Increased maleness at flowering stage and femaleness at fruiting stage with size in an andromonoecious perennial, veratrum nigrum

Journal of Integrative Plant Biology

Volumn 50, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 1024-1030

  Liao, Wan Jin ^a   Zhang, Da Yong ^a  

^a BEIJING NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Andromonoecy; Phenotypic gender; Size dependent sex allocation; Veratrum nigrum

Indexed keywords

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; FLOWERING; HERB; PERENNIAL PLANT; PHENOTYPE; REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY; SEX ALLOCATION;

ARTICLE; BIOMASS; CHINA; FLOWER; FRUIT; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HISTOLOGY; PHENOTYPE; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; VERATRUM;

BIOMASS; CHINA; FLOWERS; FRUIT; PHENOTYPE; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; VERATRUM;

MAGNOLIOPHYTA; VERATRUM; VERATRUM NIGRUM;

EID: 48749093679     PISSN: 16729072     EISSN: 17447909     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7909.2008.00691.x     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Andrieu E, Debussche M, Thompson JD (2007). Size-dependent reproduction and gender modification in the hermaphroditic perennial plant Paeonia officinalis. Int. J. Plant Sci. 168, 435-441.
2. Bazzaz FA, Grace J (1997). Plant Resource Allocation. Academic Press, London.
3. Bell G (1985). On the function of flowers. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. Biol. Sci. 224, 223-265.
4. Bertin RI (1982). The evolution and maintenance of andromonoecy. Evol. Theor. 6, 25-32.
5. Bickel AM, Freeman DC (1993). Effects of pollen vector and plant geometry on floral sex-ratio in monoecious plants. Am. Mid. Nat. 130, 239-247.
6. Cadet C, Metz JAJ, Klinkhamer PGL (2004). Size and the not-so-single sex: Disentangling the effects of size and budget on sex allocation in hermaphrodites. Am. Nat. 164, 779-792.
7. Campbell DR (2000). Experimental tests of sex-allocation theory in plants. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 227-232.
8. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B (1981). Allocation of resources to male and female functions in hermaphrodities. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 15, 57-74.
9. Charnov EL (1982). The Theory of Sex Allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
10. Charnov EL, Bull JJ (1985). Sex allocation in a patchy environment: A marginal value theorem. J. Theor. Biol. 115, 619-624.
11. Day T, Aarssen LW (1997). A time commitment hypothesis for size-dependent gender allocation. Evolution 51, 988-993.
12. de Jong TJ, Klinkhamer PGL (2005). Evolutionary Ecology of Plant Reproductive Strategies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
13. Elle E, Meagher TR (2000). Sex allocation and reproductive success in the andromonoecious perennial Solanum carolinense (Solanaceae). II. Paternity and functional gender. Am. Nat. 156, 622-636.
14. Emms SK (1996). Temporal patterns of seed set and decelerating fitness returns on female allocation in Zigadenus paniculatus (Liliaceae), an andromonoecious lily. Am. J. Bot. 83, 304-315.
15. Fox JF (1993). Size and sex allocation in monoecious woody plants. Oecologia 94, 110-113.
16. Ghiselin MT (1969). The evolution of hermaphroditism among animals. Q. Rev. Biol. 44, 189-208.
17. Harder LD, Barrett SCH (1995). Mating cost of large floral displays in hermaphrodite plants. Nature 373, 512-515.
18. Harder LD, Barrett SCH (1996). Pollen dispersal and mating patterns in animal-pollinated plants. In: Lloyd DG, Barrett SCH, eds. Floral Biology. Chapman & Hall, New York. pp. 140-189.
19. Hess HE, Landolt E, Hirzel R (1967). Flora der Schweiz. Birkhauser-Verlag, Basel.
20. Huang SQ (2003). Flower dimorphism and the maintenance of andromonoecy in Sagittaria guyanensis ssp lappula (Alismataceae). New Phytol. 157, 357-364.
21. Ishii HS (2004). Increase of male reproductive components with size in an animal-pollinated hermaphrodite, Narthecium asiaticum (Liliaceae). Funct. Ecol. 18, 130-137.
22. Klinkhamer PGL, de Jong TJ (1997). Size-dependent allocation to male and female reproduction. In: Bazzaz FA, Grace J, eds. Plant Resource Allocation. Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 211-229.
23. Klinkhamer PGL, deJong TJ, Metz H (1997). Sex and size in cosexual plants. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12, 260-265.
24. Koelewijn HP, Hunscheid MPH (2000). Intraspecific variation in sex allocation in hermaphroditic Plantago coronopus (L.). J. Evol. Biol. 13, 302-315.
25. Liao WJ, Song QF, Zhang DY (2006). Pollen and resource limitation in Veratrum nigrum L. (Liliaceae), an andromonoecious herb. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 48, 1401-1408.
26. Liao WJ, Zhang QG, Zhang DY (2003). A preliminary study on the reproductive features of Veratrum nigrum along an altitudinal gradient. Acta Phytoecol. Sin. 27, 240-248 (in Chinese with an English abstract).
27. Lloyd DG (1980). Sexual strategies in plants. 3. A quantitative method for describing the gender of plants. N. Z. J. Bot. 18, 103-108.
28. Lloyd DG, Bawa KS (1984). Modification of the gender of seed plants in varying conditions. Evol. Biol. 17, 255-338.
29. Manicacci D, Despres L (2001). Male and hermaphrodite flowers in the alpine lily Lloydia serotina. Can. J. Bot. 79, 1107-1114.
30. Mendez M (1998). Modification of phenotypic and functional gender in the monoecious Arum italicum (Araceae). Am. J. Bot. 85, 225-234.
31. Primack RB, Lloyd DG (1980). Andromonoecy in the New Zealand montane shrub manuka, Leptospermum scoparium (Myrtaceae). Am. J. Bot. 67, 361-368.
32. Queller DC (1997). Pollen removal, paternity, and the male function of flowers. Am. Nat. 149, 585-594.
33. Sakai A, Sakai S (2003). Size-dependent ESS sex allocation in wind-pollinated cosexual plants: Fecundity vs. stature effects. J. Theor. Biol. 222, 283-295.
34. Sarkissian TS, Barrett SCH, Harder LD (2001). Gender variation in Sagittaria latifolia (Alismataceae): Is size all that matters? Ecology 82, 360-373.
35. Sato T (2002). Size-dependent resource allocation among vegetative propagules and male and female functions in the forest herb Laportea bulbifera. Oikos 96, 453-462.
36. Sato T (2004). Size-dependent sex allocation in hermaphroditic plants: the effects of resource pool and self-incompatibility. J. Theor. Biol. 227, 265-275.
37. Schlessman MA, Graceffa LM (2002). Protogyny, pollination, and sex expression of andromonoecious Pseudocymopterus montanus (Apiaceae, Apioideae). Int. J. Plant Sci. 163, 409-417.
38. Solomon BP (1985). Environmentally influenced changes in sex expression in an andromonoecious plant. Ecology 66, 1321-1332.
39. Solomon BP (1986). Sexual allocation and andromonoecy: Resource investment in male and hermaphrodite flowers of Solanum carolinense (Solanaceae). Am. J. Bot. 73, 1215-1221.
40. Spalik K (1991). On evolution of andromonoecy and overproduction of flowers: A resource allocation model. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 42, 325-336.
41. Vallejo-Marin M, Rausher MD (2007). Selection through female fitness helps to explain the maintenance of male flowers. Am. Nat. 169, 563-568.
42. Venable DL (1992). Size-number trade-offs and the variation of seed size with plant resource status. Am. Nat. 140, 287-304.
43. Wright SI, Barrett SCH (1999). Size-dependent gender modification in a hermaphroditic perennial herb. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. Biol. Sci. 266, 225-232.
44. Zhang DY (2006). Evolutionarily stable reproductive investment and sex allocation in plants. In: Harder LD, Barrett SCH, eds. Ecology and Evolution of Flowers. Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 41-60.
45. Zhang DY, Jiang XH (2002). Size-dependent resource allocation and sex allocation in herbaceous perennial plants. J.Evol. Biol. 15, 74-83.