Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 305–317 | Cite as

Why do plants abort so many developing seeds: bad offspring or bad maternal genotypes?

  • Katri Kärkkäinen
  • Outi Savolainen
  • Veikko Koski
Article

Abstract

It has been suggested that abortion of ovules in perennials is caused partly by early acting genetic load (abortions due to ‘bad offspring’). However, it is still unclear what proportion of abortions of naturally pollinated seeds are due to early genetic load. Here we suggest that variation between maternal genotypes (abortions due to ‘bad maternal genotypes’) may be an even more important factor causing genetic abortions than early load, based on results from Scots pine. The early load is severe in Scots pine: in experimental self-pollinations on average 76% of the seeds were aborted. Comparison of naturally pollinated and experimentally cross-pollinated seeds showed that the abortion rate of naturally pollinated seeds was only slightly, and not statistically significantly, higher than that of experimentally cross-pollinated seeds (30% vs. 26.5%, respectively). Thus, although early load can be high under self-pollination in Scots pine, it does not account for a high share of abortions of naturally pollinated seeds. Instead, maternal genotype determined the seed abortion rate: in a separate experiment using an experimental population (clonal stand), 29% of the total variance in seed abortion was due to variation between maternal genotypes. We studied further whether ‘bad maternal genotypes’ could be explained by trade-offs between seed abortion and other fitness functions. Only one statistically significant genetic correlation was found, a positive association between cone production and successful seed development. Thus ‘bad maternal genotypes’ aborted a higher proportion of their seed and produced less cones than the ‘good maternal genotypes’.

genetic load maternal effects Pinus sylvestris seed abortion selective abortion self-fertilization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ågren, J. (1988) Between-year variation in flowering and fruit set in frost-prone and frost-sheltered populations of dioecious Rubus chamaemoms. Oecologia 76, 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson, S. (1993) The potential for selective seed maturation in Achillea ptarmica (Asteraceae). Oikos 66, 36–42.Google Scholar
  3. Bawa, K.S. and Webb, C.J. (1984) Flower, fruit and seed abortion in tropical forest trees: implications for the evolution of paternal and maternal reproductive patterns. Am. J. Bot. 71, 736–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishir, J. and Namkoong, G. (1987) Unsound seeds in conifers: estimation of numbers of lethal alleles and of magnitudes of effects associated with the maternal parent. Silvae Genetica 36, 180–185.Google Scholar
  5. Burbidge, A.H. and James, S.H. (1991) Postzygotic seed abortion in the genetic system of Stylidium (Angiospermae: Stylidaceae). J. Heredity 82, 319–328.Google Scholar
  6. Casper, B.B. (1984) On the evolution of embryo abortion in the herbaceous perennial Cryptantha (Boraginaceae). Evolution 38, 1337–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charlesworth, D. (1989) Evolution of low female fertility in plants: pollen limitation, resource allocation and genetic load. Trends Ecol. Evol. 4, 289–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charlesworth, D. and Charlesworth, B. (1987a) The effect of investment in attractive structures on allocation to male and female functions in plants. Evolution 41, 948–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charlesworth, D. and Charlesworth, B. (1987b) Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18, 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehrlén, J. (1991) Why do plants produce surplus flowers? A reserve-ovary model. Am. Nat. 138, 918–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Falconer, D.S. (1989) Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Longman, Essex, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Fu, Y.-B. and Ritland, K. (1994) Evidence for the partial dominance of viability genes contributing to inbreeding depression in Mimulus guttatus. Genetics 136, 323–331.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Griffin, A.R. and Lindgren, D. (1985) Effect of inbreeding on production of filled seed in Pinus radiata — experimental results and a model of gene action. Theor. Appl. Genet. 71, 334–343.Google Scholar
  14. Hedrick, P.W. (1987) Genetic load and the mating system in homosporous ferns. Evolution 41, 1282–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holtsford, T.P. (1985) Nonfruiting hermaphroditic flowers of Calochortus leichtlinii (Liliaceae): potential reproductive functions. Am. J. Bot. 72, 1687–1694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Houle, D. (1992) Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130, 195–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnsson, H. (1976) Contributions to the genetics of empty grains in the seed of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris). Silvae Genet. 25, 10–15.Google Scholar
  18. Kärkkäinen, K. and Savolainen, O. (1993) The degree of early inbreeding depression determines the selfing rate at the seed stage: model and results from Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine). Heredity 71, 160–166.Google Scholar
  19. Kärkkäinen, K., Koski, V. and Savolainen, O. (1996) Geographical variation in the early inbreeding depression of Scots pine. Evolution 50, 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kärkkäinen, K., Kuittinen, H., van Treuren, R., Vogl, C, Oikarinen, S. and Savolainen, O. (1999) Genetic basis of inbreeding depression in Arabis petraea. Evolution 53, 1354–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kempthorne, O. (1957) An Introduction to Genetic Statistics. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
  22. Klekowski, E.J. Jr. (1988a) Genetic load and its causes in long-lived plants. Trees 1988, 195–203.Google Scholar
  23. Klekowski, E.J. Jr. (1988b) Progressive cross-and self-sterility associated with aging in fern clones and perhaps other plants. Heredity 61, 247–253.Google Scholar
  24. Klekowski, E.J. Jr. and Godfrey, P.J. (1989) Ageing and mutation in plants. Nature 340, 389–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koski, V. (1970) A study of pollen dispersal as a mechanism of gene flow in conifers. Commun. Inst. For. Fenn. 70.4, 1–78.Google Scholar
  26. Koski, V. (1971) Embryonic lethals of Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris. Commun. Inst. For. Fenn. 75.3, 1–30.Google Scholar
  27. Koski, V. and Muona, O. (1986) Probability of inbreeding in relation to clonal differences in male flowering and embryonic lethals. Proceedings of IUFRO conference on breeding theory, progeny testing and seed orchards, Williamsburgh, Virginia, 13–17 October, 1986, pp. 391–300.Google Scholar
  28. Kozlowski, J. and Stearns, S.C. (1989) Hypotheses for the production of bet-hedging and selective abortion. Evolution 43, 1369–1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krebs, S.L. and Hancock, J.F. (1991) Embryonic genetic load in the highbush blueberry, Vaccinium corymbosum (Ericaceae). Am. J. Bot. 78, 1427–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morgan, M. (1993) Fruit to flower ratios and trade-offs in size and number. Evol. Ecol. 7, 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muona, O. and Harju, A. (1989) Effective population sizes, genetic variability, and mating system in natural stands and seed orchards of Pinus sylvestris. Silvae Genet. 38, 221–228.Google Scholar
  32. Obeso, J.R. (1993) Selective fruit and seed maturation in Asphodelus albus Miller (Liliaceae). Oecologia 93, 564–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pellmyr, O. and Huth, C.J. (1994) Evolutionary stability of mutualism between yuccas and yucca moths. Nature 372, 257–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Plym Forshell, C. (1974) Seed development after self-pollination and cross-pollination of Scots pine, Pinus sylvestris L. Studia Forestalia Suecica 118, 1–37.Google Scholar
  35. Roach, D.A. and Wulff, R.D. (1987) Maternal effects in plants. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18, 209–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sarvas, R. (1962) Investigation on the flowering and seed crop of Pinus sylvestris. Commun. Inst. For. Fenn. 53.4, 1–198.Google Scholar
  37. SAS Institute (1985) Users's Guide: Statistics. 1985 Edition. SAS Institute, Inc., Gary, NC.Google Scholar
  38. Savolainen, O. (1994) Genetic variation and fitness: conservation lessons from pines. In V. Loeschcke, J. Tomiuk and S.K. Jain (eds) Conservation Genetics, pp. 27–36. Birkhäuser, Basel.Google Scholar
  39. Savolainen, O. Kärkkäinen, K. and Kuittinen, H. (1992) Estimating numbers of embryonic lethals in conifers. Heredity 69, 308–314.Google Scholar
  40. Savolainen, O., Kärkkäinen, K., Harju, A., Nikkanen, T. and Rusanen, M. (1993) Fertility variation in Pinus sylvestris: a test of sexual allocation theory. Am. J. Bot. 80, 1016–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simmons, M.J. and Crow, J.F. (1977) Mutations affecting fitness in Drosophila populations. Ann. Rev. Genet. 11, 49–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, C.C., Hamrick, J.L. and Kramer, C.L. (1990) The advantage of mast years for wind pollination. Am. Nat. 136, 154–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sorensen, F.C. (1969) Embryonic genetic load in coastal Douglas fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii var menziesii. Am. Nat. 103, 389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stephenson, A.G. (1981) Flower and fruit abortion: proximate causes and ultimate functions. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 12, 253–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stern, K. (1972) Über die Ergebnisse einiger Versuche zur räumlichen und zeitlichen Verteilung des Pollens einzelner Kiefern. Z. Pflanzenzuchtung 67, 313–326.Google Scholar
  46. Sutherland, S. (1986) Patterns of fruit-set: what controls fruit-flower ratios in plants? Evolution 40, 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wiens, D. (1984) Ovule survivorship, brood size, life history, breeding systems, and reproductive success in plants. Oecologia 64, 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wiens, D., Calvin, C.L., Wilson, C.A. Davern, C.I., Frank, D. and Seavey, S.R. (1987) Reproductive success, spontaneous embryo abortion, and genetic load in flowering plants. Oecologia 71, 501–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Willis, J.H. (1993) Effects of different levels of inbreeding on fitness components in Mimulus guttatus. Evolution 47, 864–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Willson, M.F. and Rathcke, B.J. (1974) Adaptive design of the floral display in Asclepias syriaca L. Am. Midl Nat. 92, 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katri Kärkkäinen
    • 1
  • Outi Savolainen
    • 1
  • Veikko Koski
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biology, Plant Genetics GroupUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  2. 2.Department of Forest EcologyFinnish Forest InstituteVantaaFinland

Personalised recommendations