Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 75, Issue 2, pp 285–290 | Cite as

Consequences of a mixed reproductive system in the hog peanut, Amphicarpaea bracteata, (Fabaceae)

  • E. Joseph Trapp
  • Stephen D. Hendrix
Original Papers

Summary

The forest annual, Amphicarpaea bracteata L. can reproduce via aerial chasmogamous, aerial cleistogamous, and subterranean cleistogamous flowers. Both plant size and light intensity influenced the utilization of the three modes of reproduction. chasmogamous and aerial cleistogamous flower number and the ratio of chasmogamous flowers to the total number of aerial flowers increased with plant size. The latter demonstrated a shift to xenogamy and outbreeding in larger plants. Light intensity indirectly influenced reproductive modes through its infuence on plant size. Seed set by both types of aerial flowers was low and unrelated to plant size. Subterranean seed number and the total dry weight of subterranean seeds per plant increased with size. The subterranean seeds of Amphicarpaea bracteata are thirty-four times larger than the aerial seeds (fresh weight). Under field conditions, subterranean seeds had greater germination after one year than acrial seeds. The plants arising from subterranean seeds were significantly larger and more fecund than those from aerial seeds. Seeds produced by aerial cleistogamous, hand selfpollinated chasmogamous, and naturally pollinated chasmogamous flowers had equivalent germination rates and produced plants of equal size and fecundity. This suggests that the outbred progeny from chasmogamous flowers have no advantage over the inbred progeny from aerial cleistogamous flowers.

Key words

Amphicarpy Cleistogamy Inbreeding Plant size Reproduction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allard HA (1932) Flowering behavior of the hog peanut in response to length of day. J Agric Res 44:127–137Google Scholar
  2. Cheplick GP, Quinn JA (1982) Amphicarpum purshii and the ‘pessimistic strategy’ in amphicarpic annuals with subterranean fruits. Oecologia (Berlin) 52:327–332Google Scholar
  3. Hurlbert SH (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr 54:187–211Google Scholar
  4. Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. Lloyd DG (1984) Variation strategies of plants in heterogenous environments. Biol J Linn Soc 21:357–385Google Scholar
  6. Lord EM (1981) Cleistogamy: a tool for the study of floral morphogenesis function and evolution. Bot Rev 47:421–449Google Scholar
  7. Myers JL (1979) Fundamentals of experimental design. Allyn & Bacon Inc., BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. Neter J, Wasserman W, Kunter MH (1983) Applied linear regression models. RD Irwin Inc., Homewood, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  9. Pilj L van der (1982) Principles of dispersal in higher plants. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. SAS Institute Inc. (1985) SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  11. Schemske DW (1978) Evolution of reproductive characteristics in Impatiens (Balsaminaceae): the significance of cleistogamy and chasmogamy. Ecology 59:596–613Google Scholar
  12. Schively AC (1897) Contributions to the life history of Amphicarpaea monoica Contrib Bot Lab Penna Univ 1:270–363Google Scholar
  13. Schnee BK, Waller DM (1986) Reproductive behavior of Amphicarpaea bracteata (Leguminosae), an amphicarpic annual. Am J Bot 73:376–386Google Scholar
  14. Schoen DJ, Lloyd DG (1984) The selection of cleistogamy and heteromorphic diaspores. Biol J Linn Soc 23:303–372Google Scholar
  15. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. WH Freeman & Co, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  16. Trapp, EJ (1986) Mixed reproductive tactics in the hog peanut, Amphicarpaea bracteata L. PhD thesis, Univ of Iowa, Iowa CityGoogle Scholar
  17. Turner BL, Fearing OS (1964) A taxonomic study of the genus Amphicarpaea (Leguminosae). Southwest Nat 9:207–218Google Scholar
  18. Uphof JCT (1938) Cleistogamic flowers. Bot Rev 4:21–49Google Scholar
  19. United States Environmental Data Service, Climatological Data (Iowa) Annual Survey (1983–1984) Vol 94–95, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climate Center, Asheville, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  20. Venable DL (1985) The evolution of seed heteromorphism. Am Nat 126:577–595Google Scholar
  21. Waller DM (1980) Environmental deteminants of outcrossing in Impatiens capensis (Balsaminaceae). Evolution 34:747–761Google Scholar
  22. Wilken DH (1982) The balance between chasmogamy and cleistogamy in Collomia grandiflora (Polemoniaceae). Am J Bot 69:1326–1333Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Joseph Trapp
    • 1
  • Stephen D. Hendrix
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Botany and Program in Evolutionary Ecology and BehaviorUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations