Alpine Botany

, Volume 129, Issue 1, pp 1–9 | Cite as

Female-biased sex ratio despite the absence of spatial and niche segregation between sexes in alpine populations of dioecious Salix lapponum (Salicaceae)

  • Michal HronešEmail author
  • Soňa Hrachová Macurová
  • Zbyněk Hradílek
  • Petr Hekera
  • Martin Duchoslav
Short Communication


Dioecious plants often exhibit deviations from expected 1:1 sex ratios. Genus Salix is a notable example of the female-biased sex ratio. Quite surprisingly, there are very few studies retesting observed bias patterns from the different parts of the species range. We have determined whether isolated subalpine populations of Salix lapponum exhibit a biased secondary sex ratio, measured the size of the plants, and tested the spatial and ecological correlations of the bias at fine and broad scales. Males were generally taller than females, suggesting that a different allocation of resources may occur in both sexes. Despite this, we found consistent female bias with females on average twice as common as males in most populations studied. No correlations of sex ratio with elevation as a proxy of environmental harshness and proportion of non-flowering individuals were found. Additionally, no differences in spatial sex segregation and microhabitat preferences were found between males and females at a fine scale within the studied populations. Our results suggest that the biased sex ratio in S. lapponum is not environment-dependent and probably originates during early stages of ontogenetic development (seeds).


Dioecy Niche differentiation Secondary sexual dimorphism Sex ratio bias Spatial sex segregation Willow 



We are grateful to workers of the Krkonoše National Park administration, namely J. Zahradníková and D. Gluzová, for help with obtaining research permit and field work, respectively. L. Čáp helped with nitrogen analysis. We thank the anonymous reviewer for many useful comments on the manuscript. Field work was carried out under research permits no 8/2010, 112/2012 and 113/2012. MH, SHM, ZH & MD were supported by the project no. IGA PrF-2018-001 from the Internal Grant Agency of the Palacký University.

Author contributions

MH, SHM and MD conceived the study. MH and SHM conducted field work and soil sample analyses. MD and MH performed data analyses. ZH determined the collected bryophytes. PH helped with soil sample analyses. MH wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All of the authors contributed to and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Supplementary material

35_2018_213_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14.814 KB)
35_2018_213_MOESM2_ESM.docx (1.3 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 1.307 MB)
35_2018_213_MOESM3_ESM.docx (1.1 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 1.134 MB)


  1. Agren J (1988) Sexual differences in biomass and nutrient allocation in the dioecious Rubus chamaemorus. Ecology 69:962–973. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen GA, Antos JA (1993) Sex ratio variation in the dioecious shrub Oemleria cerasiformis. Am Nat 41:537–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alliende MC, Harper JL (1989) Demographic studies of a dioecious tree. I. Colonization, sex and age structure of a population of Salix cinerea. J Ecol 77:1029–1047. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alström-Rapaport C, Lascoux M, Gullberg U (1997) Sex determination and sex ratio in the dioecious shrub Salix viminalis L. Theor Appl Genet 94:493–497. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett SCH, Hough J (2013) Sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. J Exp Bot 64:67–82. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Stat Soc Ser B 57:289–300Google Scholar
  7. Bierzychudek P, Eckhart V (1988) Spatial segregation of the sexes of dioecious plants. Am Nat 132:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blanchet FG, Legendre P, Borcard D (2008) Forward selection of explanatory variables. Ecology 89:2623–2632. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Borcard D, Legendre P (2002) All-scale spatial analysis of ecological data by means of principal coordinates of neighbour matrices. Ecol Model 153:51–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borcard D, Legendre P, Avois-Jacquet C, Tuomisto H (2004) Dissecting the spatial structure of ecological data at multiple spatial scales. Ecology 85:1826–1832. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Braun-Blanquet J (1964) Pflanzensoziologie: Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charlesworth D (2016) Plant sex chromosomes. Annu Rev Plant Biol 67:397–420. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Che-Castaldo C, Crisafulli CM, Bishop JG, Fagan WF (2015) What causes female bias in the secondary sex ratios of the dioecious woody shrub Salix sitchensis colonizing a primary successional landscape? Am J Bot 102:1309–1322. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cox PA (1981) Niche partitioning between sexes of dioecious plants. Am Nat 117:295–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crawford RMM, Balfour J (1983) Female predominant sex ratios and physiological differentiation in arctic willows. J Ecol 71:149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dawson TE, Bliss LC (1989) Patterns of water use and the tissue water relations in the dioecious shrub, Salix arctica: the physiological basis for habitat partitioning between the sexes. Oecologia 79:332–343. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. de Jong TJ, van der Meijden E (2004) Sex ratio of some long-lived dioecious plants in a sand dune area. Plant Biol 6:616–620. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. de Jong TJ, van Batenburg FHD, van Dijk J (2002) Seed sex ratio in dioecious plants depends on relative dispersal of pollen and seeds: an example using a chessboard simulation model. J Evol Biol 15:373–379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Delph LF (1999) Sexual dimorphism in life history. In: Geber MA, Dawson TE, Delph LF (eds) Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Springer, Berlin, pp 149–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Delph LF, Meagher TR (1995) Sexual dimorphism masks life history trade-offs in the dioecious plant Silene latifolia. Ecology 76:775–785. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dudley LS (2006) Ecological correlates of secondary sexual dimorphism in Salix glauca (Salicaceae). Am J Bot 93:1775–1783. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Field DL, Pickup M, Barrett SCH (2013a) Comparative analyses of sex-ratio variation in dioecious flowering plants. Evolution 67:661–672. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Field DL, Pickup M, Barrett SCH (2013b) Ecological context and metapopulation dynamics affect sex-ratio variation among dioecious plant populations. Ann Bot 111:917–923. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford University Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grant MC, Mitton JB (1979) Elevational gradients in adult sex ratios and sexual differentiation in vegetative growth rates of Populus tremuloides Michx. Evolution 33:914–918PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Haase P (1995) Spatial pattern analysis in ecology based on Ripley’s K-function: Introduction and methods of edge correction. J Veg Sci 6:575–582. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris MS, Pannell JR (2008) Roots, shoots and reproduction: sexual dimorphism in size and costs of reproductive allocation in an annual herb. Proc Biol Sci 275:2595–2602. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Hroneš M, Hrachová Macurová S, Hradílek Z, Hekera P, Duchoslav M (2018) Habitat conditions, stage structure and vegetation associations of geographically isolated subalpine populations of Salix lapponum L. (Salicaceae) in the Krkonoše Mts (Czech Republic). Biologia 73:319–332. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hughes FMR, Johansson M, Xiong S, Carlborg E, Hawkins D, Svedmark M, Hayes A, Goodall A, Richards KS, Nilsson C (2010) The influence of hydrological regimes on sex ratios and spatial segregation of the sexes in two dioecious riparian shrub species in northern Sweden. Plant Ecol 208:77–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hultine KR, Grady KC, Wood TE, Shuster SM, Stella JC, Whitham TG (2016) Climate change perils for dioecious plant species. Nat Plants 2:16109. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hultine KR, Bush SE, Ward JK, Dawson TE (2018) Does sexual dimorphism predispose dioecious riparian trees to sex ratio imbalances under climate change? Oecologia 187:921–931. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Legendre P, Legendre L (2012) Numerical ecology, Ed. 3. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  33. Lloyd DG, Webb CJ (1977) Secondary sex characters in plants. Bot Rev 43:177–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lotwick HW, Silverman BW (1982) Methods for analysing spatial processes of several types of points. J Roy Stat Soc Ser B 44:406–413Google Scholar
  35. Meagher TR (1992) The quantitative genetics of sexual dimorphism in Silene latifolia (Caryophyllacae) I. Genetic variation. Evolution 46:445–457. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Mehlich A (1978) New extractant for soil test evaluation of phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, calcium, sodium, manganese and zinc. Commun Soil Sci Plan 9:477–492. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Myers-Smith IH, Hik DS (2012) Uniform female-biased sex ratios in alpine willows. Am J Bot 99:1243–1248. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Obeso JR (2002) The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytol 155:321–348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friedly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Szoecs E, Wagner H (2017) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.4-4. Accessed 1 Sept. 2017
  40. Peeters L, Totland Ø (1999) Wind to insect pollination ratios and floral traits in five alpine Salix species. Can J Bot 77:556–563. Google Scholar
  41. Peres-Neto P, Legendre P, Dray S, Borcard D (2006) Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87:2614–2625.;2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Pickup M, Barrett SCH (2012) Reversal of height dimorphism promotes pollen and seed dispersal in a wind-pollinated dioecious plant. Biol Lett 8:245–248. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Pogorzelec M (2008) Influence of chosen environmental abiotic factors on Salix lapponum L. populations in Polesie Lubelskie Region. Pol J Env Stud 17:581–586Google Scholar
  44. Pucholt P, Rönnberg-Wästljung AC, Berlin S (2015) Single locus sex determination and female heterogamety in the basket willow (Salix viminalis L.). Heredity 114:575–583. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Pucholt P, Hallingbäck HR, Berlin S (2017) Allelic incompatibility can explain female biased sex ratios in dioecious plants. BMC Genom 18:251. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosenberg MS, Anderson CD (2011) PASSaGE: pattern analysis, spatial statistics and geographic exegesis. Version 2. Method Ecol Evol 2:229–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sinclair JP, Emlen J, Freeman DC (2012) Biased sex ratios in plants: theory and trends. Bot Rev 78:63–86. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Skvortsov AK (1999) Willows of Russia and adjacent countries. Taxonomic and Geographic Revision. Joensuu Univ., JoensuuGoogle Scholar
  49. Slatkin M (1984) Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38:622–630. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Šmilauer P, Lepš J (2014) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO 5. Cambridge University, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sokal RR, Rohlf RJ (1995) Biometry: the principles of statistics in biological research. WH Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Stamati K, Hollingsworth PM, Russell K (2007) Patterns of clonal diversity in three species of sub-arctic willow (Salix lanata. Salix lapponum and Salix herbacea). Plant Sys Evol 269:75–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stehlik I, Barrett SCH (2005) Mechanisms governing sex-ratio variation in dioecious Rumex nivalis. Evolution 59:814–825. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Stehlik I, Friedmann J, Barrett SCH (2008) Environmental influence on primary sex ratio in a dioecious plant. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:10847–10852. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Taylor DR (1999) Genetics of sex ratio variation among natural populations of a dioecious plant. Evolution 53:55–62. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Turcotte J, Houle G (2001) Reproductive costs in Salix planifolia ssp. planifolia in subarctic Québec. Can Écosci 8:506–512. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ueno N, Suyama Y, Seiwa K (2007) What makes the sex ratio female-biased in the dioecious tree Salix sachalinensis? J Ecol 95:951–959. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss Botanical Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Plant Biosystematics and Ecology RG, Department of Botany, Faculty of SciencePalacký UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of SciencePalacký UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations