Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Survival costs and reproductive benefits of floral display in a sexually dimorphic dioecious shrub, Leucadendron xanthoconus

  • Published:
Evolutionary Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The evolutionary causes of sexual dimorphism in plants have not been as widely studied as in animals and the importance of sexual selection in causing dimorphism remains controversial. Sexual selection is most obvious when it favours the evolution of a trait which enhances mating success at the expense of decreased viability. We studied the relationship between floral display (number of inflorescences), pollinator attraction and plant survival in a dioecious shrub, Leucadendron xanthoconus. Pollinator attraction, measured as the number of insect pollinators, increased linearly with floral display in males. However, males with extravagant displays had a higher probability of dying. Our data suggest that male plants are undergoing selection on floral display for increased mating success counterbalanced by selection against plants with extravagant displays. Seed set in females did not increase with floral display, except at very low inflorescence numbers. Nor was female survival correlated with floral display. Because inflorescences are terminal in the species, selection for more inflorescences in males causes increased ramification, thinner terminal branches and smaller leaves. Thus vegetative dimorphism in this species appears to be caused by selection for extravagant floral display in males, but not females. Limits to dimorphism are imposed by survival costs of elaborate display.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersson, M. (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bawa, K.S. (1990) Evolution of dioecy in flowering plants. Ann. Rev. Ecol.Syst. 11, 15–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierzychudek, P., Eckhart, V. (1988) Spatial segregation of the sexes of dioecious plants. Am. Nat. 132, 34–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, W.J., Midgley, J. (1988) Allometry and sexual differences in leaf size. Am. Nat. 131, 901–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, W.J., Vlok, J., Viviers, M. (1984) Variation in seedling recruitment of Cape Proteaceae after fire. J. Ecol. 72, 209–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, W.J., Maze, K., Desmet, P. (1995) Fire life histories and the seeds of chaos. Ecoscience 2, 252–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P.J., Manders, P.T., Bands, D.P., Kruger, F.J., Andrag, R.H. (1991) Prescribed burning as a conservation management practice: a case history from the Cederberg mountains, Cape Province, South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 56, 133–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burd, M. (1994) Bateman's principle and plant reproduction: the role of pollen limitation in fruit and seed set. Bot. Rev. 60, 83–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth, D., Schemske, D.W., Sork, V.L. (1987) The evolution of plant reproductive characters: Sexual versus natural selection. In S.C. Stearns (ed.), The Evolution of Sex and Its Consequences pp. 317–336. Birkhauser, Basel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cipollini, M.L., Whigham, D.F. (1994) Sexual dimorphisms and cost of reproduction in the dioecious shrub Lindera benzoin (Lauraceae). Am. J. Bot. 81, 65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J.S. (1991) Disturbance and tree life history on the shifting mosaic landscape. Ecology 72, 1102–1118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, P.A. (1981) Niche partitioning between sexes of dioecious plants. Am. Nat. 117, 295–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dafni, A. (1992) Pollination Ecology: a Practical Approach. Oxford University Press.

  • Darwin, C. (1871) The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Murray, London.

  • Fisher, R.A. (1915) The evolution of sexual preference. Eugenics Review 7, 184–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, D.K., Kliko., L.G., Harper, K.T. (1976) Differential resource utilization by the sexes of dioecious plants. Science 193, 597–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geber, M.A. (1995) Fitness effects of sexual dimorphisms in plants. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10, 222–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W.D., Zuk, M. (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: A role for parasites? Science 218, 384–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, P.H., Bradbury, J.W. (1991) Sexual Selection. In J.R. Krebs and N.B. Davies (eds), Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 3rd ed., pp. 203–233. Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattingh, V., Giliomee, J.H. (1989) Pollination of certain Leucadendron species. S. Afr. J. Bot. 55, 387–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klinkhamer, P.G.L., de Jong, T.J. (1993) Attractiveness to pollinators: a plant's dilemma. Oikos 66, 180–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohorn, L.U. (1994) Shoot morphology and reproduction in jojoba: advantages of sexual dimorphism. Ecology 75, 2384–2394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, D.G., Webb, C.J. (1977) Secondary sex characters in plants. Bot. Rev. 43, 177–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, E.E., Waser, N.M., Price, M.V., Antonovics, J., Motten, A.F. (1989) Sources of variation in plant reproductive success and implications for concepts of sexual selection. Am. Nat. 134, 409–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, D.L., Folsom, M.W. (1991) Mate choice in plants: an anatomical to population perspective. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 22, 37–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, J.J., Bond, W.J. (1989) Leaf size and inflorescence size may be allometrically related traits. Oecologia 78, 427–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoen, D.J., Stewart, S.C. (1986) Variation in male reproductive investment and male reproductive success in white spruce. Evolution 40, 1109–1120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shine, R. (1989) Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Quarterly Review of Biology 64, 419–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slatkin, M. (1984) Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38, 622–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, A.A., Lewis, P.O. (1993) Reproductive traits and male fertility in plants: Empirical approaches. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24, 331–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, M.L. (1994) Male-male competition during pollination in plant populations. Am. Nat. 144, S40-S68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, G.A., Bertin, R.I. (1983) Male competition, female choice, and sexual selection in plants. In L. Real (ed.). Pollination biology of plants, Academic press, Orlando, Fl.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Wilgen, B.W. & Viviers, M. (1985) The effect of season of fire on serotinous Proteaceae in the Western Cape and the implications for fynbos management. South African Forestry Journal 133, 49–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, C.S., Rundel, P.W. (1981) Sexual dimorphism and resource allocation in male and female shrubs of Simmondsia chinensis. Oecologia 44, 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, I.J.M. (1972) A revision of the genus Leucadendron (Proteaceae). Contributions of the Bolus Herbarium 3, 1–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willson, M.F. (1990) Sexual selection in plants and animals. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5, 210–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willson, M.F. (1991) Sexual selection, sexual dimorphism and plant phylogeny. Evolutionary Ecology 5, 69–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willson, M.F. (1994) Sexual selection in plants: perspective and review. Am. Nat. 144, S13-S39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willson, M.F., Price, P.W. (1977) The evolution of inflorescence size in Asclepias (Asclepiadaceae). Evolution 31, 495–511.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Botany Department, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch, 7700, South Africa

    William J. Bond & Kristal E. Maze

Authors
  1. William J. Bond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristal E. Maze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bond, W.J., Maze, K.E. Survival costs and reproductive benefits of floral display in a sexually dimorphic dioecious shrub, Leucadendron xanthoconus. Evolutionary Ecology 13, 1–18 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006581412580

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006581412580