Sexual stability in the nearly dioecious Pinus johannis (Pinaceae)

American Journal of Botany

Volumn 100, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 602-612

  Flores Rentería, Lluvia ^a,b   Molina Freaner, Francisco ^a   Whipple, Amy V ^b   Gehring, Catherine A ^b   Dominguez C A ^a  

^a INSTITUTO DE ECOLOGÍA   (Mexico)

^b NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Dioecy; Gymnosperms; Paradioecy; Pinaceae; Pinus johannis; Secondary dimorphic features; Sexual stability; Unisexuality

Indexed keywords

CONIFEROUS TREE; DIOECY; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; MONOECY; POPULATION GENETICS; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM;

ARTICLE; BIOMASS; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HERBIVORY; PHYSIOLOGY; PINE; PLANT; REPRODUCTION; TIME; TREE;

BIOMASS; HERBIVORY; PINUS; PLANT SHOOTS; REPRODUCTION; TIME FACTORS; TREES;

EID: 84874877564     PISSN: 00029122     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.1200068     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. ÅGREN, J. 1988. Between-year variation in flowering and fruit set in frost-prone and frost-sheltered populations of dioecious Rubus chamaemorus. Oecologia 76: 175-183.
2. ÅGREN, J., K. DANELL, T. ELMQVIST, L. ERICSON, and J. HJÄLTÉN. 1999. Sexual dimorphism and biotic interactions. In M. A. Geber, T. E. Dawson, and L. F. Delph [eds.], Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants, 217-246. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
3. ALABADÍ, D., and M. A. BLÁZQUEZ. 2009. Molecular interactions between light and hormone signaling to control plant growth. Plant Molecular Biology 69: 409-417.
4. ALLISON, T. D. 1990. The influence of deer browsing on the reproductive biology of Canada yew (Taxus canadiensis). 1. Direct effect on pollen, ovule and seed production. Oecologia 83: 523-529.
5. ALLISON, T. D. 1991. Variation in sex expression in Canada yew (Taxus canadiensis). American Journal of Botany 78: 569-578.
6. ARCEO-GÓMEZ, G., V. PARRA-TABLA, and J. NAVARRO. 2009. Changes in sexual expression as result of defoliation and environment in a monoecious shrub in Mexico: Implications for pollination. Biotropica 41: 435-441.
7. ASHMAN, T. L. 2002. The role of herbivores in the evolution of separate sexes from hermaphroditism. Ecology 83: 1175-1184.
8. ÁVILA, N. J., M. E. GARCÍA, and A. J. REYES. 1992. Registro de Pinus discolor Bailey et Hawksworth en la Sierra de Monte Grande, San Luis Potosí, México. Acta Botanica Mexicana. 20: 9-12.
9. BAILEY, D. K., and F. G. HAWKSWORTH. 1983. Pinaceae of the Chihuahuan Desert region. Phytologia 53: 226-234.
10. BEAMAN, J. H., and J. W. ANDRESEN. 1966. The vegetation, floristics and phytogeography of the summit of Cerro Potosi, Mexico. American Midland Naturalist 75: 1-33.
11. BIERZYCHUDEK, P., and V. ECKHART. 1988. Spatial segregation of the sexes in dioecious plants. American Naturalist 132: 34-43.
12. BOECKLEN, W. J. and M. T. HOFFMAN. 1993. Sex-biased herbivory in Ephedra trifurca: The importance of sex-by-environment interactions. Oecologia 96: 49-55.
13. BOECKLEN, W. J., P. W. PRICE, and S. MOPPER. 1990. Sex and drugs and herbivores: Sex-biased herbivory in arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). Ecology 71: 581-588.
14. BULLOCK, S. H., and K. S. BAWA. 1981. Sexual dimorphism and the annual flowering pattern in Jacaratia dolichaula (D. Smith) Woodson (Caricaceae) in a Costa Rican rain forest. Ecology 62: 1494-1504.
15. CASE, A. L., and S. C. H. BARRETT. 2001. Ecological differentiation of combined and separate sexes of Wurmbea dioica (Colchicaceae). Ecology 82: 2601-2616.
16. CEPEDA-CORNEJO, V., and R. DIRZO. 2010. Sex-related differences in re-productive allocation, growth, defense and herbivory in three dioecious neotropical palms. PLoS ONE 5: e9824.
17. CHARLESWORTH, D. 1999. Theories of the evolution of dioecy. In M. A. Geber, T. E. Dawson and L. F. Delph [eds.], Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants, 33-60. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
18. CHARLESWORTH, D. 2002. Plant sex determination and sex chromosomes. Heredity 88: 94-101.
19. CHARLESWORTH, D., and B. CHARLESWORTH. 1987. Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18: 237-268.
20. CHARNOV, E. L. 1984. Behavioral ecology of plants. In J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies [eds.], Behavioral ecology: An evolutionary approach, 362-379. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA.
21. CLARK, D. A., and D. B. CLARK. 1987. Temporal and environmental patterns of reproduction in Zamia skinneri, a tropical rain forest cycad. Journal of Ecology 75: 135-149.
22. COBB, N. S., R. T. TROTTER III, and T. G.W HITHAM. 2002. Long-term sexual allocation in herbivore resistant and susceptible pinyon pine (P. edulis). Oecologia 130: 78-87.
23. DAWSON, T. E., And M. A. GEBER. 1999. Sexual dimorphism in physiology and morphology. In M. A. Geber, T. E. Dawson, and L. F. Delph [eds.], Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants, 175-215. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
24. DELPH, L. F., and D. E. WOLF 2005. Evolutionary consequences of gender plasticity in genetically dimorphic breeding systems. New Phytologist 166: 119-128.
25. DORKEN, M. E., and S. C. H. BARRETT. 2004. Sex determination and the evolution of dioecy from monoecy in Sagittaria latifolia (Alismataceae). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, Biological Sciences 271: 213-219.
26. EHLERS, B. K., and T. BATAILLON. 2007. 'Inconstant males' and the maintenance of labile sex expression in subdioecious plants. New Phytologist 174: 194-211.
27. FLORES-FLORES, J. D., and D. E. DÍAZ-ESQUIVEL. 1988. Tabla de vida y factores de mortalidad para conos y semillas de Pinus cembroides Zucco bajo condiciones naturales en el sur de Coahuila. In M. F. Passini, D. Cibrian-Tovar, and T. Eguiluz Piedra [eds.], Memorias del II Simposio Nacional sobre Pinos Piñoneros, Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico, 1987, 123-135. Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo, Chapingo, Mexico.
28. FLORES-RENTERÍA, L., A. VÁZQUEZ-LOBO, A. V. WHIPPLE, D. PIÑERO, J. MÁRQUEZ-GUZMÁN, and C. A. DOMÍNGUEZ. 2011. Functional bisporangiate cones in Pinus johannis (Pinaceae): Implications for the evolution of bisexuality in seed plants. American Journal of Botany 98: 130-139.
29. FLOYD, M. E. 1983. Dioecy in five Pinus edulis populations in the south-western United States. American Midland Naturalist 110: 405-411.
30. FOWLER, D. P. 1964. Effects of inbreeding in red pine, Pinus resinosa. Ait. Silvae Genetica 13: 170-177.
31. FREEMAN, D. C., E. D. MCARTHUR, K. T. HARPER, and A. C. BLAVER. 1981. Influence of environment on the floral sex ratio of monoecious plants. Evolution 35: 194-197.
32. FREEMAN, D. C., K. T. HARPER, and E. L. CHARNOV. 1980. Sex change in plants: Old observations and new hypotheses. Oecologia 47: 222-232.
33. FREEMAN, D. C., L. G. KLIKOFF, and K. T. HARPER. 1976. Differential resource utilization by the sexes of dioecious plants. Science 193: 597-599.
34. GAUQUELIN, T., V. BERTAUDIÈRE, W. BADRI, and N. MONTÈS. 2002. Sex ratio and sexual dimorphism in mountain dioecious thuriferous juniper (Juniperus thurifera L., Cupressaceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 138: 237-244.
35. GEBER, M. A., T. E.D AWSON, and L. F. DELPH. 1999. Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
36. GIVNISH, T. J. 1980. Ecological constraints of the evolution of breeding system in seed plants: Dioecy and dispersal in gymnosperms. Evolution 34: 959-972.
37. GRIER, N. M. 1917. Sexual dimorphism and variation in Ginkgo biloba L. Torreya 17: 225.
38. 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.
39. HENDRIX, S. D., and E. J. TRAPP. 1981. Plant-herbivore interactions: Insect induced changes in host plant sex expression and fecundity. Oecologia 49: 119-122.
40. HODKINSON, I. D., T. S. JENSEN, and S. F. JR. MCLEAN. 1979. The distribution, abundance and host plant relationships of Salix-feeding psyllids (Homoptera: Psylloidea) in arctic Alaska. Ecological Entomology 4: 119-132.
41. ISZKULO, G. and A Boratyński. 2005. Different age and spatial structure of two spontaneous subpopulations of Taxus baccata as a result of various intensity of colonization process. Flora 200: 195-206.
42. ISZKULO, G., A. K Jasińska, M Giertych, and A Boratyński. 2009. Do secondary sexual dimorphism and female intolerance to drought influence the sex ratio and extinction risk of Taxus baccata? Plant Ecology 200: 229-240.
43. JORDANO, P. 1991. Gender variation and expression of monoecy in Juniperus phoenicea (L.) (Cupressaceae). Botanical Gazette 152: 476-485.
44. KIENER, W. 1935. Unisexual limber pines. Science 82: 193-194.
45. KORPELAINEN, H. 1998. Labile sex expression in plants. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 73: 157-180.
46. KRISCHIK, V. A., and R. F. DENNO. 1990. Patterns of growth, reproduction, defense, and herbivory in the dioecious shrub Baccharis halimifolia (Compositae). Oecologia 83: 182-190.
47. LEHTILÄ, K., and S. Y. STRAUSS. 1999. Effects of foliar herbivory on male and female reproductive traits of wild radish, Raphanus raphanistrum. Ecology 80: 116-124.
48. LEV-YADUN, S., and N. LIPHSCHITZ. 1987. The ontogeny of gender of Cupressus sempervirens L. Botanical Gazette 148: 407-412.
49. LLOYD, D. G. 1972. Breeding systems in Cotula L. (Compositae, Anthemideae). I. The array of monoclinous and diclinous systems. New Phytologist 71: 1181-1194.
50. LLOYD, D. G. 1976. The transmission of genes via pollen and ovules in gynodioecious angiosperms. Theoretical Population Biology 9: 299-316.
51. LLOYD, D. G., and C. J. WEBB. 1977. Secondary sex characters in plants. Botanical Review 43: 177-216.
52. MCCORMICK, J., and J. W. ANDRESEN. 1963. A subdioecious population of Pinus cembroides in southeast Arizona. Ohio Journal of Science 4: 159-163.
53. MEAGHER, T. R., and J. ANTONOVICS. 1982. The population biology of Chamaelirium luteum, a dioecious member of the lily family: Life history studies. Ecology 63: 1690-1700.
54. MIROV, N. T. 1967. The genus Pinus. Ronald Press, New York, New York, USA.
55. MONTESINOS, D., P. VILLAR-SALVADOR, P. GARCÍA-FAYOS, and M. VERDÚ. 2012. Genders in Juniperus thurifera have different functional responses to variations in nutrient availability. New Phytologist 193: 705-712.
56. MUELLER, R. C., B. D. WADE, C. A. GEHRING, and T. G. WHITHAM. 2005. Chronic herbivory negatively impacts cone and seed production, seed quality and seedling growth of susceptible pinyon pines. Oecologia 143: 558-565.
57. NARBONA, E., and R. DIRZO. 2010. Experimental defoliation affects male but not female reproductive performance of the tropical monoecious plant Croton suberosus (Euphorbiaceae). Annals of Botany 106: 359-369.
58. NE'EMAN, G., S. GOUBITZ, M. J. WERGER, and A. SHMIDA. 2011. Relationships between tree size, crown shape, gender segregation and sex allocation in Pinus halepensis, a Mediterranean pine tree. Annals of Botany 108: 197-206.
59. NUÑEZ, C. I., M. A. NUÑEZ, and T. KITZBERGER. 2008. Sex-related spatial segregation and growth in a dioecious conifer along environmental gradients in northwestern Patagonia. Ecoscience 15: 73-80.
60. OBESO, J. R. 2002. The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytologist 155: 321-348.
61. OWENS, J. N., and V. HARDEV. 1990. Sex expression in gymnosperms. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 9: 281-294.
62. PARRA-TABLA, V., V. RICO-GRAY, and M. CARBAJAL. 2004. Effect of defoliation on leaf growth, sexual expression and reproductive success of Cnidoscolus acinitifolius (Euphorbiaceae). Plant Ecology 173: 153-160.
63. PERRY, J. P. 1991. The pines of Mexico and Central America. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon, USA.
64. PRIMACK, R. B., and C. MCCALL. 1986. Gender variation in a red maple population (Acer rubrum; Aceraceae): A seven-year study of a "polygamodioecious" species. American Journal of Botany 73: 1239-1248.
65. PUTWAIN, P. D., and J. L. HARPER. 1972. Studies in the dynamics of plant populations: V. Mechanisms governing the sex ratio in Rumex acetosa L. & R. acetosella. Journal of Ecology 60: 113-129.
66. RENNER, S. S., L.B EENKEN, G. W. GRIMM, A. KOCYAN, and R. E.R ICKLEFS. 2007. The evolution of dioecy, heterodichogamy, and labile sex expression in Acer. Evolution 61: 2701-2719.
67. RENNER, S. S., and R. E. RICKLEFS. 1995. Dioecy and its correlates in the flowering plants. American Journal of Botany 82: 596-606.
68. RENNER, S. S., and H. WON. 2001. Repeated evolution of dioecy from monoecy in Siparunaceae (Laurales). Systematic Biology 50: 700-712.
69. RICHARDS, A. J. 1997. Plant breeding systems. Chapman and Hall, Cambridge, UK.
70. ROMERO-MANZANARES, A.2001. Historia natural, ecología de poblaciones y fitosociología de Pinus cembroides y Pinus johannis (piñoneros) del centro de Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Facultad de Ciencias, Mexico City, Mexico.
71. SAKAI, A. K., and S. G. WELLER. 1999. Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants: A review of terminology, biogeographic patterns, ecological correlates, and phylogenetic approaches. In M. A. Geber, T. E. Dawson, and L. F. Delph [eds.], Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants, 1-32. Springer, Berlin, Germany
72. SAS INSTITUTE. 2009. JMP: Version 8. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA.
73. SHMIDA, A., S. LEV-YADUN, S. GOUBITZ, and G. NE'EMAN. 2000. Sexual allocation and gender segregation in Pinus halepensis, P. brutia and P. pinea. In G. Ne'Eman and L. Trabaud [eds.], Ecology, biogeography and management of Pinus halepensis and P. brutia. Forest Ecosystems in the Mediterranean Basin, Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands.
74. SORENSEN, F. C. 1999. Relationship between self-fertility, allocation of growth, and inbreeding depression in three coniferous species. Evolution 53: 417-425.
75. STELKENS, R. B., and C. WEDEKIND. 2010. Environmental sex reversal, Trojan sex genes, and sex ratio adjustment: Conditions and population consequences. Molecular Ecology 19: 627-646.
76. SNYDER, M. A. 1993. Interactions between Albert's squirrel and Ponderosa pine: The relationship between selective herbivory and plant fitness. American Naturalist 141: 866-879.
77. THOMSON, V. P., A. B. NICOTRA, and S. A. CUNNINGHAM. 2004. Herbivory differentially affects male and female reproductive traits of Cucumis sativus. Plant Biology 6: 621-628.
78. TIKHONOVA, I. V. 2003. Sex structure of Scotch pine populations in the dry steppe. Russian Journal of Ecology 34: 370-374.
79. TIKHONOVA, I. V. 2007. Changes in the sex structure of pine populations related to temperature anomalies. Russian Journal of Ecology 38: 306-310.
80. TOSH, K. J., and G. R. POWELL. 1986. Proliferated, bisporangiate, and other atypical cones occurring on young, plantation-grown Larix laricina. Canadian Journal of Botany 64: 469-475.
81. USHIMARU, A., and K. MATSUI. 2001. Sex change in tree species: Long-term monitoring of sex expression in Acer rufinerve. Nordic Journal of Botany 21: 397-399.
82. VALLIUS, E., and V. SALONEN. 2000. Effects of defoliation on male and female reproductive traits of a perennial orchid, Dactylorhiza maculata. Functional Ecology 14: 668-674.
83. VERDÚ, M., P. GARCÍA-FAYOS, and G. GLEISER. 2004. Mites attack males of the sexually polymorphic tree Acer opalus more harmfully and more often. Functional Ecology 18: 592-597.
84. WAKUSHIMA, S., H. YOSHIOKA, and N. SAKURAI. 1997. Promotion of lateral female strobili production in Pinus densiflora by cytokinin application at a specific stage. Journal of Forest Research-JPN 2: 51-57.
85. WHITHAM, T. G., and S. MOPPER. 1985. Chronic herbivory: Impacts on architecture and sex expression of pinyon pine. Science 228: 1089-1091.
86. WILLIAMS, C. G., and O. SAVOLAINEN. 1996. Inbreeding depression in conifers: Implications for breeding strategy. Forest Science 42: 102-117.
87. 13C within Pinus koraiensis tree crowns. PLoS ONE 7: e35076.
88. ZLOTIN, R. I., and R. R. PARMENTER. 2008. Patterns of mast production in pinyon and juniper woodlands along a precipitation gradient in central New Mexico (Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge). Journal of Arid Environments 72: 1562-1572.