Male–male competition for mating or fertilization opportunities may in theory select for male manipulative adaptation that can harm males’ mates, leading to sexual conflict. Evolutionary theory predicts that selection will favor the manipulation by pollen of the duration of its recipients’ receptivity. However, there is insufficient evidence to show that pollen can exert effects on the duration of receptivity, a prerequisite for the evolution of pollen manipulative adaptation. Using a sexual diploid dandelion, Taraxacum japonicum, we conducted hand pollination experiments within and between populations to examine the effects of pollen on the timing of inflorescence (flower head) closure. We also examined the potential fitness consequences to the pollen recipients by field observation of seed production in populations with different inflorescence closure timing. Within-population experiments showed that pollination induced inflorescence closure even when some of the florets in the inflorescence were not yet pollinated with compatible pollen. Furthermore, between-population crosses revealed that pollen donors, recipients, and their interaction all influenced the timing of inflorescence closure. Different populations differed in the timing of inflorescence closure, which could affect the availability to the recipients of pollen for fertilization and thereby seed production. However, there were no significant differences in the rates of natural seed production in these populations. Our results demonstrate that pollen donors, as well as recipients, contribute to the duration of floral receptivity. We discuss the implications of our findings to the evolutionary theory of plant reproduction.
Dandelion Pollen competition Sexual conflict Sexual selection Taraxacum
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We are grateful to Yutaka Osada for statistical advice, Kenji Suetsugu for discussion and Sanako Matsumoto for the assistance in collecting plants. This study was supported by the Research Fellowship for Young Scientists from JSPS (16J03061) to D.K.
DK conceived the study, YK and DK performed the experiments and survey, and all authors contributed to write the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Arnqvist G, Edvardsson M, Friberg U, Nilsson T (2000) Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:10460–10464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernasconi G, Ashman TL, Birkhead TR, Bishop JDD, Grossniklaus U, Kubli E, Marshall DL et al (2004) Evolutionary ecology of the prezygotic stage. Science 303:971–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavrilets S (2000) Rapid evolution of reproductive barriers driven by sexual conflict. Nature 403:886–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotzy C, Arnqvist G (2009) Sperm competition favors harmful males in seed beetles. Curr Biol 19:404–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishii HS, Sakai S (2000) Optimal timing of corolla abscission: experimental study on Erythronium japonicum (Liliaceae). Funct Ecol 14:122–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokko H, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2006) Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:43–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kondoh M, Higashi M (2000) Reproductive isolation mechanism resulting from resolution of intragenomic conflict. Am Nat 156:511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lankinen Å, Green KK (2015) Using theories of sexual selection and sexual conflict to improve our understanding of plant ecology and evolution. AoB Plants 7:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lankinen Å, Kiboi S (2007) Pollen donor identity affects timing of stigma receptivity in Collinsia heterophylla (Plantaginaceae): a sexual conflict during pollen competition? Am Nat 170:854–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lankinen Å, Hellriegel B, Bernasconi G (2006) Sexual conflict over floral receptivity. Evolution 60:2454–2465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lankinen Å, Hydbom S, Strandh M (2017) Sexually antagonistic evolution caused by male–male competition in the pistil. Evolution 71:2359–2369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madjidian JA, Lankinen Å (2009) Sexual conflict and sexually antagonistic coevolution in an annual plant. PLoS ONE 4:e5477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore T, Haig D (1991) Genomic imprinting in mammalian development: a parental tug-of-war. Trends Genet 7:45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motten AF (1986) Pollination ecology of the spring wildflower community of a temperate deciduous forest. Ecol Monogr 56:21–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niu Y, Yang Y, Zhang ZQ, Li ZM, Sun H (2011) Floral closure induced by pollination in gynodioecious Cyananthus delavayi (Campanulaceae): effects of pollen load and type, floral morph and fitness consequences. Ann Bot 108:1257–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill SD (1997) Pollination regulation of flower development. Ann Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 48:547–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry JC, Sirot L, Wigby S (2013) The seminal symphony: how to compose an ejaculate. Trends Ecol Evol 28:414–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proctor HC, Harder LD (1995) Effect of pollination success on floral longevity in the orchid Calypso bulbosa. Am J Bot 82:1131–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ram KR, Wolfner MF (2007) Seminal influences: Drosophila Acps and the molecular interplay between males and females during reproduction. Integr Comp Biol 47:427–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rönn J, Katvala M, Arnqvist G (2007) Coevolution between harmful male genitalia and female resistance in seed beetles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:10921–10925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoen DJ, Ashman TL (1995) The evolution of floral longevity: resource allocation to maintenance versus construction of repeated parts in modular organisms. Evolution 49:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson AG (1981) Flower and fruit abortion: proximate causes and ultimate functions. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 12:253–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugano YC, Akimoto SI (2011) Mating asymmetry resulting from sexual conflict in the brachypterous grasshopper Podisma sapporensis. Behav Ecol 22:701–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takami Y, Fukuhara T, Yokoyama J, Kawata M (2018) Impact of sexually antagonistic genital morphologies on female reproduction and wild population demography. Evolution 72:2449–2461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torices R, Méndez M (2010) Fruit size decline from the margin to the center of capitula is the result of resource competition and architectural constraints. Oecologia 164:949–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigby S, Chapman T (2005) Sex peptide causes mating costs in female Drosophila melanogaster. Curr Biol 15:316–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins JF, Haig D (2003) What good is genomic imprinting: the function of parent-specific gene expression. Nat Rev Genet 4:359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu FY, Yahara T (2017) Recurved Taraxacum phyllaries function as a floral defense: experimental evidence and its implication for Taraxacum evolutionary history. Ecol Res 32:313–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar