Journal of Plant Research

, Volume 131, Issue 2, pp 245–254 | Cite as

Restricted female function of hermaphrodites in a gynodioecious shrub, Daphne jezoensis (Thymelaeaceae)

  • Akari Shibata
  • Yoshiaki Kameyama
  • Gaku Kudo
Regular Paper


Gynodioecy is the coexistence of hermaphrodites and females in a population. It is supposed to be an intermediate stage in the evolutionary pathway from hermaphroditism to dioecy in angiosperm. Hermaphrodites gain fitness through both seed and pollen production whereas females gain fitness only through seed production. As females spread in a gynodioecious population, sexual selection prompts hermaphrodites to invest in male function and male-biased hermaphrodites prevail. In the gynodioecious shrub Daphne jezoensis (Thymelaeaceae), female frequency is stably around 50% in most populations, and fruit-set rate of hermaphrodites is commonly low. Therefore, D. jezoensis is likely at a later stage in the evolutionary pathway. Female function of hermaphrodites (fruit-set rate, selfing rate, seed size, and germination rate) was assessed in three populations under natural conditions. In order to evaluate the potential seed fertility and inbreeding depression by selfing in hermaphrodites, hand pollination treatments were also performed. Over a 2-year period under natural conditions, 18–29% of hermaphrodites and 69–81% of females set fruit. Across all three populations, the mean fruit-set rate ranged 9.5–49.2% in females and only 3.9–10.2% in hermaphrodites. Even with artificial outcross-pollination, 59–91% of hermaphrodites failed to set any fruit. When self-pollination was performed in hermaphrodites, both of fruit-set and germination rates were decreased, indicating early-acting inbreeding depression. In addition, more than half of the hermaphrodite seeds were produced by selfing under natural pollination, but pollinator service was still required. Totally, hermaphrodites performed poorly as seed producers because of the intrinsically-low fruiting ability and a combination of autogamous selfing and strong inbreeding depression, indicating the absence of reproductive assurance. These results indicate that the mating system of D. jezoensis is functionally close to dioecy.


Fruit set Gynodioecy Hermaphrodite Pollen limitation Selfing Subdioecy 



The authors would like to thank Y. Mizunaga, Y. Amagai, K. Onizawa, A. Wakui, S. Nakamura, and T. Kohyama for their kind assistance with fieldwork and their helpful discussions and comments. This study was partly supported by JSPS KAKENHI (15H02641).

Supplementary material

10265_2017_978_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (170 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 170 KB)


  1. Ashman T-L (2006) The evolution of separate sexes : a focus on the ecological context. In: Harder L, Barrett SCH (eds) The ecology and evolution of flowers. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 204–222Google Scholar
  2. Bailey MF, Delph LF, Lively CM (2003) Modeling gynodioecy: novel scenarios for maintaining polymorphism. Am Nat 161:762–776CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell G (1985) On the function of flowers. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 224:223–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Busch JW, Delph LF (2012) The relative importance of reproductive assurance and automatic selection as hypotheses for the evolution of self-fertilization. Ann Bot 109:553–562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Charlesworth D (1989) Allocation to male and female function in hermaphrodites, in sexually polymorphic populations. J Theor Biol 139:327–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1978) A model for evolution of dioecy and gynodioecy. Am Nat 112:975–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charlesworth D, Willis JH (2009) The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nat Rev Genet 10:783–796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dalton RM, Koski MH, Ashman T-L (2013) Maternal sex effects and inbreeding depression under varied environmental conditions in gynodioecious Fragaria vesca subsp. bracteata. Ann Bot 112:613–621CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Del Castillo RF, Argueta ST (2009) Reproductive implications of combined and separate sexes in a trioecious population of Opuntia robusta (Cactaceae). Am J Bot 96:1148–1158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Delph LF (1990) Sex-differential resource allocation patterns in the subdioecious shrub Hebe Subalpina. Ecol Soc Am 71:1342–1351Google Scholar
  11. Delph LF, Wolf DE (2005) Evolutionary consequences of gender plasticity in genetically dimorphic breeding systems. New Phytol 166:119–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dufay M, Billard E (2012) How much better are females? The occurrence of female advantage, its proximal causes and its variation within and among gynodioecious species. Ann Bot 109:505–519CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dufay M, Champelovier P, Käfer J, Henry JP, Mousset S, Marais GAB (2014) An angiosperm-wide analysis of the gynodioecy–dioecy pathway. Ann Bot 114:539–548CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Eckhart VM (1999) Sexual dimorphism in flowers and inflorescences. In: Geber MA, Dawson TE, Delph LF (eds) Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Springer, Berlin, pp 123–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ehlers BK, Bataillon T (2007) “Inconstant males” and the maintenance of labile sex expression in subdioecious plants. New Phytol 174:194–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kameyama Y, Hirao AS (2014) Development and evaluation of microsatellite markers for the gynodioecious shrub Daphne jezoensis (Thymelaeaceae). Appl Plant Sci 2:3–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kikuzawa K (1989) Floral biology and evolution of gynodioecism in Daphne kamtchatica var. jezoensis. Oikos 56:196–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knight T, Steets J, Vamosi J, Mazer S, Burd M, Campbell DR, Dudash MR, Johnston MO, Mitchell RJ, Ashman T-L (2005) Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: pattern and process. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:467–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kohn JR (1989) Sex ratio, seed production, biomass allocation, and the cost of male function in Cucurbita foetidissima HBK (Cucurbitaceae). Evolution 43:1424–1434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Larson BM, Barrett SC (2000) A comparative analysis of pollen limitation in flowering plants. Biol J Linn Soc 69:503–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leigh A, Cosgrove MJ, Nicotra AB (2006) Reproductive allocation in a gender dimorphic shrub: anomalous female investment in Gynatrix pulchella? J Ecol 94:1261–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lloyd DG (1976) The transmission of genes via pollen and ovules in gynodioecious angiosperms. Theor Popul Biol 9:299–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. McCauley DE, Brock MT (1998) Frequency-dependent fitness in Silene vulgaris, a gynodioecious plant. Evolution 52:30–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Hara RB, Kotze DJ (2010) Do not log-transform count data. Methods Ecol Evol 1:118–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ramsey M, Vaughton G (2002) Maintenance of gynodioecy in Wurmbea biglandulosa (Colchicaceae): gender differences in seed production and progeny success. Plant Syst Evol 232:189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Renner SS, Ricklefs RE (1995) Dioecy and its correlates in the flowering plants. Am J Bot 82:596–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Richards A (1997) Plant breeding systems, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ritland K (1990) Inferences about inbreeding depression based on changes of the inbreeding coefficient. Evolution 44:1230–1241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ritland K (2002) Extensions of models for the estimation of mating systems using n independent loci. Heredity 88:221–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Rousset F (2008) GENEPOP’007: a complete re-implementation of the GENEPOP software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour 8:103–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sakai AK, Weller SG, Chen M-L, Chou S-Y, Tasanont C (1997) Evolution of gynodioecy and maintenance of females: the role of inbreeding depression, outcrossing rates, and resource allocation in Schiedea adamantis (Caryophyllaceae). Evolution 51:724–736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Shibata A, Kudo G (2017) Size-dependent sex allocation and reproductive investment in a gynodioecious shrub. AoB Plants. doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plw089 Google Scholar
  33. Shykoff JA, Kolokotronis S-O, Collin CL, López-Villavicencio M (2003) Effects of male sterility on reproductive traits in gynodioecious plants: a meta-analysis. Oecologia 135:1–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sinclair JP, Kameyama Y, Shibata A, Kudo G (2016) Male-biased hermaphrodites in a gynodioecious shrub, Daphne jezoensis. Plant Biol 18:859–867CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Spigler RB, Ashman T-L (2012) Gynodioecy to dioecy: are we there yet? Ann Bot 109:531–543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Stewart CN, Via LE (1993) A rapid CTAB DNA isolation technique useful for RAPD fingerprinting and other PCR applications. Biotechniques 14:748–750PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Etten ML, Chang SM (2014) Frequency-dependent pollinator discrimination acts against female plants in the gynodioecious Geranium maculatum. Ann Bot 114:1769–1778CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Vaughton G, Ramsey M (2011) Reproductive allocation and costs in gynodioecious Leucopogon melaleucoides (Ericaceae): implications for the evolution of gender dimorphism. Plant Biol 13:888–895CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang H, Matsushita M, Tomaru N, Nakagawa M (2014) Differences in female reproductive success between female and hermaphrodite individuals in the subdioecious shrub Eurya japonica (Theaceae). Plant Biol 17:194–200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wolfe LM, Shmida A (1997) The ecology of sex expression in a gynodioecious Israeli desert shrub (Ochradenus Baccatus). Ecology 78:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Botanical Society of Japan and Springer Japan KK 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Environmental Earth ScienceHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of Regional Environment ScienceTokyo University of AgricultureSetagayaJapan

Personalised recommendations