Ecological and evolutionary mechanisms for low seed: ovule ratios: need for a pluralistic approach?

Central to the ecology and evolution of a broad range of plants is understanding why they routinely have submaximal reproduction manifested as low seed : ovule and fruit : flower ratios. We know much less about the processes responsible for low seed : ovule ratios than we do for fruit : flower ratios. Current hypotheses for low seed : ovule ratios are largely drawn from those for fruit : flower ratios, including proximate (ecological) causes of pollen limitation, resource limitation, and pollen quality, as well as the ultimate (evolutionary) hypothesis of "bet hedging" on stochastic pollination. Yet, such mechanisms operating on fruit : flower ratios at the whole-plant level may not best explain low seed : ovule ratios at the individual-flower level. We tested each of these proximate and ultimate causes for low seed : ovule ratios using the specialized pollination mutualism between senita cacti (Pachycereus schottii) and senita moths (Upiga virescens). Seed : ovule ratios were consistently low (approximately 0.61). Such excess ovule production by senita likely has a strong genetic component given the significant differences among plants in ovule number and the consistency in ovule production by plants within and among flowering seasons. Excess ovule production and low seed : ovule ratios could not be explained by pollen limitation, resource limitation, pollen quality, or bet hedging. Nevertheless, phenotypic selection analyses did show significant selection gradients for increased ovule number, suggesting that other evolutionary processes may be responsible for excess ovule production and low seed : ovule ratios. In contrast, low fruit : flower ratios at the whole-plant level were explained by an apparent equilibrium between pollen and resource limitation. Thus, mechanisms responsible for low fruit : flower ratios at the whole-plant level are not necessarily in accord with those of low seed : ovule ratios at the individual-flower level. This suggests that we may need to adopt a more pluralistic approach to seed : ovule ratios and consider alternative hypotheses, including a greater array of proximate and ultimate causes. Initial results of this study suggest that floral allometry, selection on correlated floral traits, stigma clogging with pollen grains, and style clogging with pollen tubes may provide promising avenues for understanding low seed : ovule ratios.

[1]  T. Ashman,et al.  A quantitative synthesis of pollen supplementation experiments highlights the contribution of resource reallocation to estimates of pollen limitation. , 2006, American journal of botany.

[2]  Michele R. Dudash,et al.  Pollen Limitation of Plant Reproduction: Pattern and Process , 2005 .

[3]  Izabela E Annis PROC SQL: Beyond the Basics Using SAS , 2005 .

[4]  Martin T. Morgan,et al.  Plant Population Dynamics, Pollinator Foraging, and the Selection of Self‐Fertilization , 2005, The American Naturalist.

[5]  D. DeAngelis,et al.  Evolutionary stability of mutualism: interspecific population regulation as an evolutionarily stable strategy , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  Michele R. Dudash,et al.  Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: Ecological and evolutionary causes and consequences , 2004 .

[7]  D. DeAngelis,et al.  Testing hypotheses for excess flower production and low fruit‐to‐flower ratios in a pollinating seed‐consuming mutualism , 2004 .

[8]  T. Fleming,et al.  Co-pollinators and specialization in the pollinating seed-consumer mutualism between senita cacti and senita moths , 2002, Oecologia.

[9]  J. N. Holland Benefits and costs of mutualism: demographic consequences in a pollinating seed–consumer interaction , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  S. Barrett,et al.  Factors Affecting Low Seed:Ovule Ratios in a Spring Woodland Herb, Trillium grandiflorum (Melanthiaceae) , 2002, International Journal of Plant Sciences.

[11]  C. Galen High and Dry: Drought Stress, Sex‐Allocation Trade‐offs, and Selection on Flower Size in the Alpine Wildflower Polemonium viscosum (Polemoniaceae) , 2000, The American Naturalist.

[12]  Campbell Experimental tests of sex-allocation theory in plants. , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[13]  S. Barrett,et al.  A comparative analysis of pollen limitation in flowering plants , 2000 .

[14]  Theodore H. Fleming,et al.  MUTUALISTIC INTERACTIONS BETWEEN UPIGA VIRESCENS (PYRALIDAE), A POLLINATING SEED-CONSUMER, AND LOPHOCEREUS SCHOTTII (CACTACEAE) , 1999 .

[15]  P. Klinkhamer,et al.  Sex and size in cosexual plants. , 1997, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[16]  S. Sakai On Ovule Production in Environments where Pollinator or Resource Availability is Unpredictable , 1996 .

[17]  M. Burd OVULE PACKAGING IN STOCHASTIC POLLINATION AND FERTILIZATION ENVIRONMENTS , 1995, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[18]  Karl J. Niklas,et al.  Botanical Scaling. (Book Reviews: Plant Allometry. The Scaling of Form and Process.) , 1994 .

[19]  David W. Inouye,et al.  Techniques for Pollination Biologists , 1993 .

[20]  J. Brunet,et al.  Sex allocation in hermaphroditic plants. , 1992, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[21]  D. Charlesworth Evolution of low female fertility in plants: Pollen limitation, resource allocation and genetic load. , 1989, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[22]  D. Ayre,et al.  Factors controlling fruit set in hermaphroditic plants: Studies with the Australian proteaceae. , 1989, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[23]  C. I. Davern,et al.  Developmental failure and loss of reproductive capacity in the rare palaeoendemic shrub Dedeckera eurekensis , 1989, Nature.

[24]  D. Haig,et al.  On Limits to Seed Production , 1988, The American Naturalist.

[25]  G. Pyke,et al.  Reproduction in Polemonium: Assessing the Factors Limiting Seed Set , 1988, The American Naturalist.

[26]  C. I. Davern,et al.  Reproductive success, spontaneous embryo abortion, and genetic load in flowering plants , 1987, Oecologia.

[27]  S. Sutherland PATTERNS OF FRUIT‐SET: WHAT CONTROLS FRUIT‐FLOWER RATIOS IN PLANTS? , 1986, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[28]  D. Wiens Ovule survivorship, brood size, life history, breeding systems,and reproductive success in plants , 1984, Oecologia.

[29]  L. F. Delph,et al.  On the Importance of Male Fitness in Plants: Patterns of Fruit-Set , 1984 .

[30]  S. J. Arnold,et al.  THE MEASUREMENT OF SELECTION ON CORRELATED CHARACTERS , 1983, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[31]  A. Stephenson Flower and Fruit Abortion: Proximate Causes and Ultimate Functions , 1981 .