, Volume 135, Issue 4, pp 524–531 | Cite as

Gender-specific floral and physiological traits: implications for the maintenance of females in gynodioecious Lobelia siphilitica

  • Christina M. Caruso
  • Hafiz Maherali
  • Robert B. Jackson
Population Ecology


A common gender dimorphism in angiosperms is gynodioecy, in which hermaphrodites and females co-occur. Females are at an inherent disadvantage because they can transmit their genes only through ovule production. One mechanism by which females can compensate for the loss of male function is by producing more seeds than hermaphrodites. As such, females should: (1) increase resource uptake to support higher seed production; and (2) allocate resources saved by the loss of male function to seed production. To test this hypothesis, we measured physiological and floral traits of gynodioecious Lobelia siphilitica, controlling for both environmental and genetic variation through a comparison of greenhouse-grown siblings. Pre-reproductive females had 14% higher area-based (Z=2.14; P=0.04) and 32% higher mass-based (Z=1.96; P=0.05) photosynthetic rate than hermaphrodites, suggesting that they have increased carbon acquisition by altering photosynthetic physiology. Female L. siphilitica produced flowers with 4–8% smaller corollas than hermaphrodites (all P<0.05), suggesting that females allocate resources away from floral structures used for pollinator attraction. The genetic correlation between genders for four floral and four physiological traits was significantly less than one but greater than zero, indicating that the evolution of gender dimorphism in response to sex-differential selection will be constrained. The allocation of resources saved by the loss of male function has been viewed as the most important mechanism allowing females of gynodioecious species to support higher seed production. Our data suggest that increased resource acquisition by females at pre-reproductive stages can also contribute to the maintenance of gender dimorphism in gynodioecious species.


Flower size Photosynthesis Plant mating systems Plant gender Resource allocation 



We thank K Carlson, H McCaslin, S Gettings, A Mikulyuk, and E Twieg for their assistance in the greenhouse. S Ventis provided the drawings for Fig. 1. V Eckhart, M Johnston, and an anonymous reviewer provided valuable comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. This work was supported by Grinnell College's Committee for the Support of Faculty Scholarship, a National Science Foundation AIRE grant (awarded to Grinnell College), and the Grinnell College Biology Department. During the writing of this manuscript, C M Caruso was supported by a Postdoctoral Research Leave Fellowship from the American Association of University Women. H Maherali and R B Jackson were supported by the National Science Foundation and the Andrew W Mellon Foundation.


  1. Ashman T-L (1994) Reproductive allocation in hermaphrodite and female plants of Sidalcea oregana ssp. spicata (Malvaceae) using four currencies. Am J Bot 81:433–438Google Scholar
  2. Ashman T-L (1999) Quantitative genetics of floral traits in a gynodioecious wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana: implications for the independent evolution of female and hermaphrodite floral phenotypes. Heredity 83:733–741Google Scholar
  3. Ashman T-L, Diefenderfer C (2001) Sex ratio represents a unique context for selection on attractive traits: consequences for the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Am Nat 157:334–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey MF (2002) A cost of restoration of male fertility in a gynodioecious species, Lobelia siphilitica. Evolution 56:2178–2186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker HG (1948) Corolla size in gynodioecious and gynomonecious species of flowering plants. Proc Leeds Philos Lit Soc 5:136–139Google Scholar
  6. Beaudoin Yetter R (1989) The expression of male sterility in Lobelia siphilitica L. (Campanulaceae): a life history approach. PhD dissertation, Miami University, Miami, OhioGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell G (1985) On the function of flowers. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 224:223–265Google Scholar
  8. Chapman SC, Barreto HJ (1997) Using a chlorophyll meter to estimate specific leaf nitrogen of tropical maize during vegetative growth. Agron J 89:557–562Google Scholar
  9. Conner JK, Davis R, Rush S (1995) The effect of wild radish floral morphology on pollination efficiency by four taxa of pollinators. Oecologia 104:234–245Google Scholar
  10. Darwin C (1877) The different forms of flowers on plants of the same species. Appleton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawson TE, Geber MA (1999) Sexual dimorphism in physiology and morphology. In: Geber MA, Dawson TE, Delph LF (eds) Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 175–215Google Scholar
  12. Delph LF (1996) Flower size dimorphism in unisexual plants. In: Lloyd DG, Barrett SCH (eds) Floral biology: studies on floral evolution in animal-pollinated plants. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 217–237Google Scholar
  13. Dominee B, Assouad MW, Valdeyron G (1978) Natural selection and gynodioecy in Thymus vulgaris L. Bot J Linn Soc 77:17–28Google Scholar
  14. Dudle DA (1999) Maintenance and consequences of females in the gynodioecious plant, Lobelia siphilitica. PhD dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IndGoogle Scholar
  15. Dudle DA, Mutikainen P, Delph LF (2001) Genetics of sex determination in the gynodioecious species Lobelia siphilitica: evidence from two populations. Heredity 86:265–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Eckhart VM (1992a) Resource compensation and the evolution of gynodioecy in Phacelia linearis (Hydrophyllaceae). Evolution 46:1313–1328Google Scholar
  17. Eckhart VM (1992b) The genetics of gender and the effects of gender on floral characters in gynodioecious Phacelia linearis (Hydrophyllaceae). Am J Bot 79:792–800Google Scholar
  18. Eckhart VM (1993) Do hermaphrodites of gynodioecious Phacelia linearis (Hydrophyllaceae) trade off seed production to attract pollinators? Biol J Linn Soc 50:47–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eckhart VM (1999) Sexual dimorphism in flowers and inflorescences. In: Geber MA, Dawson TE, Delph LF (eds) Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 123–148Google Scholar
  20. Eckhart VM, Chapin FS (1997) Nutrient sensitivity of the cost of male function in gynodioecious Phacelia linearis (Hydrophyllaceae). Am J Bot 84:1092–1098Google Scholar
  21. Eckhart VM, Seger J (1999) Phenological and developmental costs of male sex function in hermaphroditic plants. In: Vuorisalo TO, Mutikainen PK (eds) Life history evolution in plants. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 195–213Google Scholar
  22. Evans JR (1989) Photosynthesis and nitrogen relationships in leaves of C3 plants. Oecologia 72:9–19Google Scholar
  23. Galen C, Newport MEA (1987) Bumble bee behavior and selection on flower size in the sky pilot, Polemonium viscosum. Oecologia 74:20–23Google Scholar
  24. Galen C, Sherry RA, Carroll AB (1999) Are flowers physiological sinks or faucets? Costs and correlates of water use by flowers of Polemonium viscosum. Oecologia 118:461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gouyon P, Vichot F, van Damme JMM (1991) Nuclear-cytoplasmic male sterility: single-point equilibria versus limit cycles. Am Nat 137:498–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnston MO (1991a) Natural selection on floral traits in two species of Lobelia with different pollinators. Evolution 45:1468–1479Google Scholar
  27. Johnston MO (1991b) Pollen limitation of female reproduction in Lobelia cardinalis and L. siphilitica. Ecology 72:1500–1503Google Scholar
  28. Johnston MO (1992) Effects of cross and self-fertilization on progeny fitness in Lobelia cardinalis and L. siphilitica. Evolution 46:688–702Google Scholar
  29. Kaul MLH (1988) Male sterility in higher plants. In Frankel R, Grossman M, Linsken HF, Maliga R, Riley R (eds) Monographs on theoretical and applied genetics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Kesseli R, Jain SK (1984) An ecological genetic study of gynodioecy in Limnanthes douglasii (Limnanthaceae). Am J Bot 71:775–786Google Scholar
  31. Lande R (1980) Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34:292–305Google Scholar
  32. Laporte MM, Delph LF (1996) Sex-specific physiology and source-sink relations in the dioecious plant Silene latifolia. Oecologia 106:63–72.Google Scholar
  33. Lewis D (1941) Male sterility in natural populations of hermaphrodite plants. New Phytol 50:56–63Google Scholar
  34. Lloyd DG (1975) The maintenance of gynodioecy and androdioecy in angiosperms. Genetica 45:325–339Google Scholar
  35. Mutikainen P, Delph LF (1998) Inbreeding depression in gynodioecious Lobelia siphilitica: among-family differences override between-morph differences. Evolution 52:1572–1582Google Scholar
  36. Poot P (1997) Reproductive allocation and resource compensation in male-sterile and hermaphroditic plants of Plantago lanceolata (Plantaginaceae). Am J Bot 84:1256-1265Google Scholar
  37. Poot P, Pilon J, Pons TJ (1996) Photosynthetic characteristics of leaves of male-sterile and hermaphrodite sex types of Plantago lanceolata grown under conditions of contrasting nitrogen and light availabilities. Physiol Plant 98:780–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poot P, van den Broek T, van Damme JMM, Lambers H (1997) A comparison of the vegetative growth of male-sterile and hermaphroditic lines of Plantago lanceolata in relation to N supply. New Phytol 135:429–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Renner SS, Ricklefs RE (1995) Dioecy and its correlates in the flowering plants. Am J Bot 82:596–606Google Scholar
  40. Sawhney VK, Shukla A (1994) Male sterility in flowering plants: are plant growth substances involved? Am J Bot 81:1640–1647Google Scholar
  41. Schepers JS, Francis DD, Vigil M, Below FE (1992) Comparison of corn leaf nitrogen concentration and chlorophyll meter readings. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 23:2173–2187Google Scholar
  42. Seger J, Eckhart VM (1996) Evolution of sexual systems and sex allocation in plants when growth and reproduction overlap. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:833–841Google Scholar
  43. Shykoff JA (1988) Maintenance of gynodioecy in Silene acaulis (Caryophyllaceae): stage-specific fecundity and viability selection. Am J Bot 75:844–850Google Scholar
  44. Slatkin M (1984) Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38:622–630Google Scholar
  45. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina M. Caruso
    • 1
    • 3
  • Hafiz Maherali
    • 2
    • 4
  • Robert B. Jackson
    • 2
  1. 1.Departments of Biology and MathematicsGrinnell CollegeGrinnellUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of BotanyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  4. 4.Department of BotanyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations