Skip to main content
Log in

On the forces that govern clonality versus sexuality in plant communities

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Evolutionary Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although sexuality is considered evolutionarily progressive, clonality is very common in plants and the prevailing means of reproduction in several community types. I discuss what could be the forces that have influenced the selection among sexual versus non-sexual reproduction at community level. I propose that, among others, the probability of self-competition must have been one of the key factors. The probability of meeting one’s own genes for wasteful competition is higher in communities where clonality prevails (and relatively high mean intra-species relatedness is expected), and higher in communities with low species diversity. On the other hand, lower diversity indicates a higher average fitness of species since the (finite) total pool of resources is distributed among fewer population with high density. I show, using four community types with contrasting diversity and clonality that community fitness (average fitness in the assemblage of species) can be expressed as the product of two variables––anti-diversity and degree of sexuality.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ayala FJ (1998) Is sex better? Parasites say “no”. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:3346–3348

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway RM (1997) Positive interactions and the individualistic-continuum concept. Oecologia 112:143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth B (1989) The evolution of sex and recombination. TREE/Trends Ecol Evol 4:264–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheplick GP (1992) Sibling competition in plants. J Ecol 80:567–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements FE (1916) Plant succession: analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Inst Wash Pub 242:1–512

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckert CG (2001) The loss of sex in clonal plants. Evol Ecol 15:501–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson O (1997) Clonal life histories and the evolution of seed recruitment. In: de Kroon H (ed) The ecology and evolution of clonal plants. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 211–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Falik O, Reides P, Gersani M, Novoplansky A (2003) Self/non-self discrimination in roots. J Ecol 91:525–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersani M, Brown JS, O’Brien EE, Maina GM, Abramsky Z (2001) Tragedy of the commons as a result of root competition. J Ecol 89:660–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruntman M, Novoplansky A (2004) Physiologically mediated self/non-self discrimination in roots. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:3863–3867

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Holzapfel C, Alpert P (2003) Root cooperation in a clonal plant: connected strawberries segregate roots. Oecologia 134:72–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings MJ, Barkham JP (1976) An investigation of shoot interactions in Mercurialis perennis L., a rhizomatous perennial herb. J Ecol 64:723–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kull K, Zobel M (1991) High species richness in an Estonian wooded meadow. J Veg Sci 2:711–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepik M, Liira J, Zobel K (2005) High shoot plasticity favours plant coexistence in herbaceous vegetation. Oecologia 145:465–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Michod RE (1982) The theory of kin selection. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 13:23–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peet RK (1974) The measurement of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:285–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs RE, Miller GL (1999). Ecology. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Routledge RD (1979) Diversity indices; which ones are admissible? J Theor Biol 76:503–515

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stuefer JF, During HJ, de Kroon H (1994) High benefits of clonal integration in two stoloniferous species, in response to heterogeneous light environments. J Ecol 82:511–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor PD (1979) An analytical model for a short-term advantage of sex. J Theor Biol 81:407–421

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tiffney BH, Niklas CJ (1985) Clonal growth in land plants, a paleobotanical perspective. In: Jackson JB, Buss LW, Cook EE (eds) Population biology and evolution of clonal organisms. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 35–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Watt AS (1947) Pattern and process in the plant community. J Ecol 35:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Marina Semchenko, John Davison and an anonymous referee for helpful comments and linguistic corrections. Rein Kalamees kindly helped with the figures. This work was supported by Estonian Science Foundation (5535) and University of Tartu (2540).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristjan Zobel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zobel, K. On the forces that govern clonality versus sexuality in plant communities. Evol Ecol 22, 487–492 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-007-9236-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-007-9236-y

Keywords

Navigation