Advertisement

Plant Ecology

, Volume 220, Issue 4–5, pp 529–539 | Cite as

Does plant allometry predict biased sex allocation in Triadica sebifera (L.) small (Euphorbiaceae)?

  • Courtney H. BabinEmail author
  • Jerome J. Howard
Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Early seed production by non-native plants may be important to their successful establishment and spread. Understanding the mechanisms underlying age- or size-biased seed production in introduced plants may also identify factors that contribute to propagule pressure and their success as invaders. Here, we asked whether differences in male and female reproductive allocation among individuals of the invasive woody plant species Triadica sebifera (L.) Small (Euphorbiaceae), a monoecious prolific seed producer, were consistent with a life-history trade-off involving sex allocation. We also asked if the quality of seeds produced by trees of different size differed in terms of seed size and germinability. We found no evidence that biomass allocation to either male or female function was related to plant size. Trees varied in ratio of female:male investment from 0.6 to 15.8, but investment ratio was also unrelated to plant size. We also found no relationship between plant size and seed size or mean germination time, and a weak negative relationship between percent seed germination and plant size. Overall, the results do not support the idea that patterns of reproductive sex allocation are the result of a life-history trade-off and are instead most consistent with local resource tracking by individual trees.

Keywords

Chinese tallow Triadica sebifera Life-history theory Sex allocation Germination 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Dawn Dawson and Jackie Bee Investments, LLC (Boutte), Katie Brasted at The Woodlands Conservancy (Belle Chasse), and Dominick Impastato (Kenner) for allowing land access to the field study sites used for this research. We also thank Brett Babin for his dedicated field assistance during the entire course of this study.

References

  1. Aarssen LW (2008) Death without sex—the ‘problem of the small’ and selection for reproductive economy in flowering plants. Evol Ecol 22:279–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell G, Koufopanou V (1986) The cost of reproduction. Oxf Surv Evol Biol 3:83–131Google Scholar
  3. Bonser SP, Aarssen LW (1996) Meristem allocation: a new classification theory for adaptive strategies in herbaceous plants. Oikos 77:347–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burd M, Allen TFH (1988) Sexual allocation strategy in wind-pollinated plants. Evolution 42:403–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burke MJ, Grime J (1996) An experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecology 77:776–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burns JH, Pardini EA, Schutzenhofer MR, Chung YA, Seidler KJ, Knight TM (2013) Greater sexual reproduction contributes to differences in demography of invasive plants and their noninvasive relatives. Ecology 94:995–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell DR (2000) Experimental tests of sex-allocation theory in plants. Trends Ecol Evol 15:227–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charnov EL (1982) The theory of sex allocation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Charnov EL, Bull J (1977) When is sex environmentally determined? Nature 266:828–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Jong TJ, Klinkhamer PGL (2005) Evolutionary ecology of plant reproductive strategies. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. DeWalt SJ, Siemann E, Rogers WE (2011) Geographic distribution of genetic variation among native and introduced populations of Chinese tallow tree, Triadica sebifera (Euphorbiaceae). Am J Bot 98(7):1128–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorken ME, Pannell JR (2008) Density-dependent regulation of the sex ratio in an annual plant. Am Nat 171:828–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fox J (1993) Size and sex allocation in monoecious woody plants. Oecology 94:110–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freeman DC, Klikoff LG, Harper KT (1976) Differential resource utilization by the sexes of dioecious plants. Science 193:597–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freeman DC, Harper KT, Charnov EL (1980) Sex change in plants: old and new observations and new hypotheses. Oecology 47:222–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman DC, McArthur ED, Harper KT, Blauer AC (1981) Influence of environment on the floral sex ratio of monoecious plants. Evolution 35:194–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gabler CA, Siemann E (2013) Timing of favorable conditions, competition, and fertility interact to govern recruitment of invasive Chinese tallow tree in stressful environments. PLoS ONE 8:e71446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Godfrey RK, Wooten JW (1981) Aquatic and wetland plants of the southeastern United States. University of Georgia Press, Athens, p 933Google Scholar
  19. Huang W, Carrillo J, Ding J, Siemann E (2012) Invader partitions ecological and evolutionary responses to above- and belowground herbivory. Ecology 93:2343–2352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Iwasa Y (1991) Sex change evolution and cost of reproduction. Behav Ecol 2:56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klinkhamer PGL, de Jong T, de Bruyn G (1989) Plant size and pollinator visitation in Cynoglossum officinale. Oikos 51:201–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klinkhamer PGL, de Jong T, Metz H (1997) Sex and size in cosexual plants. Trends Ecol Evol 12:260–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knops J, Koenig W (2012) Sex Allocation in California Oaks: trade-offs or resource tracking? PLoS ONE 7:e43492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kolar CS, Lodge D (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16:199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lloyd DG, Bawa KS (1984) Modification of the gender of seed plants in varying conditions. Evol Biol 17:255–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lobo JA, Ramos DDL, Braga AC (2016) Visitation rate of pollinators and nectar robbers to the flowers and inflorescences of Tabebuia aurea (Bignoniaceae): effects of floral display size and habitat fragmentation. Biol J Linn Soc 181:667–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKone MJ (1990) Characteristics of pollen production in a population of New Zealand snow-tussock grass (Chionochloa pallens Zotov). New Phytol 116:555–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyer R (2011) Triadica sebifera. In: Fire Effects Information System. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed 25 January 2017
  29. Ne’eman G, Goubitz S, Werger M, Shmida A (2011) Relationships between tree size, crown shape, gender segregation, and sex allocation in Pinus halepensis, a Mediterranean pine tree. Ann Bot 108:197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Obeso J (2002) The cost of reproduction in plants. New Phytol 155:321–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
  32. Radford AE, Ahles HE, Bell CR (1968) Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, p 1183Google Scholar
  33. Rejmanek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:1655–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Renne IJ, Gauthreaux SA, Gresham CA (2000) Seed dispersal of the Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum (L.) Roxb.) by birds in coastal South Carolina. Am Midl Nat 144:202–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reznick D (1985) Costs of reproduction: an evaluation of the empirical evidence. Oikos 44:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scheld HW, Cowles JR, Engler CR, Kleiman R, Shultz EB Jr (1984) Seeds of Chinese tallow tree as a source of chemicals and fuels. In: Shultz EB Jr, Morgan RP (eds) Fuels and chemicals from oil seeds: Technology and policy options: Symposium proceedings; 1982 January 3-8; Washington, DC. AAAS Selected Symposia Series 91. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado, pp 97-111Google Scholar
  37. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2003b) Herbivory, disease, and recruitment limitation, and success of alien and native tree species. Ecology 84:1489–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Silvertown J, Dodd M (1999) The demographic cost of reproduction and its consequences in balsam fir (Abies balsamea). Am Nat 154:321–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Solbrig OT (1981) Studies on the population biology of the genus Viola. II. The effect of plant size on fitness in Viola sororia. Evolution 35:1080–1093Google Scholar
  40. Stearns S (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Thomas SC (2011) Age-related changes in tree growth and functional biology: the role of reproduction. In: Meinzer FC, Lachenbruch B, Dawson TE (eds) Size- and age-related changes in tree structure and function. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 33–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tian N, Fan Z, Matney TG, Schultz EB (2017) Growth and stem profiles of invasive Triadica sebifera in the Mississippi Coast of the United States. For Sci 63(6):569–576Google Scholar
  43. Tracey AJ, Aarssen LW (2011) Competition and body size in plants: the between-species trade- off for maximum potential versus minimum reproductive threshold size. J Plant Ecol 4(3):115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vega-Frutis R, Marcías-Ordóñez R, Guevara R, Fromhage L (2014) Sex change in plants and animals: a unified perspective. J Evol Biol 27:667–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Warton DI, Hui FKC (2011) The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology 92:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Web Soil Survey (2016) Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed 18 Dec 2016
  47. Weiner J, Rosenmeier L, Massoni ES, Vera JN, Hernández Plaza E, Sebastià MT (2009) Is reproductive allocation in Senecio vulgaris plastic? Botany 87:475–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. West SA (2009) Sex Allocation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wharton DI, Duursma RA, Falster DS, Taskinen S (2012) smatr 3—an R package for estimation and inference about allometric lines. Methods Ecol Evol 3(2):257–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Willson MF, Price PW (1977) Evolution of inflorescence size in Asclepias (Asclepiadaceae). Evolution 31:4956–5511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yang Q, Li B, Siemann E (2014) Positive and negative biotic interactions and invasive Triadica sebifera tolerance to salinity: a cross-continent comparative study. Oikos 124:216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhang L, Zhang Y, Wang H, Zou J, Siemann E (2013) Chinese tallow trees (Triadica sebifera) from the invasive range outperform those from the native range with an active soil community or phosphorus fertilization. PLoS ONE 8:e74233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zou J, Rogers WE, DeWalt SJ, Siemann E (2006) The effect of Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) ecotype on soil-plant system carbon and nitrogen processes. Oecol 150:272–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesThe University of New OrleansNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations