Oecologia

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 255–257 | Cite as

Male reproductive effort and breeding system in an hermaphroditic plant

  • Daniel J. Schoen
Article

Summary

Male reproductive effort was estimated from flower, seed and fruit biomass data in populations of the self-compatible plant Gilia achilleifolia that differ in genetically estimated selfing rate. Male reproductive effort decreases with increased rate of selfing, a finding that is consistent with theoretical arguments pertaining to the allocation of resources to male and female reproductive functions in hermaphroditic organisms.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brown AHD, Allard RW (1970) Estimation of the mating system in open-pollinated maize populations using isozyme polymorphisms. Genetics 66:133–145Google Scholar
  2. Brown AHD, Matheson AC, Eldridge KG (1975) Estimation of the mating system of Eucalyptus obliqua L'Herit by using allozyme polymorphisms. Aust J Bot 23:931–949Google Scholar
  3. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1978a) A model for the evolution of dioecy and gynodioecy. Amer Natur 112:975–997Google Scholar
  4. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B (1978b) Population genetics of male sterility and the evolution of monecy and dioecy. Heredity 41:137–153Google Scholar
  5. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B (1981) Allocation of resources to male and female function in hermaphrodites. Bot J Linn Soc 15:57–74Google Scholar
  6. Charnov EL (1979) Simultaneous hermaphroditism and sexual selection. Natl Acad Sci USA Proc 76:2480–2484Google Scholar
  7. Charnov EL, Maynard Smith J, Bull JJ (1976) Why be an hermaphrodite? Nature 263:125–126Google Scholar
  8. Cruden RW (1977) Follen-ovule ratios: a conservative index of breeding system in flowering plants. Evolution 31:32–46Google Scholar
  9. Darwin C (1877) The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer EA (1981) Sexual allocation in a simultaneously hermaphroditic coral reef fish. Amer Natur 117:64–82Google Scholar
  11. Gadgil M, Bossert WH (1970) Life historical consequences of natural selection. Amer Natur 104:1–24Google Scholar
  12. Heath DJ (1977) Simultaneous hermaphroditism; cost and benefit. Jour theoret Biol 64:363–373Google Scholar
  13. Lloyd DG (1972) Breeding systems in Cotula L. (Compositae, Anthemideae). New Phytol 71:1181–1194Google Scholar
  14. Lloyd DG (1980a) Parental strategies in angiosperms. New Zealand J Bot 17:595–606Google Scholar
  15. Lloyd DG (1980b) Benefits and handicaps of sexual reproduction. Evol Biol 13:69–110Google Scholar
  16. Lovett Doust J, Harper JL (1980) The resource costs of gender and maternal support in an andromonoecious umbellifer, Smyrnium olusatrum L. New Phytol 85:251–264Google Scholar
  17. Maynard Smith J (1971) The origin and maintenance of sex. In: Group Selection, GC Williams (ed), Aldine, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Maynard Smith J (1978) The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge Univ Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Schoen DJ (1982) The breeding system of Gilia achilleifolia: variation in floral characteristics and outcrossing rate. Evolution (in press)Google Scholar
  20. Smith CA, Evenson WE (1978) Energy distribution in reproductive structures of Amaryllis. Amer J Bot 65:714–716Google Scholar
  21. Solbrig OT (1976) On the relative advantages of cross- and self-fertilization. Ann Missouri Bot Gard 63:262–276Google Scholar
  22. Vernet P, Harper JL (1980) The cost of sex in seaweeds. Biol J Linn Soc 13:129–138Google Scholar
  23. Williams GC (1975) Sex and Evolution. Princeton Univ Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel J. Schoen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations