The influence of genotype and environment on the fecundity and facultative expression of apomixis inHieracium pilosella

Abstract

The potential for sexual reproduction in the facultative apomictHieracium pilosella was determined by pollinating with the closely related but morphologically distinctH. aurantiacum. The hybrid characteristics of the sexually produced progeny were used as markers for sex. Crossing was carried out under a range of environmental treatments to test the influence of (1) field versus glasshouse conditions, (2) nutrient level and the presence of a pathogen, and (3) photoperiod on the frequency of sex in facultative apomicticH. pilosella.

We found significantly more sexual reproduction in the glasshouse than in the field for the two populations tested, but no influence of nutrient level, presence of the pathogen, or individual genotype. Photoperiod was not a significant factor for the single population tested. In several of the experiments seed production was significantly different between the treatments, despite the absence of an effect on the frequency of sex, indicating greater plasticity in this trait.

In all three experiments a positive association was found between fecundity and the frequency of sex, with crosses producing sexual progeny having significantly more offspring than those that produced progeny exclusively via apomixis. We hypothesise that the cost of sex in this species may be offset by an increase in fecundity, with the cost of meiosis “diluted” by an increase in total progeny production.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Anderson R.M. &May R.M. (1986): The invasion, persistence and spread of infectious diseases within animal and plant communities.Philos. Trans., Ser. B 314: 533–570.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Anscombe F.J. (1948): The transformation of Poisson, binomial and negative-binomial data.Biometrika 35: 246–254.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bell G. (1982):The masterpiece of nature: the evolution and genetics of sexuality. Croom Helm, London.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bicknell R.A. (1994): Micropropagation ofHieracium aurantiacum.Pl. Cell. Tissue Organ. Cult. 37: 197–199.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bicknell R.A. &Borst N.K. (1994):Agrobacterium-mediated transformation ofHieracium aurantiacum.Int. J. Pl. Sci. 155: 467–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bicknell R.A., Borst N.K. &Koltunow A.M. (2000): Monogeni c inheritance of apomixis in twoHieracium species with distinct developmental mechanisms.Heredity 84: 228–237.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bicknell R.A., Lambie S.C. &Butler C. (2003): Quantification of progeny classes in two facultatively apomictic accessions ofHieracium.Hereditas 138: 11–20.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bierzychudek P. (1989): Environmental sensitivity of sexual and apomicticAntennaria: do apomicts have general purpose genotypes?Evolution 43: 1456–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Boswell C.C. &Espie P.R. (1998): Uptake of moisture and nutrients byHieracium pilosella and effects on soil in a dry sub-humid grassland.New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 41: 251–261.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Burton G.W. (1982): Effect of environment on apomixis in bahiagrass.Crop. Sci. 22: 109–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ceplitis A. (2001): Genetic and environmental factors affecting reproductive variation inAllium vineale.J. Evol. Biol. 14: 721–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chapman H.M. &Bicknell R.A. (2000): Recovery of a sexual and an apomictic hybrid from crosses between facultative apomictsH. caespitosum andH. praealtum.New Zealand J. Ecol. 24: 81–85.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chapman H.M., Houliston G.J., Robson B., &Iline I. (2003): A case of reversal — the evolution and maintenance of obligate sexuals from facultative apomicts in an invasive weed.Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 719–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. de Kovel C.G.F. &de Jong G. (1999): Responses of sexual and apomictic genotypes ofTaraxacum officinale to variation in light.Pl. Biol. 1: 541–546.

    Google Scholar 

  15. de Kovel C.G.F. &de Jong G. (2000): Selection on apomictic lineages ofTaraxacum at establishment in a mixed sexual-apomictic population.J. Evol. Biol. 13: 561–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dunbrack R.L., Coffin C. &Howe R. (1995): The cost of males and the paradox of sex: an experimental investigation of the short-term competitive advantages of evolution in sexual populations.Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. B, Biol. Sci. 262: 45–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Evans L.T. &Knox R.B. (1969): Environmental control of reproduction inThemeda australis.Austral. J. Bot. 17: 375–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fan J. &Harris W. (1996): Effects of soil fertility level and cutting frequency on interference amongHieracium pilosella, H. praealtum, Rumex acetosella, andFestuca novae-zelandiae.New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 39: 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gadella T.W.J. (1991): Reproduction, variation and interspecific hybridisation in three species ofHieracium sectionPilosellina (Compositae).Polish Bot. Stud. 2: 85–103.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gounaris E.K., Sherwood R.T., Gounaris I., Hamilton R.H. &Gustine D.L. (1991): Inorganic salts modify embryo sac development in sexual and aposporousCenchrus ciliaris.Sexual Pl. Reprod. 4: 188–192.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Houliston G.J. &Chapman H.M. (2001): Sexual reproduction in field populations of the facultative apomict,Hieracium pilosella.New Zealand J. Bot. 39: 141–149.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Houliston G.J. &Chapman H.M. (2004): Reproductive strategy and population variability in the facultative apomictHieracium pilosella (Asteraceae).Amer. J. Bot. 91: 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Howard R.S. &Lively C.M. (1994): Parasitism, mutation accumulation and the maintenance of sex.Nature 367: 554–557.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Howell D.C. (1992):Statistical methods for psychology. Ed. 3. Duxbury Press, California.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jenkins T.A. (1992): A review of characteristics of mouse-ear hawkweed (Hieracium pilosella).New Zealand Ecol. Soc. Occas. Publ. 2: 15–23.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jenkins T.A. (1995):Fungal biological control of Hieracium. PhD Diss., University of Canterbury, Christchurch.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Knox R.B. (1967): Apomixis: seasonal and population differences in a grass.Science 157: 325–326.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Knox R.B. &Heslop-Harrison J. (1963): Experimental control of aposporous apomixis in a grass of theAndropogoneae.Bot. Not. 116: 127–141.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Koltunow A.M., Johnson S.D. &Bicknell R.A. (2000): Apomixis is not conserved in related, genetically characterisedHieracium plants of varying ploidy.Sexual Pl. Reprod. 12: 253–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Krahulcová A. &Krahulec F. (1999): Chromosome numbers and reproductive systems in selected representatives ofHieracium subgen.Pilosella in the Krkonoše Mts. (the Sudeten Mts).Preslia 71: 217–234.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Krahulcová A., Papoušková S. &Krahulec F. (2004): Reproduction mode in the allopolyploid facultatively apomictic hawkweedHieracium rubrum (Asteraceae, H. subgen.Pilosella).Hereditas 141: 19–30.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Levin D.A. (1975): Pest pressure and recombination systems in plants.Amer. Naturalist 109: 437–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lively C.M. (1992): Parthenogenesis in a freshwater snail: reproductive assurance versus parasitic release.Evolution 46: 907–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lively C.M. (1996): Host-parasite coevolution and sex.Bioscience 46: 107–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lively C.M. &Howard R.S. (1994): Selection by parasites for clonal diversity and mixed mating.Philos. Trans., Ser. B 346: 271–281.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. McWilliam J.R., Shanker K. &Knox R.B. (1970): Effects of temperature and photoperiod on growth and reproductive development inHyparrhenia hirta.Austral. J. Agric. Res. 21: 557–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Makepeace W. (1985): Growth, reproduction, and production biology of mouse-ear and king devil hawkweed in eastern South Island, New Zealand.New Zealand J. Bot. 23: 65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  38. May R.M. &Anderson R.M. (1983): Epidemiology and genetics in the coevolution of parasites and host.Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. B, Biol. Sci. 219: 281–313.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Michaels H.J. &Bazzaz F.A. (1989): Individual and population responses of sexual and apomictic plants to environmental gradients.Amer. Naturalist 134: 190–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Nygren A. (1951): Form and biotype formation inCalamagrostis purpurea.Hereditas 37: 519–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. O’Connell L.M. &Eckert C.G. (2001): Differentiation in reproductive strategy between sexual and asexual populations ofAntennaria parlinii.Evol. Ecol. Res. 3: 311–330.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Peck J.R. &Waxman D. (2000): What’s wrong with a little sex?J. Evol. Biol. 13: 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ridley M. (1993):The Red Queen: sex and the evolution of human nature. Viking, London.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Scott D. (1993): Response ofHieracium in two long term manipulative agricultural trials.New Zealand J. Ecol. 17: 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Scott D. (2000a): Fertiliser and grazing rejuvenation of fescue tussock grassland.New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 43: 481–490.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Scott D. (2000b): Sustainability of New Zealand high-country pastures under contrasting development inputs. 6. fertiliser efficiency.New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 43: 525–532.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Scott D., Robertson J.S. &Archie W.J. (1990): Plant dynamics of New Zealand tussock grassland infested withHieracium pilosella. I. effects of seasonal grazing, fertilizer and overdrilling.J. Appl. Ecol. 27: 224–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Stace C. (1997):New flora of the British Isles, second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Templeton A.R. (1982): The prophecies of parthenogenesis. In:Dingle H. &Hegmann J.P. (eds.),Evolution and genetics of life histories, Springer Verlag, New York, pp. 75–101.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Yeung E.C. (1989): Hieracium.CRC handbook of flowering 6. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Zar J.H. (1996):Biostatistical analysis. Ed. 3. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary J. Houliston.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Houliston, G.J., Chapman, H.M. & Bicknell, R.A. The influence of genotype and environment on the fecundity and facultative expression of apomixis inHieracium pilosella . Folia Geobot 41, 165–181 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02806477

Download citation

Keywords

  • Asteraceae
  • Compositae
  • Photoperiod
  • Pilosella
  • Sexual reproduction
  • Transgenic pollen