Oecologia

, Volume 72, Issue 2, pp 161–169

Intersexual differences in phenology and damage by herbivores and pathogens in dioecious Rubus chamaemorus L.

  • J. Ågren
Original Papers

Summary

Shoot development and damage by herbivores and pathogens to male, female and non-floral ramets of the dioecious, perennial herb Rubus chamaemorus were studied in the field during three consecutive years. Leaves on male ramets were usually consumed more by herbivores and attacked more by fungi than were leaves on female ramets. Male ramets unfolded their leaves later than did female ramets. In 1983, when the level of herbivory was comparatively high, ramets that were fully developed in early June were more damaged by herbivores than were ramets that unfolded their leaves later. Non-floral ramets usually showed intermediate levels of damage compared to male and female flowering ramets.

Defoliation caused a greater increase in ramet mortality among females than among males in a field experiment. It is suggested that the different reproductive roles of males and females differently constrain the evolution of defense against herbivores and pathogens in dioecious plants. This may result in intersexual differences both in palatability to herbivores and susceptibility to pathogens.

Key words

Dioecy Herbivory Sexual dimorphism Optimal defence Rubus chamaemorus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ågren J, Elmqvist T, Tunlid A (1986) Pollination by deceit, floral sex ratios and seed set in dioecious Rubus chamaemorus L. Oecologia (Berlin) 70:332–338Google Scholar
  2. Agresti A (1984) Analysis of ordinal categorical data. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahti T, Hämet-Ahti L, Jalas J (1968) Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Ann Bot Fennici 5:169–211Google Scholar
  4. von Arx JA (1957) Mycosphaerella joerstadii auf Rubus chamaemorus. Acta Bot Neerl 6:337–340Google Scholar
  5. Baker HG (1976) “Misstake” pollination as a reproductive system with special reference to the Caricaceae. In: J Burley, BT Styles (eds) Tropical trees: variation, breeding and conservation. Academic Press, London, pp 161–169Google Scholar
  6. Barrett SCH, Helenurm K (1981) Floral sex ratios and life history in Aralia nudicaulis (Araliaceae). Evolution 35:752–762Google Scholar
  7. Bawa KS (1980) Evolution of dioecy in flowering plants. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 11:15–39Google Scholar
  8. Bawa KS, Opler PA (1978) Why are pistillate inflorescences of Simarouba glauca eaten less than staminate inflorescences? Evolution 32:673–676Google Scholar
  9. Bullock SH (1984) Biomass and nutrient allocation in a neotropical dioecious palm. Oecologia (Berlin) 63:426–428Google Scholar
  10. Chapin FS III, McKendrick JD, Johnson DA (1986) Seasonal changes in carbon fractions in Alaskan tundra plants of differing growth form: implications for herbivory. J Ecol 74:707–731Google Scholar
  11. Chapin FS III, Shaver GR, Kedrowski RA (1986) Environmental controls over carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus fractions in Eriophorum vaginatum in Alaskan tussock tundra. J Ecol 74:167–195Google Scholar
  12. Coley PD, Bryant JP, Chapin FS III (1985) Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 230:895–899Google Scholar
  13. Conn JS (1981) Phenological differentiation between the sexes of Rumex hastatulus: Niche partitioning or different optimal reproductive strategies? Bull Torrey Bot Club 108:374–378Google Scholar
  14. Correns C (1928) Bestimmung, Vererbung und Verteilung des Geschlechtes bei den höheren Pflanzen. In: E Baur, M Hartmann (eds) Handbuch der Vererbungswissenschaft, Vol. 2. Borntraeger, Berlin, pp 1–128Google Scholar
  15. Cox PA (1981) Niche partitioning between sexes of dioccious plants. Am Nat 117:295–307Google Scholar
  16. Cox PA (1982) Vertebrate pollination and the maintenance of dioecism in Freycinetia. Am Nat 120:65–80Google Scholar
  17. DanelL K, Elmqvist T, Ericson L, Salomonsson A (1985) Sexuality in willows and preference by bark-eating voles: defence or not? Oikos 44:82–90Google Scholar
  18. Eurola S, Hicks S, Kaakinen E (1984) Key to Finnish mire types. In: PD Moore (ed) European mires. Academic Press London, pp 11–117Google Scholar
  19. Gatin ŽI (1955) Biologičeskie osobennosti oblepichi i problema vvedenija ee v kul'turu dlja sadovodstva i lesnych polos. Problemy botaniki 2:339–374Google Scholar
  20. Gikalov SJa (1935) Otnošenie konopli k boleznjam i vrediteljam. In: NN Griško (ed) Biologija konopli. Tr Vsesojuznogo naučno-issledovatel'skogo instituta konopli 8: 165–172Google Scholar
  21. Gross KL, Soule JD (1981) Differences in biomass allocation to reproductive and vegetative structures of male and female plants of a dioecious, perennial herb, Silene alba (Miller) Krause. Am J Bot 68:801–807Google Scholar
  22. Hancock JF, Bringhurst RS (1980) Sexual dimorphism in the strawberry Fragaria chiloensis. Evolution 34:762–768Google Scholar
  23. Harper JL, White J (1974) The demography of plants. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 5:419–463Google Scholar
  24. Heide F (1927) Observations on the pollination of some flowers in the Dutch East Indies. Dan Bot Ark 5:1–7Google Scholar
  25. Herrera CM (1984) The annual cycle of Osyris quadripartita, a hemiparasitic dioecious shrub of Mediterranean scrublands. J Ecol 72:1065–1078Google Scholar
  26. Hippa H, Koponen S (1975) On the damage caused by the species of Galerucella (Col., Chrysomelidae) on cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus L.) in Finland and northern Norway. Rep Kevo Subarctic Res Stat 12:54–59Google Scholar
  27. Hultén E (1971) The circumpolar plants. II. Sv Vetenskapsakad Handl Ser 4. 13:1 Almqvist & Wiksell, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  28. Kay QON, Lack AJ, Bamber FC, Davies CR (1984) Differences between sexes in floral morphology, nectar production and insect visits in a dioecious species, Silene dioica. New Phytol 98:515–529Google Scholar
  29. Lloyd DG, Webb CJ (1977) Secondary sex characters in plants. Bot Rev 43:177–216Google Scholar
  30. Loehwing WF (1933) Physico-chemical aspects of sex in plants. Proc Soc Exp Biol & Med 30:1215–1220Google Scholar
  31. Lovett Doust J, Lovett Doust L (1985) Sex ratios, clonal growth and herbivory in Rumex acetosella. In: J White (ed) Studies on plant demography: a festschrift for John L. Harper. Academic Press, London, pp 327–341Google Scholar
  32. Mantel N (1966) Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemother Rep 50:163–170Google Scholar
  33. Neverova LA (1971) Sootnošenie raznopolych osobej i soderžanie v nich tanidov u nekotorych vidov ivy v okrestnostjach Ural'ska. Rast resursy 7:77–80Google Scholar
  34. Onyekwelu SS, Harper JL (1979) Sex ratio and niche differentiation in spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.). Nature 282:609–611Google Scholar
  35. Østgård O (1964) Molteundersøkelser i Nord-Norge. Investigations on Cloudberries (Rubus chamaemorus L.) in North-Norway. Forsk Fors Landbr 15:409–444Google Scholar
  36. Putwain PD, Harper JL (1972) Studies in the dynamics of plant populations. V. Mechanisms governing the sex ratio in Rumex acetosa and R. acetosella. J Ecol 60:113–129Google Scholar
  37. Redhead SA, Perrin PW (1972a) Asterobolus: a new parasitic hyphomycete with a novel dispersal mechanism. Can J Bot 50:409–412Google Scholar
  38. Redhead SA, Perrin PW (1972b) Asterobolus: a synonym of Valdensia. Can J Bot 50:2083–2084Google Scholar
  39. Resvoll TR (1929) Rubus chamaemorus L. A morphological-biological study. Nyt Mag Naturvid 67:55–129Google Scholar
  40. Schladweiler P (1968) Feeding behavior of incubating ruffed grouse females. J Wildl Mgmt 32:426–428Google Scholar
  41. Stanfield JF (1937) Certain physico-chemical aspects of sexual differentiation in Lychnis dioica. Am J Bot 24:710–719Google Scholar
  42. Stephenson AG Bertin RI (1983) Male competition female choice, and sexual selection in plants. In: L Real (ed) Pollination biology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida, pp 109–149Google Scholar
  43. Taylor K (1971) Biological flora of the British Isles. Rubus chamaemorus L. J Ecol 59:293–306Google Scholar
  44. Wallace CS, Rundel PW (1979) Sexual dimorphism and resource allocation in male and female shrubs of Simmondsia chinensis. Oecologia (Berlin) 44:34–39Google Scholar
  45. Zimmerman JK, Lechowitz MJ (1982) Responses to moisture stress in male and female plants of Rumex acetosella L. (Polygonaceae). Oecologia (Berlin) 53:305–309Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Ågren
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest Site ResearchSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations