2008
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01334.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spatio‐temporal variation in fruit production and seed predation in a perennial herb influenced by habitat quality and population size

Abstract: Summary 1.In patchily distributed plant species, seed production is likely to be influenced both by local abiotic factors affecting plant size and conditions for fruit maturation, and by population characteristics affecting the intensity of interactions with mutualists and antagonists. However, the relative importance of these effects is poorly known. 2. We used multiple regression and path models to examine the importance of abiotic factors (sun exposure, soil depth) and population characteristics (size, dens… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
61
1
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(66 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
3
61
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar to pollinators, there is evidence that florivores and seed predators are often attracted to larger floral displays, which provide greater resources in the larger ovules (Brody and Mitchell 1997;Adler and Bronstein 2004; but also see Walsh et al 2014). Consequently, florivores and seed predators can cause counter-selection for fewer flowers in opposition to the selection for more flowers to increase pollinator visits (Sletvold and Grindeland 2008;Ågren et al 2008). Further research is therefore required to determine whether larger inflorescences contribute to increased floral herbivory and seed predation in C. falcata, especially since the seed predator J. tokunagai was a common floral visitor at the sites under investigation.…”
Section: Effect Of Inflorescence Size On Reproductive Successmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Similar to pollinators, there is evidence that florivores and seed predators are often attracted to larger floral displays, which provide greater resources in the larger ovules (Brody and Mitchell 1997;Adler and Bronstein 2004; but also see Walsh et al 2014). Consequently, florivores and seed predators can cause counter-selection for fewer flowers in opposition to the selection for more flowers to increase pollinator visits (Sletvold and Grindeland 2008;Ågren et al 2008). Further research is therefore required to determine whether larger inflorescences contribute to increased floral herbivory and seed predation in C. falcata, especially since the seed predator J. tokunagai was a common floral visitor at the sites under investigation.…”
Section: Effect Of Inflorescence Size On Reproductive Successmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Reproductive output commonly varies among plant populations, and differences in both abiotic conditions (Willson and Price 1980;Ågren 1988;De Frenne et al 2009;Toräng et al 2010) and intensity of biotic interactions (Schemske and Horvitz 1988;Ehrlén 1995;Morris et al 2007;Ågren et al 2008) may contribute to such variation. Determining the processes governing spatial variation in flower and seed production is important not only because of their influence on plant population dynamics and distributions, but also because determining these processes can lead to a greater understanding of among-population variation in selection regimes, and of interactions with pollinators and herbivores that depend on flowers or seeds as a resource.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bigger plants do not result in higher reproductive eff ort even when biomass was measured with infl orescences. Th e reproductive eff ort in V. carinata diff ers from what has been reported for other species, because fl ower production is frequently correlated with plant size, which usually increases with increased resource availability (Ågren et al 2008;Dauber et al 2010). In bromeliads, sexual reproduction tends to increase with an increase in plant size (Benzing 1981;Hietz et al 2002;Mondragón et al 2004;Mantovani & Iglesias 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%