, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 325–339 | Cite as

The maintenance of gynodioecy and androdioecy in angiosperms

  • D. G. Lloyd


Algebraic models of gynodioecy show that the effects on the equilibrium sex ratio of the relative survival and seed production of the sexes and of inbreeding of male-fertile plants are identical for all genic modes of inheritance, provided that different genotypes among male-fertile plants (or among females) do not differ in average fitness. The effects of three modes of inbreeding on equilibrium sex ratios are examined. If there is competition between self- and cross-fertilization of male-fertile individuals, a stable sexual dimorphism can be maintained by an outbreeding advantage of females if both the proportion of cross-fertilized seeds among those borne on male-fertile individuals,t, and the inbreeding depression (fitness inbred/outbred seeds),i, are less than one half. A lower frequency of females is obtained for the same values oft andi if self-fertilization precedes cross-fertilization. If self-fertilization follows cross-fertilization, gynodioecy cannot be maintained by an outbreeding advantage of females. When the sex phenotypes of gynodioecious populations are determined by cytoplasmic inheritance, females need only a slight advantage over males in survival, ovule production or outbreeding to persist at equilibrium. When determined by nuclear genes, androdioecy can be maintained by greater fecundity or a higher survival rate of males than of female-fertile plants, but not by an outbreeding advantage. Androdioecy cannot be maintained with cytoplasmic inheritance of sex. The models suggest explanations for the more frequent occurrence of gynodioecy than of andrdioecy, the high frequency of gynodioecy in Hawaii and New Zealand, and the origin of gynodioecy from hermaphrodite but not from monoecious ancestors.


Seed Production Sexual Dimorphism Genic Mode Nuclear Gene High Survival Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker, H. G. (1955). Self-compatibility and establishment after “long-distance” dispersal.Evolution 9: 347–349.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, H. G. (1967). Support for Baker's Law—as a Rule.Evolution 21: 853–856.Google Scholar
  3. Burrows, C. J. (1960). Studies in Pimelea. I. The Breeding System.Trans. R. Soc. N.Z. 88: 29–45.Google Scholar
  4. Carlquist, S. (1966). The biota of long-distance dispersal. IV. Genetic systems in the floras of oceanic islands.Evolution 20: 433–455.Google Scholar
  5. Carlquist, S. (1973). Island Biology. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Connor, H. E. (1960). Breeding systems in New Zealand grasses. III. Festuceae, Aveneae and Agrostideae.N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 3: 728–733.Google Scholar
  7. Connor, H. E. (1973). Breeding systems in Cortaderia.Evolution 27: 663–678.Google Scholar
  8. Darwin, C. (1877). The different forms of flowers on plants of the same species. Murray, London.Google Scholar
  9. Frankel, O. H. &J. B. Hair, (1937). Studies on the cytology, genetics and taxonomy of New Zealand Hebe and Veronica (Part 1).N.Z. Jl Sci. Technol. 18: 669–687.Google Scholar
  10. Gillett, G. W. (1972). The role of hybridization in the evolution of the Hawaiian flora. In: Taxonomy, phytogeography and evolution, (ed. byD. H. Valentine), pp. 205–209. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  11. Gilmartin, A. J. (1968). Baker's law and dioecism in the Hawaiian flora; an apparent contradiction.Pacif. Sci. 22: 285–292.Google Scholar
  12. Godley, E. J. (1966). Breeding systems in New Zealand plants. 4. Self-sterility in Pentachondra pumila.N.Z. Jl Bot. 4: 249–254.Google Scholar
  13. Heine, E. M. (1937). Observations on the pollination of New Zealand flowering plants.Trans. R. Soc. N.Z. 67: 133–148.Google Scholar
  14. Ho, Tai-Ying &M. D. Ross (1973). Maintenance of male sterility in plant populations. II. Heterotic models.Heredity 31: 282–286.Google Scholar
  15. Jain, S. K. (1959). Male sterility in flowering plants.Biblphia genet. 18: 101–166.Google Scholar
  16. Jain, S. K. (1961). On the possible adaptive significance of male sterility in predominantly inbreeding populations.Genetics 46: 1237–1240.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Laser, K. D. &N. R. Lersten (1972). Anatomy and cytology of microsporogenesis in cytoplasmic male sterile angiosperms.Bot. Rev. 38: 425–454.Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, D. (1941). Male sterility in natural populations of hermaphrodite plants.New Phytol. 40: 56–63.Google Scholar
  19. Lloyd, D. G. (1973). Sex ratios in sexually dimorphic Umbelliferae.Heredity 31: 239–249.Google Scholar
  20. Lloyd, D. G. (1974a). Theoretical sex ratios of dioecious and gynodioecious angiosperms.Heredity 32: 11–34.Google Scholar
  21. Lloyd, D. G. (1974b). The genetic contribution of individual males and females in dioecious and gynodioecious angiosperms.Heredity 32: 45–51.Google Scholar
  22. McComb, J. A. (1966). The sex forms of species in the flora of the south west of Western Australia.Aust. J. Bot. 14: 303–316.Google Scholar
  23. Rick, C. M. (1948). Genetics and development of nine male-sterile tomato mutants.Hilgardia 18: 599–633.Google Scholar
  24. Ross, M. D. (1970). Evolution of dioecy from gynodioecy.Evolution 24: 847–828.Google Scholar
  25. Ross, M. D. &R. F. Shaw (1971). Maintenance of male sterility in plant populations.Heredity 26: 1–8.Google Scholar
  26. Thomson, G. (1880). On the fertilization, etc., of New Zealand flowering plants.Trans. N. Z. Inst. 13: 244–291.Google Scholar
  27. Valdeyron, G., B. Dommee &A. Valdeyron, (1973). Gynodioecy; another computer simulation model.Am. Nat. 107: 454–459.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. G. Lloyd
    • 1
  1. 1.Botany DepartmentUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations