Ecological context and metapopulation dynamics affect sex-ratio variation among dioecious plant populations

Annals of Botany

Volumn 111, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 917-923

  Field, David L ^a   Pickup, Melinda ^a   Barrett, Spencer C H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biased sex ratios; costs of reproduction; dioecy; metapopulations; non equilibrium conditions; stress gradients

Indexed keywords

CLONAL ORGANISM; DEMOGRAPHY; DIOECY; ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS; FOUNDER EFFECT; HETEROGENEITY; METAPOPULATION; POPULATION MODELING; REPRODUCTIVE COST; SEX RATIO;

ARTICLE; ECOSYSTEM; PHYSIOLOGICAL STRESS; PHYSIOLOGY; PLANT PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; REPRODUCTION; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ECOSYSTEM; LOGISTIC MODELS; PLANT PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; POPULATION DYNAMICS; REPRODUCTION; STRESS, PHYSIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84877299824     PISSN: 03057364     EISSN: 10958290     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aob/mct040     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Allen GA, Antos JA. 1993. Sex ratio variation in the dioecious shrub Oemleria cerasiformis. American Naturalist 141: 537-553.
2. Barrett SCH, Hough J. 2013. Sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Journal of Experimental Botany 64: 67-82.
3. 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: Biological Sciences 365: 2549-2557.
4. Bell G. 1980. The costs of reproduction and their consequences. American Naturalist 116: 45-76.
5. Charlesworth D. 2002. Plant sex determination and sex chromosomes. Heredity 88: 94-101.
6. Charlesworth D, Guttman DS. 1999. The evolution of dioecy and plant sex chromosome systems. In: Ainsworth CC. ed. Sex determination in plants. Oxford: BIOSIS Scientific Publishers.
7. Dawson TE, Ehleringer JR. 1993. Gender-specific physiology, carbon isotope discrimination, and habitat distribution in boxelder, Acer negundo. Ecology 74: 798-815.
8. Delph LF. 1999. Sexual dimorphism in life history. In: Geber MA, Dawson TE, Delph LF. eds. Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
9. Eckert CG, Barrett SCH. 1995. Style morph ratios in tristylous Decodon ver-ticillatus (Lythraceae): Selection vs. historical contingency. Ecology 76: 1051-1066.
10. Edwards AWF. 2000. Carl Düsing (1884) on the regulation of the sex-ratio. Theoretical Population Biology 58: 255-257.
11. Eppley SM, Pannell JR. 2007. Sexual systems and measures of occupancy and abundance in an annual plant: testing the metapopulation model. American Naturalist 169: 20-28.
12. Field DL, Pickup M, Barrett SCH. 2013. Comparative analyses of sex-ratio variation in dioecious flowering plants. Evolution, in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/evo.12001.
13. Fisher RA. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. London: Oxford University Press.
14. Freeman DC, Klikoff LG, Harper KT. 1976. Differential resource utilization by sexes of dioecious plants. Science 193: 597-599.
15. de Jong TJ, Klinkhamer PGL. 2002. Sex ratios in dioecious plants. In: Hardy ICW. ed. Sex ratios: concepts and research methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Lloyd DG. 1973. Sex-ratios in sexually dimorphic Umbelliferae. Heredity 31: 239-249.
17. Lloyd DG, Webb CJ. 1977. Secondary sex characters in plants. Botanical Review 43: 177-216.
18. Meagher TR. 1981. Population biology of Chamaelirium luteum, a dioecious lily. II. Mechanisms governing sex ratios. Evolution 35: 557-567.
19. Morgan MT, Barrett SCH. 1988. Historical factors and anisoplethic population structure in tristylous Pontederia cordata L., a re-assessment. Evolution 42: 496-504.
20. Obbard DJ, Harris SA, Pannell JR. 2006. Sexual systems and population genetic structure in an annual plant: testing the metapopulation model. American Naturalist 167: 354-366.
21. Obeso JR. 2002. The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytologist 155: 321-348.
22. Palmer RA. 1999. Detecting publication bias in meta-analyses: a case study of fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection. American Naturalist 154: 220-233.
23. Pannell JR. 2006. Effects of colonization and metapopulation dynamics on the evolution of plant sexual systems. In: Harder LD, Barrett SCH. eds. Ecology and evolution of flowers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24. Pannell JR, Barrett SCH. 1998. Baker's law revisited: reproductive assurance in a metapopulation. Evolution 52: 657-668.
25. Pickering CM, Hill W. 2002. Reproductive ecology and the effect of altitude on sex ratios in the dioecious herb Aciphylla simplicifolia (Apiaceae). Australian Journal of Botany 50: 289-300.
26. Shelton AO. 2010a. The origin of female-biased sex ratios in intertidal sea-grasses (Phyllospadix spp.). Ecology 91: 1380-1390.
27. Shelton AO. 2010b. The ecological and evolutionary drivers of female-biased sex ratios: two-sex models of perennial seagrasses. American Naturalist 175: 302-315.
28. Sinclair JP, Emlen J, Freeman DC. 2012. Biased sex ratios in plants: theory and trends. Botanical Review 78: 63-86.
29. Sokal R, Rohlf F. 1995. Biometry, New York, NY: W.H Freeman.
30. Stehlik I, Barrett SCH. 2005. Mechanisms governing sex-ratio variation in dioecious Rumex nivalis. Evolution 59: 814-825.
31. Stevens DP, Van Damme JMM. 1988. The evolution and maintenance of gynodioecy in sexually and vegetatively reproducing plants. Heredity 61: 329-337.
32. Waser NM. 1984. Sex ratio variation in populations of a dioecious desert perennial, Simmondsia chinensis. Oikos 42: 343-348.