Journal of Plant Research

, Volume 131, Issue 6, pp 973–985 | Cite as

Nutrient deficiency promotes male-biased apparent sex ratios at the ramet level in the dioecious plant Myrica gale var. tomentosa in oligotrophic environments in bogs

  • Inoue MizukiEmail author
  • Kiyoshi Ishida
  • Masaaki Chiwa
  • Yoshitoshi Uehara
  • Ken’ichi Shinozuka
  • Atsushi Kume
Regular Paper


In populations of dioecious plants, the differences in the cost of reproduction between male and female plants can promote a male-biased sex ratio. In this study, we examine the macronutrient levels in tissues of the dioecious wetland shrub Myrica gale to identify the cost of reproduction for male and female plants and to examine the effect of nutrients on the apparent sex ratio at the ramet level. We examined plants across 12 populations of M. gale inhabiting bogs and fens in Japan. For each population, we used line transects to estimate the apparent sex ratio and measured the concentrations of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) in the leaves sampled from male and female plants and in the fruits from female plants. For five of the populations, we calculated the flowering frequency, mortality, and the recruitment rate (as the rate of clonal propagation). We found that the proportion of females was positively affected, and the male bias of sex ratios reduced, by increases in P concentration in leaves sampled from female plants. Neither mortality nor recruitment was affected by sex or by the nutrient concentration (P, K). The flowering frequency was not affected by sex or by K concentration, but decreased with decreases in the P concentration measured in leaves. This study confirmed that reproduction in M. gale is P-limited. We found no distinct differences in the flowering frequency, mortality, or recruitment rate between the male and female plants.


Clonal Fruit Leaves Nitrogen-fixing plant Phosphorus Potassium 



We thank Ph.D., Yoichi Watanabe, Tomoka Sato, and Keiko Hashimoto for help with the field work. The research was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (Grant numbers 18380099, 19780119, and 21380087). We would like to thank Enago ( for the English language review.

Supplementary material

10265_2018_1056_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (133 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 132 KB)


  1. Allen GA, Antos JA (1993) Sex-ratio variation in the dioecious shrub Oemleria cerasiformis. Am Nat 141:537–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bierzychudek P, Eckhart V (1988) Spatial segregation of the sexes of dioecious plants. Am Nat 132:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bobbink R, Hicks K, Galloway J, Spranger T, Alkemade R, Ashmore M, Bustamante M, Cinderby S, Davidson E, Dentener F et al (2010) Global assessment of nitrogen deposition effects on terrestrial plant diversity: a synthesis. Ecol Appl 20:30–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapin IFSPAM, Vitousek PM (2012) Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology, Second edition. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Cipollini ML, Whigham DF (1994) Sexual dimorphism and cost of reproduction in the dioecious shrub Lindera benzoin (Lauraceae). Amer J Bot 81:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cox PA (1981) Niche partitioning between the sexes of dioecious plants. Am Nat 117:295–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darwin C (1877) The differnt forms of flowers on plants of the same species. Murray, London (reprinted 1896. D Appleton, NewYork) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davey A, Gibson C (1917) Notes on the distribution of sexes in Myrica gale. New Phytol 16:147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 149–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Field DL, Pickup M, Barrett SCH (2013) Comparative analyses of sex-ratio variation in dioecious flowering plants. Evolution 67:661–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garcia MB, Antor RJ (1995) Sex-ratio and sexual dimorphism in the dioecious Borderea pyrenaica (Dioscoreaceae). Oecologia 101:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gehring JL, Monson RK (1994) Sexual differences in gas-exchange and response to environmental-stress in dioecious Silene latifolia (Careyophyllaceae). Amer J Bot 81:166–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Güsewell S (2004) N:P ratios in terrestrial plants: variation and functional significance. New Phytol 164:243–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoosbeek MR, Van Breemen N, Vasander H, Buttler A, Berendse F (2002) Potassium limits potential growth of bog vegetation under elevated atmospheric CO2 and N deposition. Glob Change Biol 8:1130–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huguet V, Mergeay M, Cervantes E, Fernandez MP (2004) Diversity of Frankia strains associated to Myrica gale in Western Europe: impact of host plant (Myrica vs. Alnus) and of edaphic factors. Environ Microbiol 6:1032–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koerselman W, Meuleman AFM (1996) The vegetation N:P ratio: a new tool to detect the nature of nutrient limitation. J Appl Ecol 33:1441–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lloyd DG (1981) The distribution of sex in Myrica gale. Plant Syst Evol 138:29–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lloyd DG, Webb CJ (1977) Secondary sex characteristics in plants. Bot Rev 43:177–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mizuki I, Kume A, Chiwa M, Uehara Y, Ishida K (2012) Impact of soil water chemistry on the apparent sex ratio of the flowering ramets of the dioecious plant Myrica gale var. tomentosa. J Plant Res 125:631–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Obeso JR (2002) The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytol 155:321–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Olde Venterink H, Pieterse NM, Belgers JDM, Wassen MJ, De Ruiter PC (2002) N, P, and K budgets along nutrient availability and productivity gradients in wetlands. Ecol Appl 12:1010–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Petry WK, Soule JD, Iler AM, Chicas-Mosier A, Inouye DW, Miller TEX, Mooney KA (2016) Sex-specific responses to climate change in plants alter population sex ratio and performance. Science 353:69–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Renner SS, Ricklefs RE (1995) Dioecy and its correlates in the flowering plants. Amer J Bot 82:596–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shaver GR, Melillo JM (1984) Nutrient budgets of marsh plants—efficiency concepts and relation to availability. Ecology 65:1491–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Skene KR, Sprent JI, Raven JA, Herdman L (2000) Myrica gale L.. J Ecol 88:1079–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Uehara Y, Kume A, Chiwa M, Honoki H, Zhang J, Watanabe K (2015) Atmospheric deposition and interactions with Pinus pumila regal canopy on Mount Tateyama in the Northern Japanese Alps. Arct Antarctic Alp Res 47:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wright VL, Dorken ME (2014) Sexual dimorphism in leaf nitrogen content but not photosynthetic rates in Sagittaria latifolia (Alismataceae). Botany 92:109–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extentions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Botanical Society of Japan and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Inoue Mizuki
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kiyoshi Ishida
    • 2
  • Masaaki Chiwa
    • 3
  • Yoshitoshi Uehara
    • 4
  • Ken’ichi Shinozuka
    • 5
  • Atsushi Kume
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Biosciences, College of Humanities and SciencesNihon UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Biology, Faculty of Agriculture and Life ScienceHirosaki UniversityHirosakiJapan
  3. 3.Kyushu University ForestKyushu UniversitySasaguriJapan
  4. 4.Research Institute for Human and NatureKyotoJapan
  5. 5.Environmetnal Science InstituteFukuoka Institute of TechnologyFukuokaJapan
  6. 6.Faculty of AgricultureKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations