Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 885–898 | Cite as

A theoretical framework for resource translocation during sexual reproduction in modular organisms

Original Paper


An individual of modular organisms, such as plants and fungi, consists of more than one module that is sometimes physically and physiologically connected with each other. We examined effects of translocation costs, resource–fitness relationships and original resource conditions for modules on the optimal resource translocation strategy for reproductive success in modular organisms with simple models. We considered two types of translocation cost: amount-dependent and ratio-dependent costs. Three optimal resource translocation strategies were recognized: all resource translocation (ART), partial resource translocation (PRT), and no resource translocation (NRT). These strategies depended on the translocation cost, shape of resource–fitness curve, and original resource condition for each module. Generally, a large translocation cost and a concave resource–fitness relationship promoted NRT or PRT. Meanwhile, a small translocation cost and convex resource–fitness relationship facilitated ART. The type of translocation cost did not strongly affect the optimal resource translocation patterns, although ART was never an optimal strategy when the cost was ratio-dependent. Resource translocation patterns found in modular plants were discussed in the light of our model results.


Mathematical model Module Resource-fitness relationship Resource translocation Translocation cost 



We thank C. K. Kelly, S. F. Hasegawa, K. Kawamura and M. Ikegami for their valuable comments on our early draft of this paper. Two anonymous reviewers offered helpful comments and criticisms to improve our manuscript.


  1. Alpert P (1999) Clonal integration in Fragaria chiloensis differs between populations: ramets from grassland are selfish. Oecologia 120:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alpert P, Holzapfel C, Benson JM (2002) Hormonal modification of resource sharing in the clonal plant Fragaria chiloensis. Funct Ecol 16:191–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertin RI (1982) The ecology of sex expression in red buckeye. Ecology 63:445–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloom AJ, Chapin FS III, Moony HA (1985) Resource limitation in plants—an economic analogy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:363–392Google Scholar
  5. Caraco T, Kelly CK (1991) On the adaptive value of physiological integration in clonal plants. Ecology 72:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charnov EL (1982) The theory of sex allocation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Chesson P, Peterson AG (2002) The quantitative assessment of the benefits physiological integration in clonal plants. Evo Ecol Res 4:1153–1176Google Scholar
  8. Clifford PE (1992) Understanding the source-sink concept of phloem translocation. J Biol Edu 26:112–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crawley MJ (1985) Reproduction of oak fecundity by low density herbivore population. Nature 314:163–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Kroon H, Huber H, Stuefer JF, van Groenendaul JM (2005) A modular concept of phenotypic plasticity in plants. New Phytol 166:73–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eriksson O, Jerling L (1990) Hierarchical selection and risk spreading in clonal plants. In: van Groenendael J, de Kroon H (eds) Clonal growth in plants: regulation and function. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp 79–94Google Scholar
  12. Geiger DR (1979) Control of partitioning and export of carbon in leaves of higher plants. Bot Gaz 140:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harper JL, Rosen BR, White J (1986) Preface for “the growth and form of modular organisms”. Phil Trans Roy Soc Lond B 313:3–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hasegawa SF, Takeda H (2005) Behavior of current-year shoots as a mechanism to determine the floral sex allocation at the level of individual tree and population in Siberian alder (Alnus hirsuta var. sibirica). Trees 19:26–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hasegawa SF, Koba K, Tayasu I, Takeda T, Haga H (2003) Carbon autonomy of reproductive shoots of Siberian alder (Alnus hirsuta var. sibirica). J Forest Res 116:183–188Google Scholar
  16. Hay MJM, Kelly CK (2008) Have clonal plant biologists got it wrong? The case for changing the emphsis to disintegration. Evol Ecol 22:461–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herben T (2004) Physiological integration affects growth form and competitive ability in clonal plants. Evol Ecol 18:50–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hibbs DE, Fisher BC (1979) Sexual and vegetative reproduction of striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum L.). Bull Torrey Bot Club 106:222–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Honkanen H, Haukioja E, Kitunen V (1999) Responses of Pinus sylvestris branches to stimulated herbivory are modified by tree sink/source dynamics and by external resources. Funct Ecol 13:126–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hutchings MJ, Wijesinghe DK (1997) Patchy habitats, division of labour and growth dividends in clonal plants. Trends Ecol Evol 12:390–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ida T, Kudo G (2008) Timing of canopy closure influences carbon translocation and seed production of an understorey herb, Trillium apetalon (Trilliaceae). Ann Bot 101:435–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ito E, Kikuzawa K (2000) Differentiation of the timing of flower abortion in Tilia japonica. Plant Sp Biol 15:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaitaniemi P, Honkanen T (1996) Simulating source-sink control of carbon and nutrient translocation in a modular plant. Ecol Model 88:227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kawamura K, Takeda H (2006) Cost and probability of flowering at the shoot level in relation to variability in shoot size within the crown of Vaccinium hirtum (Ericaceae). New Pytol 171:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kelly CK (1994) On the economics of plant growth: stolon length and ramet initiation in the parasitic clonal plant Cuscuta europaea. Evol Ecol 8:459–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelly CK, Harris D, Perez-Ishiwara R (2001) Is breaking up hard to do? Breakage, growth and survival in the parasitic clonal plant Cuscuta corymbosa (Convolvulaceae). Amer J Bot 88:1458–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kinoshita E, Harada Y (1990) Sex change and population in Arisaema (Araceae) II. An examination on the evolutionary stability of sex changing schedule of A. serratum (Thub.) Schott. Plant Sp Biol 5:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kun Á, Oborny B (2003) Survival and competition of clonal plant populations in spatially and temporally heterogeneous habitats. Community Ecol 4:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lötsher M, Hay MJM (1997) Genotypic differences in physiological integration, morphological plasticity and utilization of phosphorus induced b variation in phosphate supply in Trifolium repens. J Ecol 85:341–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin T, Frommer WB, Salanoubat M, Willmitzer L (1993) Expression of an Arabidopsis sucrose synthase gene indicates a role in metabolization of sucrose both during phloem loading and in sink organs. Plant J 4:367–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matsui K (1995) Sex expression, sex change and fruiting habit in an Acer rufinerve population. Ecol Res 10:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Matthew GEM, Antos JA, Allen GA (2004) Modules of reproduction in females of the dioecious shrub Oemleria cerasiformis. Canad J Bot 82:393–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Newell EA (1991) Direct and delayed costs of reproduction in Aesculus californica. J Ecol 79:365–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oborny B, Czárán T, Kun Á (2001) Exploration of resource patches by clonal growth: a spatial model on the effect of transport between modules. Ecol Model 141:151–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ohashi K, Yahara T (2001) Behaviral responses of pollinators to cariation in floral display size and their influences on the evolution of floral traits. In: Chittla L, Thomson JD (eds) Cognitive ecology of pollination. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 274–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Penning De Vries FWT (1975) The cost of maintenance process in plant cells. Ann Bot 39:77–92Google Scholar
  37. Policansky D (1981) Sex choice and the size advantage model in jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum). Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 78:130–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sakai AK (1978) Ecological and evolutionary aspects of sex expression in silver maple Acer saccharium. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  39. Sprugel DG (2002) When branch autonomy fails: Milton’s low of resource availability and allocation. Tree Physiol 22:1119–1124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Sprugel DG, Hinckley TM, Schaap W (1991) The theory and practice of branch autonomy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 22:309–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stuefer JF, During HJ, de Kroon H (1994) High benefits of clonal integration in two stoloniferous species, in response to heterogeneous light environments. J Ecol 82:511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Suzuki A (2000) Patterns of vegetative growth and reproduction in relation to branch orders: the plant as spatially structured population. Trees 14:329–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Suzuki A (2001) Resource allocation to vegetative growth and reproduction at shoot level in Eurya japonica (Theaceae): a hierarchical investment? New Phytol 152:307–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tuomi J, Vuorisalo T (1989) What are the units of selection in modular organisms? Oikos 54:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ushimaru A, Matsui K (2001) Sex change in tree species: long-term monitoring of sex expression in Acer rufinerve. Nord J Bot 21:397–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Watson MA, Casper BB (1984) Morphogenetic constraints on patterns of carbon distribution in plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:233–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Human Development and EnvironmentKobe UniversityKobeJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Kuroshio ScienceKochi UniversityKochiJapan

Personalised recommendations