, Volume 146, Issue 1, pp 68–76 | Cite as

Variation in resource limitation of plant reproduction influences natural selection on floral traits of Asclepias syriaca

  • Christina M. Caruso
  • Davin L. D. Remington
  • Kate E. Ostergren
Plant Animal Interactions


The availability of both pollen and resources can influence natural selection on floral traits, but their relative importance in shaping floral evolution is unclear. We experimentally manipulated pollinator and resource (fertilizer and water) availability in the perennial wildflower Asclepias syriaca L. Nine floral traits, one male fitness component (number of pollinia removed), and two female fitness components (number of pollinia inserted and number of fruits initiated) were measured for plants in each of three treatments (unmanipulated control, decreased pollinator access, and resource supplementation). Although decreasing pollinators’ access to flowers did result in fewer pollinia inserted and removed, fruit set and phenotypic selection on floral traits via female and male fitness did not differ from the control. In contrast, resource supplementation increased fruit set, and phenotypic selection on seven out of nine floral traits was stronger via female than male fitness, consistent with the prediction that selection via female fitness would be greater when reproduction was less resource-limited. Our results support the hypothesis that abiotic resource availability can influence floral evolution by altering gender-specific selection.


Female fitness Male fitness Phenotypic selection Pollen limitation 



We thank B. Casper, H. Maherali, A. Parachnowitsch, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on this manuscript. D. Black (Jasper County Conservation Board) provided permission to work on public land and J. Brown provided access to a digital imaging system. I. Smith provided the drawing for Fig. 1. This work was supported by a National Science Foundation AIRE grant (awarded to Grinnell College) and the Grinnell College Committee in Support of Faculty Scholarship. During the writing of this manuscript, C. M. Caruso was supported by an operating grant from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


  1. Arnold SJ, Wade MJ (1984) On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 38:709–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashman T-L, Diefenderfer C (2001) Sex ratio represents a unique context for selection on attractive traits: consequences for the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Am Nat 157:334–347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashman T-L, Morgan M (2004) Explaining phenotypic selection on plant attractive characters: male function, gender balance, or ecological context? Proc R Soc Lond B 271:553–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashman T-L, Knight TM, Steets JA, Amarasekare P, Burd M, Campbell DR, Dudash MR, Johnston MO, Mazer SJ, Mitchell RJ, Morgan MT, Wilson WG (2004) Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: ecological and evolutionary causes and consequences. Ecology 85:2408–2421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broyles SB, Wyatt R (1990) Paternity analysis in a natural population of Asclepias exaltata: multiple paternity, functional gender, and the “pollen-donation” hypothesis. Evolution 44:1454–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell DR (1991) Effects of floral traits on sequential components of fitness in Ipomopsis aggregata. Am Nat 137:713–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell DR, Halama KJ (1993) Resource and pollen limitations to lifetime seed production in a natural plant population. Ecology 74:1043–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caruso CM (2000) Competition for pollination influences selection on floral traits of Ipomopsis aggregata. Evolution 54:1546–1557PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Conner JK (1988) Field measurements of natural and sexual selection in the fungus beetle, Bolitotherus cornutus. Evolution 42:736–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conner JK (2001) How strong is natural selection? Trends Ecol Evol 16:215–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conner JK, Hartl DL (2004) A primer of ecological genetics. Sinauer Press, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Crow JF (1958) Some possibilities for measuring selection intensities in man. Hum Biol 30:1–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dudley SA (1996) Differing selection on plant physiological traits in response to environmental water availability: a test of adaptive hypotheses. Evolution 50:92–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galen C (1996) Rates of floral evolution: adaptation to bumblebee pollination in an alpine wildflower, Polemonium viscosum. Evolution 50:120–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haig D, Westoby M (1988) On limits to seed production. Am Nat 131:757–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herzmann D (2004) IEM climodat interface. Available at: Scholar
  18. Johnston MO (1991a) Natural selection on floral traits in two species of Lobelia with different pollinators. Evolution 45:1468–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnston MO (1991b) Pollen limitation of female reproduction in Lobelia cardinalis and L. siphilitica. Ecology 72:1500–1503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Juenger T, Bergelson J (1997) Pollen and resource limitation of compensation to herbivory in scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata. Ecology 78:1684–1695Google Scholar
  21. Kingsolver JG, Hoekstra HE, Hoekstra JM, Berrigan D, Vignieri SN, Hill CE, Hoang A, Gibert P, Beerli P (2001) The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. Am Nat 157:245–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lande R, Arnold SJ (1983) The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lipow SR, Wyatt R (1999) Diallel crosses reveal patterns of variation in fruit-set, seed mass, and seed number in Asclepias incarnata. Heredity 83:310–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maad J, Alexandersson R (2004) Variable selection in Platanthera bifolia (Orchidaceae): phenotypic selection differed between sex functions in a drought year. J Evol Biol 17:642–650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mattila E, Kuitunen MT (2000) Nutrient versus pollination limitation in Platanthera bifolia and Dactylorhiza incarnata (Orchidaceae). Oikos 89:360–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitchell RJ, Shaw RG, Waser NM (1998) Pollinator selection, quantitative genetics, and predicted evolutionary responses of floral traits in Penstemon centranthifolius (Scrophulariaceae). Int J Plant Sci 159:331–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morgan MT, Schoen DJ (1997) Selection on reproductive characters: floral morphology in Asclepias syriaca. Heredity 79:433–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morse DH, Fritz RS (1983) Contributions of diurnal and nocturnal insects to the pollination of common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca L.) in a pollen-limited system. Oecologia 60:190–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morse DH, Schmitt J (1991) Maternal and paternal effects on follicle production in the milkweed Asclepias syriaca (Asclepiadaceae). Am J Bot 78:1304–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Motulsky H (1995) Intuitive biostatistics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner MH (1990) Applied linear statistical models. Irwin, HomewoodGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Connell LM, Johnston MO (1998) Male and female pollination success in a deceptive orchid, a selection study. Ecology 79:1246–1260Google Scholar
  33. Queller DC (1985) Proximate and ultimate causes of low fruit production in Ascepias exaltata. Oikos 44:373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Stanton ML, Preston RE (1988) A qualitative model for evaluating the effects of flower attractiveness on male and female fitness in plants. Am J Bot 75:540–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stephenson AG (1981) Flower and fruit abortion: proximate causes and ultimate functions. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 12:253–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Totland O (2001) Environment-dependent pollen limitation and selection on floral traits in an alpine species. Ecology 82:2233–2244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Totland O (2004) No evidence for a role of pollinator discrimination in causing selection on flower size through female reproduction. Oikos 106:558–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilbur HM (1977) Propagule size, number, and dispersion pattern in Ambystoma and Asclepias. Am Nat 111:43–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilkinson L (1997) SYSTAT 7.0: statistics. SPSS, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  42. Willson MF, Bertin RI (1979) Flower-visitors, nectar production, and inflorescence size of Asclepias syriaca. Can J Bot 57:1380–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Willson MF, Burley N (1983) Mate choice in plants. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  44. Willson MF, Price PW (1980) Resource limitation of fruit and seed production in some Asclepias species. Can J Bot 58:2229–2233Google Scholar
  45. Willson MF, Rathcke BJ (1974) Adaptive design of the floral display in Asclepias syriaca L. Am Midl Nat 92:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilson P, Thomson JD, Stanton ML, Rigney LP (1994) Beyond floral Batemania: gender biases in selection for pollination success. Am Nat 143:283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Woodson RE (1954) The North American species of Asclepias L. Ann MO Bot Gard 41:1–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wyatt R, Broyles SB (1994) Ecology and evolution of reproduction in milkweeds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:423–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wyatt R, Broyles SB, Derda GS (1992) Environmental influences on nectar production in milkweeds (Asclepias syriaca and A. exaltata). Am J Bot 79:636–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina M. Caruso
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Davin L. D. Remington
    • 1
    • 4
  • Kate E. Ostergren
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of BiologyGrinnell CollegeGrinnellUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsGrinnell CollegeGrinnellUSA
  3. 3.Department of Integrative BiologyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  4. 4. CoppellUSA
  5. 5. NMUSA

Personalised recommendations