Sexual dimorphism in intra- and interspecific competitive ability of the dioecious herb Mercurialis annua

Plant Biology

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 218-222

  Sanchez Vilas J ^a   Turner, A ^a   Pannell, J R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Interspecific competition; Intrasexual competition; Resource requirements; Sexual dimorphism

Indexed keywords

COMPETITIVE ABILITY; DATA SET; DIOECY; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; GROWTH RATE; HERB; INTERSEXUAL INTERACTION; INTERSPECIFIC COMPETITION; INTRASEXUAL INTERACTION; POLLINATION; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM;

ANGIOSPERM; ARTICLE; BIOMASS; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANGIOSPERMS; BIOMASS; SEX CHARACTERISTICS;

MERCURIALIS ANNUA;

EID: 78650125663     PISSN: 14358603     EISSN: 14388677     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.2010.00408.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bertiller M., Sain C., Carrera A. (2002) Effect of fine-scale spatial variation of soil nitrogen on the performance of the sexes of Poa ligularis in patchy ecosystems of Northern Patagonia. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 163, 419-425.
2. Charlesworth B., Charlesworth D. (1978) A model for the evolution of dioecy and gynodioecy. The American Naturalist, 112, 975-997.
3. Charnov E.L., Bull J.J., Maynard Smith J. (1976) Why be an hermaphrodite? Nature, 263, 125-126.
4. Conn J.S., Blum U. (1981) Differentiation between the sexes of Rumex hastatulus in net energy allocation, flowering and height. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 108, 446-455.
5. Dawkins R. (1982) The extended phenotype. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
6. Dawkins R. (2004) Extended phenotype - but not too extended. A reply to Laland, Turner and Jablonka. Biology and Philosophy, 19, 377-396.
7. Eppley S.M. (2006) Females make tough neighbors: sex-specific competitive effects in seedlings of a dioecious grass. Oecologia, 146, 549-554.
8. Eppley S.M., Pannell J.R. (2009) Inbreeding depression in dioecious populations of the plant Mercurialis annua: comparisons between outcrossed progeny and the progeny of self-fertilized feminized males. Heredity, 102, 600-608.
9. Freeman D., Doust J., ElKeblawy A., Miglia K., McArthur E. (1997) Sexual specialization and inbreeding avoidance in the evolution of dioecy. Botanical Review, 63, 65-92.
10. Harris M., Pannell J. (2008) Roots, shoots and reproduction: sexual dimorphism in size and costs of reproductive allocation in an annual herb. Proceedings of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275, 2595-2602.
11. Houssard C., Thompson J., Escarre J. (1994) Do sex-related differences in response to environmental variation influence the sex-ratio in the dioecious Rumex acetosella. Oikos, 70, 80-90.
12. Levine J.M., HilleRisLambers J. (2009) The importance of niches for the maintenance of species diversity. Nature, 461, 254-257.
13. Lovett Doust J., O'Brien G., Lovett Doust L. (1987) Effect of density on secondary sex characteristics and sex ratio in Silene alba (Caryophyllaceae). American Journal of Botany, 74, 40-46.
14. Miller J., Lovett-Doust J. (1987) The effects of plant density and snail grazing on female and male spinach plants. New Phytologist, 107, 613-621.
15. Odling-Smee F.J. (1988) Niche construction phenotypes. In: Plotkin H.C. (Ed.), The role of behaviour in evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp 73-132.
16. Onyekwelu S.S., Harper J.L. (1979) Sex ratio and niche differentiation in spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) [12]. Nature, 282, 609-611.
17. Pannell J. (1997) Widespread functional androdioecy in Mercurialis annua L. (Euphorbiaceae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 61, 95-116.
18. Renner S., Ricklefs R. (1995) Dioecy and its correlates in the flowering plants. American Journal of Botany, 82, 596-606.
19. Sakai A.K., Weller S.G. (1999) Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants: a review of terminology, biogeographic patterns, ecological correlates, and phylogenetic approaches. In: Geber M.A., Delph L.F. (Eds), Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp 1-31.
20. Sánchez-Vilas J., Pannell J. (2010a) Differential niche modification by males and females of a dioecious herb: extending the Jack Sprat effect. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 23, 2262-2266.
21. Sánchez-Vilas J., Pannell J. (2010b) Sexual dimorphism in resource acquisition and deployment: both size and timing matter. Annals of Botany, in press.
22. Silvertown J. (2004) Plant coexistence and the niche. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19, 605-611.
23. Tilman D. (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.
24. Tutin T.G., Heywood V.H., Burges N.A., Valentine D.H., Walters S.M., Webb D.A. (1964) Flora Europaea. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
25. Tutin T.G., Heywood V.H., Burges N.A., Moore D.M., Valentine D.H., Walters S.M., Webb D.A. (1968) Flora Europaea. Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
26. Tutin T.G., Heywood V.H., Burges N.A., Moore D.M., Valentine D.H., Walters S.M., Webb D.A. (1972) Flora Europaea. Vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
27. Tutin T.G., Heywood V.H., Burges N.A., Moore D.M., Valentine D.H., Walters S.M., Webb D.A. (1980) Flora Europaea. Vol. 5. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
28. Wade K.M. (1981a) Experimental studies on the distribution of the sexes of Mercurialis perennis L. II. Transplanted populations under different canopies in the field. New Phytologist, 87, 439-446.
29. Wade K.M. (1981b) Experimental studies on the distribution of the sexes of Mercurialis perennis L. III. Transplanted populations under light screens. New Phytologist, 87, 447-455.
30. Yampolsky C., Yampolsky H. (1922) Distribution of sex forms in the phanerogamic flora. Bibliotheca Genetica, 3, 1-62.