Skip to main content
Log in

Sexual selection in a hermaphroditic plant

  • Letter
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Abstract

The ornaments and weapons of male animals are among the showiest and seemingly most wasteful of nature's productions. Darwin's theory of sexual selection showed how such traits could be selected through competition for mates even if they were otherwise detrimental1. Flowering displays of plants often show a comparable degree of gaudiness and profligacy, but exploration of the role of sexual selection in plants has only just begun2–5. Bateman6 argued that sexual selection is caused by the greater ability of males than females to increase fitness by mating repeatedly, due to the females' greater energetic commitment to gametes or parental care. Similar reasoning applies to hermaphrodites2,3. In hermaphroditic milkweeds, most young fruits are aborted7–10 and female reproduction (seeds) is limited more by resources than by pollination11. Sexual selection theory therefore predicts that traits increasing mating success will have evolved because they increase male success through pollen. Here I report that a suite of floral traits of a hermaphroditic plant is best interpreted as having evolved through the male competition component of sexual selection, a result with important implications for evolutionary studies of pollination systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Darwin, C. R. The Descent of man in Relation to Sex (Murray, London, 1871).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Charnov, E. L. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 76, 2480–2484 (1979).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Willson, M. F. Am. Nat. 113, 777–790 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Janzen, D. H. Am. Nat. 111, 365–371 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bawa, K. S. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11, 15–39 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bateman, A. J. Heredity 2, 349–368 (1948).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wilbur, H. M. J. Ecol. 64, 223–240 (1976).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Willson, M. F. & Rathcke, B. J. Am. Midl. Nat. 92, 47–57 (1974).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Willson, M. F. & Price, P. W. Evolution 31, 495–511 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chaplin, S. J. & Walker, J. L. Ecology 63, 1857–1870 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Willson, M. F. & Price, P. W. Can. J. Bot. 58, 2229–2233 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bookman, S. S. Am. J. Bot. 68, 675–679 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wyatt, R. Am. J. Bot. 63, 845–851 (1976).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kephart, S. R. Am. J. Bot. 68, 226–232 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Morse, D. H. Ecology 62, 89–97 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Morse, D. H. Oecologia 53, 187–196 (1982).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bookman, S. S. Evolution (in the press).

  18. Stephenson, A. J. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 12, 253–279 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Queller, D. Sexual selection in a hermaphroditic plant. Nature 305, 706–707 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1038/305706a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/305706a0

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Navigation