Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-02T16:29:12.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex ratio and life history traits at reaching sexual maturity in the dioecious shrub Fuchsia parviflora: field and common garden experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2021

Jessica S. Ambriz ,
Clementina González  and
Eduardo Cuevas Open the ORCID record for Eduardo Cuevas [Opens in a new window]
Jessica S. Ambriz
Affiliation:
Facultad de Biología, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Av. Francisco J. Mújica S/N, Ciudad Universitaria, Morelia, Michoacán58030, México
Clementina González
Affiliation:
Instituto de Investigaciones sobre los Recursos Naturales, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Av. San Juanito Itzícuaro s/n, Col. Nueva Esperanza, MoreliaMichoacán58330, México
Eduardo Cuevas*
Affiliation:
Facultad de Biología, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Av. Francisco J. Mújica S/N, Ciudad Universitaria, Morelia, Michoacán58030, México
*
Author for correspondence: *Eduardo Cuevas, Email: eduardocuevas5@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fuchsia parviflora is a dioecious shrub that depends on biotic pollination for reproduction. Previous studies suggest that the male plants produce more flowers, and male-biased sex ratios have been found in some natural populations. To assess whether the biased sex ratios found between genders in natural populations are present at the point at which plants reach sexual maturity, and to identify possible trade-offs between growth and reproduction, we performed a common garden experiment. Finally, to complement the information of the common garden experiment, we estimated the reproductive biomass allocation between genders in one natural population. Sex ratios at reaching sexual maturity in F. parviflora did not differ from 0.5, except in one population, which was the smallest seedling population. We found no differences between genders in terms of the probability of germination or flowering. When flowering began, female plants were taller than males and the tallest plants of both genders required more time to reach sexual maturity. Males produced significantly more flowers than females, and the number of flowers increased with plant height in both genders. Finally, in the natural population studied, the investment in reproductive biomass was seven-fold greater in female plants than in male plants. Our results showed no evidence of possible trade-offs between growth and reproduction. Despite the fact that female plants invest more in reproductive biomass, they were taller than the males after flowering, possibly at the expense of herbivory defence.

Keywords

bird pollinationdioecyfloral display
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 10 - 15
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature cited

Armstrong, JE and Irvine, AK (1989) Flowering, sex ratios, pollen-ovule ratios, fruit set, and reproductive effort of a dioecious tree, Myristica insipida (Myristicaceae), in two different rain forest communities. American Journal of Botany 76, 74–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, SC and Hough, J (2013) Sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Journal of Experimental Botany 64, 67–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breedlove, DE (1969) The systematics of Fuchsia Section Encliandra (Onagraceae). University of California Publications in Botany 53, 1–68.Google Scholar
Cepeda-Cornejo, V and Dirzo, R (2010) Sex-related differences in reproductive allocation, growth, defense and herbivory in three dioecious neotropical palms. PLoS ONE 5, e9824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charlesworth, D (2016) Plant sex chromosomes. Annual Review of Plant Biology 67, 397–420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cipollini, ML and Whigham, DF (1994) Sexual dimorphism and cost of reproduction in the dioecious shrub Lindera benzoin (Lauraceae). American Journal of Botany 81, 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelissen, T and Stiling, P (2005) Sex-biased herbivory: a meta-analysis of the effects of gender on plant–herbivore interactions. Oikos 111, 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuevas, E, Pérez, MA and Sevillano, L (2017) Population size, sex-ratio and sexual dimorphism in Fuchsia parviflora (Onagraceae) an endemic dioecious shrub. Botanical Sciences 95, 401–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, TJ and Van der Meijden, E (2004) Sex ratio of some long-lived dioecious plants in a sand dune area. Plant Biology 6, 616–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, TJ, Van Batenburg, FHD and Van Dijk, J (2002) Seed sex ratio in dioecious plants depends on relative dispersal of pollen and seeds: an example using a chessboard simulation model. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15, 373–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delph, LF (1999) Sexual dimorphism in life history. In Geber, MA, Dawson, TE and Delph, LF (eds), Gender and Sexual Dimorphism in Flowering Plants, pp. 149–173. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delph, LF, Galloway, LF and Stanton, ML (1996) Sexual dimorphism in flower size. American Naturalist 148, 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eppley, SM (2001) Gender-specific selection during early life history stages in the dioecious grass Distichlis spicata . Ecology 82, 2022–2031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, DL, Pickup, M, and Barrett, SC (2013) Comparative analyses of sex-ratio variation in dioecious flowering plants. Evolution 67, 661–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, RA (1930) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, C, Alvarez-Baños, A and Cuevas, E (2018) Floral biology and pollination mechanisms of four Mexico-endemic Fuchsia species with contrasting reproductive systems. Journal of Plant Ecology 11, 123–135.Google Scholar
Kay, QON, Lack, AJ, Bamber, FC and Davies, CR (1984) Differences between sexes in floral morphology, nectar production and insect visits in a dioecious species, Silene dioica . New Phytologist 98, 515–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, DG and Webb, CJ (1977) Secondary sex characters in plants. Botanical Review 43, 177–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meagher, TR (1984) Sexual dimorphism and ecological differentiation of male and female plants. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 71, 254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obeso, JR (2002) The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytologist 155, 321–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osunkoya, OO (1999) Population structure and breeding biology in relation to conservation in the dioecious Gardenia actinocarpa (Rubiaceae) a rare shrub of North Queensland rainforest. Biological Conservation 88, 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purrington, CB (1993) Parental effects on progeny sex ratio, emergence, and flowering in Silene latifolia (Caryophyllaceae). Journal of Ecology 8, 807–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team (2008) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Sinclair, JP, Emlen, J and Freeman, DC (2012) Biased sex ratios in plants: theory and trends. Botanical Review 78, 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stehlik, I and Barrett, SC (2005) Mechanisms governing sex-ratio variation in dioecious Rumex nivals . Evolution 59, 814–825.Google Scholar
Stehlik, I, Friedman, J and Barrett, SC (2008) Environmental influence on primary sex ratio in a dioecious plant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105, 10847–10852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Drunen, WE and Dorken, ME (2012) Trade-offs between clonal and sexual reproduction in Sagittaria latifolia (Alismataceae) scale up to affect the fitness of entire clones. New Phytologist 196, 606–616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Ambriz et al. supplementary material

Ambriz et al. supplementary material 1

Download Ambriz et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2 MB
Supplementary material: File

Ambriz et al. supplementary material

Ambriz et al. supplementary material 2

Download Ambriz et al. supplementary material(File)
File 17.5 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Ambriz et al. supplementary material

Ambriz et al. supplementary material 3

Download Ambriz et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 295.4 KB