4.7 Article

Clonal genetic structure and diversity in populations of an aquatic plant with combined vs. separate sexes

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 23, 期 12, 页码 2914-2928

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mec.12791

关键词

clonality; dioecy; monoecy; population structure; range limits; Sagittaria latifolia

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. NSERC
  3. Canada Research Chair's Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clonality is often implicated in models of the evolution of dioecy, but few studies have explicitly compared clonal structure between plant sexual systems, or between the sexes in dioecious populations. Here, we exploit the occurrence of monoecy and dioecy in clonal Sagittaria latifola (Alismataceae) to evaluate two main hypotheses: (i) clone sizes are smaller in monoecious than dioecious populations, because of constraints imposed on clone size by costs associated with geitonogamy; (ii) in dioecious populations, male clones are larger and flower more often than female clones because of sex-differential reproductive costs. Differences in clone size and flowering could result in discordance between ramet- and genet-based sex ratios. We used spatially explicit sampling to address these hypotheses in 10 monoecious and 11 dioecious populations of S.latifolia at the northern range limit in Eastern North America. In contrast to our predictions, monoecious clones were significantly larger than dioecious clones, probably due to their higher rates of vegetative growth and corm production, and in dioecious populations, there was no difference in clone size between females and males; ramet- and genet-based sex ratios were therefore highly correlated. Genotypic diversity declined with latitude for both sexual systems, but monoecious populations exhibited lower genotypic richness. Differences in life history between the sexual systems of S.latifolia appear to be the most important determinants of clonal structure and diversity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据