Floral dimorphism in plant populations with combined versus separate sexes

Annals of Botany

Volumn 108, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 765-776

  Yakimowski, Sarah B ^a   Glaettli, Mélanie ^a   Barrett, Spencer C H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

daily floral display; dioecy; flower size; monoecy; Sagittaria latifolia; sex ratios; Sexual dimorphism; sexual selection

Indexed keywords

AUTOGAMY; DIOECY; DISPERSAL; DISPLAY BEHAVIOR; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; FITNESS; FLORAL TRAIT; HERMAPHRODITE; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; INTERSPECIFIC COMPETITION; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MONOCOTYLEDON; MONOECY; PLANT COMMUNITY; POLLEN; POLLINATOR; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION; TRADE-OFF;

ARROWHEAD; ARTICLE; CANADA; CIRCADIAN RHYTHM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HISTOLOGY; INFLORESCENCE; ORGAN SIZE; OVULE; PHYSIOLOGY; POLLEN; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT; SEX RATIO;

CANADA; CIRCADIAN RHYTHM; INFLORESCENCE; ORGAN SIZE; OVULE; POLLEN; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT, HERITABLE; SAGITTARIA; SEX RATIO;

NORTH AMERICA;

ALISMATACEAE; ANIMALIA; HEXAPODA; SAGITTARIA LATIFOLIA;

EID: 80052675345     PISSN: 03057364     EISSN: 10958290     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcr025     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Arnold SJ. 1994. Bateman's principle and the measurement of sexual selection in plants and animals. American Naturalist 144: S126-S149.
2. Ashman T-L. 1999. Quantitative genetics of floral traits in a gynodioecious wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana: Implications of independent evolution of female and hermaphrodite floral phenotypes. Heredity 83: 733-741.
3. Ashman T-L. 2000. Pollinator selectivity and its implications for the evolution of dioecy and sexual dimorphism. Ecology 81: 2577-2591.
4. Ashman T-L, Diefenderfer C. 2001. Sex ratio represents a unique context for selection on attractive traits: Consequences for the evolution of sexual dimorphism. American Naturalist 157: 334-347.
5. Barrett SCH, Yakimowski SB, Field DL, Pickup M. 2010. Ecological genetics of sex ratios in plant populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 365: 2549-2557.
6. Bateman AJ. 1948. Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2: 349-369.
7. Bell G. 1985. On the function of flowers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 224: 223-265.
8. Charlesworth B. 1991. The evolution of sex chromosomes. Science 251: 1030-1033.
9. Charlesworth D. 2002. Plant sex determination and sex chromosomes. Heredity 88: 94-101.
10. Charnov EL. 1982. The theory of sex allocation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11. Costich DE, Meagher TR. 2001. Impacts of floral gender and whole-plant gender on the floral evolution in Ecballium elaterium. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 74: 475-487.
12. Delph LF. 1996. Flower size dimorphism in plants with unisexual flowers. In: Lloyd DG, Barrett SCH, eds. Floral biology: Studies on floral evolution in animal-pollinated plants. New York: Chapman and Hall, 217-237.
13. Delph LF, Ashman T-L. 2006. Trait selection in flowering plants: How does sexual selection contribute? Integrative and Comparative Biology 46: 465-472.
14. Delph LF, Galloway LF, Stanton ML. 1996. Sexual dimorphism in flower size. American Naturalist 148: 299-320.
15. Dorken ME, Barrett SCH. 2003. Life-history differentiation and the maintenance of monoecy and dioecy in Sagittaria latifolia (Alismataceae). Evolution 57: 1973-1988.
16. Dorken ME, Barrett SCH. 2004a. Sex determination and the evolution of dioecy from monoecy in Sagittaria latifolia (Alismataceae). Proceedings of the Royal Society London Series B 271: 213-219.
17. Dorken ME, Barrett SCH. 2004b. Phenotypic plasticity of vegetative and reproductive traits in monoecious and dioecious populations of Sagittaria latifolia (Alismataceae): A clonal aquatic plant. Journal of Ecology 92: 32-44.
18. Dorken ME, Friedman J, Barrett SCH. 2002. The evolution and maintenance of monoecy and dioecy in Sagittaria latifolia (Alismataceae). Evolution 56: 31-41.
19. Eckhart VM. 1999. Sexual dimorphism in flowers and inflorescences. In: Geber MA, Dawson TE, Delph LF, eds. Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 123-148.
20. Fenster CB, Carr DE. 1997. Genetics of sex allocation in Mimulus (Scrophulariaceae). Journal of Evolutionary Biology 10: 641-661.
21. Geber MA. 1999. Theories of the evolution of sexual dimorphism. In: Geber MA, Dawson TE, Delph LF, eds. Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 97-122.
22. Glaettli M, Barrett SCH. 2008. Pollinator responses to variation in floral display and flower size in dioecious Sagittaria latifolia. New Phytologist 179: 1193-1201.
23. Harder LD, Barrett SCH. 1996. Pollen dispersal and mating patterns in animal-pollinated plants. In: Lloyd DG, Barrett SCH, eds. Floral biology: Studies on floral evolution in animal-pollinated plants. New York: Chapman and Hall, 149-190.
24. Harder LD, Johnson SD. 2009. Darwin's beautiful contrivances: Evolutionary and functional evidence for floral adaptation. New Phytologist 183: 530-545.
25. Harder LD, Thomson JD. 1989. Evolutionary options for maximizing pollen dispersal of animal-pollinated plants. American Naturalist 133: 323-344.
26. Herrera CM, Castellanos MC, Medrano M. 2006. Geographical context of floral evolution: Towards an improved research programme in floral diversification. In: Harder LD, Barrett SCH, eds. Ecology and evolution of flowers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 278-294.
27. Huang SQ, Tang LL, Sun JF, Lu Y. 2006. Pollinator response to female and male floral display in a monoecious species and its implications for the evolution of floral dimorphism. New Phytologist 171: 417-424.
28. Humeau L, Paillet T, Thompson JD. 2003. Flower size dimorphism in diclinous plants native to La Réunion Island. Plant Systematics and Evolution 240: 163-173.
29. Lloyd DG. 1984. Gender allocation in outcrossing cosexual plants. In: Dirzo R, Sarukhán J, eds. Perspectives on plant population ecology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 277-300.
30. Lloyd DG, Webb CJ. 1977. Secondary sex characters in seed plants. Botanical Review 43: 177-216.
31. Lloyd DG, Yates JM. 1982. Intrasexual selection and the segregation of pollen and stigmas in hermaphrodite plants, exemplified by Wahlenbergia albomarginata (Campanulaceae). Evolution 36: 903-913.
32. Manly BFJ. 1997. Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology. London: Chapman and Hall.
33. Meagher TR. 1994. The quantitative genetics of sexual dimorphism in Silene latifolia. II. Evolution 48: 939-951.
34. Meagher TR. 1999. The quantitative genetics of sexual dimorphism. In: Geber MA, Dawson TE, Delph LF, eds. Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 123-148.
35. Morgan M. 1993. Fruit to flower ratios and trade-offs in size and number. Evolutionary Ecology 7: 219-232.
36. Muenchow G, Delesalle V. 1994. Pollinator response to male floral display size in two Sagittaria species (Alismataceae). American Journal of Botany 81: 568-573.
37. Nicolas M, Marais G, Hykelova V et al. 2005. A gradual process of recombination restriction in the evolutionary history of the sex chromosomes in dioecious plants. PLoS Biology 1: 47-56.
38. R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, http ://www.R-project.org.
39. Sakai S. 1993. Allocation to attractive structures in animal-pollinated flowers. Evolution 47: 1711-1720.
40. Sargent RD, Goodwillie C, Kalisz S, Ree RH. 2007. Phylogenetic evidence for flower size and number trade-off. American Journal of Botany 94: 2059-2062.
41. Sarkissian TS, Barrett SCH, Harder LD. 2001. Gender variation in Sagittaria latifolia (Alismataceae): Is size all that matters? Ecology 82: 360-373.
42. Schemske DW, Ågren J. 1995. Deceit pollination and selection on female flower size in Begonia involucra: An experimental approach. Evolution 49: 207-214.
43. Storey JD. 2002. A direct approach to false discovery rates. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 64: 479-498.
44. Sugiyama S, Bazzaz FA. 1998. Size dependence of reproductive allocation: The influence of resource availability, competition, and genetic identity. Functional Ecology 12: 280-288.
45. Thomson JD. 2006. Tactics for male reproductive success in plants: Contrasting insights of sex allocation theory and pollen presentation theory. Integrative and Comparative Biology 46: 390-397.
46. Thomson JD, Barrett SCH. 1981. Temporal variation of gender in Aralia hispida (Araliaceae). Evolution 35: 1094-1107.
47. Vamosi JC, Otto SP. 2002. When looks can kill: The evolution of sexually dimorphic floral display and the extinction of dioecious plants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269: 1187-1194.
48. Vamosi JC, Vamosi SM, Barrett SCH. 2006. Sex in advertising: Dioecy alters the net benefits of attractiveness in Sagittaria latifolia (Alismataceae). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 273: 2401-2407.
49. Verhoeven KJF, Simonsen KL, McIntyre LM. 2005. Implementing false discovery rate control: Increasing your power. Oikos 108: 643-647.
50. Willson MF. 1979. Sexual selection in plants. American Naturalist 113: 777-790.
51. Worley AC, Barrett SCH. 2000. Evolution of floral display in Eichhornia paniculata (Pontederiaceae): Direct and correlated responses to selection on flower size and number. Evolution 54: 1533-1545.
52. Wooten JW. 1971. The monoecious and dioecious conditions in Sagittaria latifolia (Alismataceae) L. Evolution 25: 549-553.