Studies on Ambrosia. Iv. Effects of Short Photoperiod and Temperature on Sex Expression

Jones, Kenneth L.

doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1947.tb13003.x

Cited by 16 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonrandom spatial distributions of flower types on monoecious, andromonoecious, and trimonoecious plants seem to be the rule rather than the exception (Pickett 1915, Stout 1923, Jepson 1936, Matzke 1938, Joshi 1939, Naik and Rao 1943, Jones 1947, Bell 1971, Abul-Faith and Bazzaz 1979, Connor 1979, Freernan et al 1981. In woody species the presence of fernale or bisexual flowers is often associated with relatively great twig growth and/or leaf surface area (Galang and Lazo 1935, 1936, Brooks 1948, Uriu 1956, Lange 1961, Awada 1967, probably reflecting (evolutionarily) higher photosynthate production in these areas, which increases the likelihood of rnaturation of fruit frorn pistils bome there.…”

Section: Spatial Distribution Of Fiower Types Within Plantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Considerable genetic variation in sex expression may exist in red buckeye because plants growing in proximity often had very different B:T ratios that could not be related to differences in environment or gross appearance. Genetic variation in reproductive characters is widespread (e.g., Tiedjens 1928, Edmond 1930, Jones 1947, Brooks 1948, Storey 1953, Borthwick and Scully 1954, Kooistra 1967), but has been little studied in native plant populations. Even indirect proof of genetic variation would have required transplant experiments beyond the scope of this study.…”

Section: Variation In Frequency Of Bisexual Fiowers Among Plantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Ecology of Sex Expression in Red Buckeye

Bertin¹

1982

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I examined the reproductive biology of the andromonoecious shrub, red buckeye (Aesculus pavia, Hippocastanaceae) in order to describe the distribution of the two flower types in space and time, and to explain these patterns in an ecological context. Bisexual flowers were rare relative to male flowers, comprising typically <2% of the total flowers at woodland sites and 5—40% at field sites. Light availability was apparently the most important environmental factor influencing among—plant differences in ratios of flower types and production of mature fruit, though variability of the former may also have had a large genetic component. Within inflorescence, bisexual flowers were most common basally, especially near the central inflorescence axis, and on the side of the inflorescence away from the branch bearing the inflorescence. Predator and pollinator behavior, and requirements for fruit support were potentially important in determining this pattern. Bisexual flowers tended to occur in those inflorescences receiving the most light, and having the most subtending leaves and greatest yearly twig elongation. Abundance of bisexual flowers through time showed (1) a strong negative correlation with intensity of predation on fruits produced from flowers borne at these times, (2) a negative correlation with intensity of predation on flowers, and (3) a positive correlation with probability of pollinator visitation. I suggest that spatial and temporal distributions of flower types are often selected for by patterns of resource availability and behavior of predators, pollinators, or dispersers, and that selection on monoecious species will generally favor individuals in which sex expression and fruit production respond to the same environmental factors.

show abstract