Allometry of sexual size dimorphism in dioecious plants: Do plants obey rensch's rule?

American Naturalist

Volumn 178, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 596-601

  Kavanagh, P H ^a   Lehnebach, C A ^b   Shea, M J ^a   Burns, K C ^a  

^a VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON   (New Zealand)

^b Museum of New Zealand   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Allometry; Gender dimorphism; Leaf; New zealand; Seed

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; BODY SIZE; DIOECY; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; HERBARIUM; LEAF; PHYLOGENETICS; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SIZE; STEM;

ARTICLE; CLEMATIS; CONIFER; HISTOLOGY; NEW ZEALAND; PLANT LEAF; PLANT STEM; RUBIACEAE; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

CLEMATIS; CONIFEROPHYTA; NEW ZEALAND; PLANT LEAVES; PLANT STEMS; RUBIACEAE; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

NEW ZEALAND;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 80054961043     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/662175     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Abouheif, E., and D. J. Fairbairn. 1997. A comparative analysis of allometry for sexual size dimorphism: assessing Rensch's rule. American Naturalist 149:540-562.
2. Ackerly, D. D., and M. J. Donoghue. 1998. Leaf size, sapling allometry, and Corner's rules: phylogeny and correlated evolution in maples (Acer). American Naturalist 152:767-791.
3. Barrett, S. C. H. 2002. The evolution of plant sexual diversity. Nature Reviews 3:274-284.
4. Bond, W. J., and J. Midgley. 1988. Allometry and sexual differences in leaf size. American Naturalist 131:901-910.
5. Bond, W. J., and J. Midgley. 1989. Leaf size and inflorescence size may be allometrically related traits. Oecologia (Berlin) 78:427-429.
6. Brouat, C., M. Gibernau, L. Amsellem, and D. McKey. 1998. Corner's rules revisited: ontogenetic and interspecific patterns in leaf-stem allometry. New Phytologist 139:459-470.
7. Colwell, R. K. 2000. Rensch's rule crosses the line: convergent allometry of sexual size dimorphism in hummingbirds and flower mites. American Naturalist 156:495-510.
8. Corner, E. J. H. 1949. The durian theory and the origin of the modern tree. Annals of Botany 13:367-414.
9. Dale, J., P. O. Dunn, J. Figuerola, T. Lislevand, T. Sze ́kely, and L. A. Whittingham. 2007. Sexual selection explains Rensch's rule of allometry for sexual size dimorphism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274:2971-2979.
10. Delisle, F., C. Lavoie, M. Jean, and D. Lachance. 2003. Reconstructing the spread of invasive plants: taking into account biases associated with herbarium specimens. Journal of Biogeography 30:1033-1042.
11. Fairbairn, D. J. 1997. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:659-687.
12. Fairbairn, D. J., and R. F. Preziosi. 1994. Sexual selection and the evolution of allometry for sexual size dimorphism in the waterstrider, Aquarius remigis. American Naturalist 144:101-118.
13. Gregoire, T. G., H. T. Valentine, and G. M. Furnival. 1995. Sampling methods to estimate foliage and other characteristics of individual trees. Ecology 76:1181-1194.
14. Harris, M. S., and J. R. Pannell. 2010. Canopy seed storage is associated with sexual dimorphism in the woody dioecious genus Leucadendron. Journal of Ecology 98:509-515.
15. Herrera, C. M. 2009. Multiplicity in unity: plant subindividual variation and interactions with animals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
16. Niklas, K. J. 1994. Plant allometry: the scaling of form and process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
17. Obeso, J. R. 2002. The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytologist 155:321-348.
18. R Development Core Team 2007. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org
19. Rensch, B. 1960. Evolution above the species level. Columbia University Press, New York
20. Sakai, A. K., and S. G. Weller. 1999. Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants: a review of terminology, biogeographic patterns, ecological correlates, and phylogentic approaches. Pages 1-31 in M. A. Geber, T. E. Dawson, and L. F. Delph, eds. Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Springer, Berlin
21. Shucun, S., J. Dongmei, and S. Peili. 2006. The leaf size-twig size spectrum of temperate woody species along an altitudinal gradient: an invariant allometric scaling relationship. Annals of Botany 97: 97-107.
22. Smith, R. J., and J. M. Cheverud. 2002. Scaling of sexual dimorphism in body mass: a phylogenetic analysis of Rensch's rule in primates. International Journal of Primatology 23:1095-1135.
23. Stephens, P. R., and J. J. Wiens. 2009. Evolution of sexual size dimorphisms in Emydid turtles: ecological dimorphism, Rensch's rule, and sympatric divergence. Evolution 63:910-925.
24. Stuart-Fox, D. 2009. A test of Rensch's rule in dwarf chameleons (Bradypodion spp.), a group with female-biased sexual size dimorphism. Evolutionary Ecology 23:425-433.
25. Szekely, T., R. P. Freckleton, and J. D. Reynolds. 2004. Sexual selection explains Rensch's rule of size dimorphism in shorebirds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 101: 12224-12227.
26. Walker, S. P. W., and M. I. McCormick. 2009. Sexual selection explains sex-specific growth plasticity and positive allometry for sexual size dimorphism in a reef fish. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:3335-3343.
27. Warton, D. I., I. J. Wright, D. S. Falster, and M. Westoby. 2006. Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biological Reviews 81: 259-291.
28. Webb, C. J., D. G. Llyod, and L. F. Delph. 1999. Gender dimorphism in indigenous New Zealand seed plants. New Zealand Journal of Botany 37:119-130.
29. Webb, T. J., and R. P. Freckleton. 2007. Only half right: species with female-biased sexual size dimorphism consistently break Rensch's rule. PLoS ONE 9:1-10.
30. West, S. 2009. Sex allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
31. White, P. S. 1983. Corner's rules in eastern deciduous trees: allometry and its implications for the adaptive architecture of trees. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 110:203-212.