope discrimination, and habitat distribution in box elder, Acer negundo. Ecology 74: 798-815.
9. Dawson TE, Geber MA. 1999. Dimorphism in physiology and morphology. In: Geber MA, Dawson TE, Delph LE eds. Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. New York, NY: Springer, 175-215.
10. Delph LF. 1999. Sexual dimorphism in life history. In: Geber MA, Dawson TE, Delph LE eds. Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. New York, NY: Springer, 149-173.
11. Delph LF, Gehring JL, Artnz AM, Levri M, Frey FM. 2005. Genetic correlations with floral display lead to sexual dimorphism in the cost of reproduction. American Naturalist 166: S31-S41.
12. Dommée B, Geslot A, Thompson JD, Reille M, Denelle N. 1999. Androdioecy in the entomophilous tree Fraxinus ornus (Oleaceae). New Phytologist 143: 419-426.
13. Freeman DC, Lovett Doust J, El-Keblawy A, Miglia K. 1997. Sexual specialization and inbreeding avoidance in the evolution of dioecy. Botanical Review 63: 65-92.
14. Gleiser G, Verdú M. 2005. Repeated evolution of dioecy from androdioecy in Acer. New Phytologist 165: 633-640.
15. Hedges LV, Olkin I. 1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.
16. Kalaian SA. 2003. Meta-analysis methods for synthesizing treatment effects in multisite studies: hierarchical linear modeling (hlm) perspective. Practical assessment, research & evaluation 8. Available online: http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=15.
17. Lloyd DG, Webb CJ. 1977. Secondary sex characters in plants. Botanical Review 43: 177-216.
18. Møller AP, Jennions MD. 2002. How much variation can be explained by ecologists and evolutionary biologists? Oecologia 132: 492-500.
19. Obeso JR. 2002. The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytologist 155: 321-348.
20. Osenberg CW, Sarnelle O, Goldberg DE. 1999. Meta-analysis in ecology: concepts, statistics, and applications. Ecology 80: 1103-1104.
21. Pannell JR. 2002a. The evolution and maintenance of androdioecy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 397-425.
22. Pannell JR. 2002b. What is functional androdioecy? Functional Ecology 16:862-865
23. Pannell JR, Verdú M. 2006. The evolution of gender specialisation from dimorphic hermaphroditism: paths from heterodichogamy to gynodioecy and androdioecy. Evolution 60: 660-673.
24. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. 2002. Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
25. Reznick D. 1985. Cost of reproduction: an evaluation of the empirical evidence. Oikos 44: 257-267.
26. Rosenberg MS, Adams DC, Gurevitch J. 2000. Metawin: statistical software for meta-analysis, Version 2.0. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
27. Spanos KA, Gaitanis D. 2005. Study of reproductive biology of Fraxinus ornus through artificial pollinations and its impacts on population genetic evolution. World Conference on Ecological Restoration, Zaragoza, Spain, 12-17 September 2005 (Abstracts).
28. Thornthwaite CV. 1948. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geographical Review 38: 55-94.
29. Tuomi J, Hakala T, Haukioja E. 1983. Alternative concepts of reproductive effort, cost of reproduction, and selection in life-history evolution. American Zoologist 23: 25-34.
30. Verdú M. 2004. Physiological and reproductive differences between hermaphrodites and males in the androdioecious plant Fraxinus ornus. Oikos 105: 239-246.
31. Verdú M, García-Fayos P. 1998. Female biased sex ratios in Pistacia lentiscus L. (Anacardiaceae). Plant Ecology 135: 95-101.
32. Verdú M, Gleiser G. 2006. Adaptive evolution of reproductive and vegetative traits driven by breeding systems. New Phytologist 169: 409-417.
33. Verdú M, Traveset A. 2004. Bridging meta-analysis and the comparative method: a test of seed size effect on germination after frugivores' gut passage. Oecologia 138: 414-418.
34. Verdú M, Traveset A. 2005. Early emergence enhances plant fitness: a phylogenetically controlled meta-analysis. Ecology 86: 1385-1394.
35. Verdú M, Montilla AI, Pannell JR. 2004. Paternal effects on functional gender account for cryptic dioecy in a perennial plant. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 271: 2017-2023.
36. Verdú M, González-Martínez SV, Montilla AI, Mateu I, Pannell JR. 2006. Ovule discounting in an outcrossing, cryptically dioecious tree. Evolution 60: 2056-2063.
37. Wallace CS, Rundel PW. 1979. Sexual dimorphism and sexual allocation in males and females shrubs of Simmondsia chinensis. Oecologia 44: 34-39.
38. Wallander E. 2001. Evolution of wind-pollination in Fraxinus (Oleaceae) - an ecophylogenetic approach. PhD Thesis, Göteborg University, Sweden.
39. Webb CJ. 1999. Empirical studies: evolution and maintenance of dimorphic breeding systems. In: Geber MA, Dawson TE, Delph LE eds. Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. New York, NY: Springer, 61-95.
40. Wheelwright NT, Logan BA. 2004. Previous-year reproduction reduces photosynthetic capacity and slows lifetime growth in females of a neotropical tree. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 31: 803-813.
41. Zahoueh S, Lepart J, Mauchamp A, Rambal S. 1991. Structure modulaire et integration physiologique chez une espece dioique: Pistacia terebinthus L. Naturalia Monspeliensia n h.s.: 519-531.