[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]

植物生态学报 >

2005 , Vol. 29 >Issue 4: 672 - 679

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17521/cjpe.2005.0090

综述

雌雄同体植物的性别干扰及其进化意义

展开
  • 生物多样性与生态工程教育部重点实验室,北京师范大学生态学研究所,北京 100875

收稿日期: 2004-08-31

  录用日期: 2004-11-18

  网络出版日期: 2005-07-31

基金资助

国家自然科学基金(30125008);国家自然科学基金(30430160);教育部重点项目(00011)

收起

SEXUAL INTERFERENCE IN COSEXUAL PLANTS AND ITS EVOLUTIONARY IMPLICATIONS

Expand
  • Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering & Institute of Ecology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
* E-mail: zhangdy@bnu.edu.cn

Received date: 2004-08-31

  Accepted date: 2004-11-18

  Online published: 2005-07-31

Fold

摘要

雌雄同体植物在传粉和交配过程中两性功能存在潜在的冲突和妥协。除自交和近交衰退外,人们近年来更加强调导致配子浪费和适合度减少的繁殖代价——性别干扰。性别干扰潜在地存在于雌雄同体植物中,尤其是花粉和柱头空间位置接近而又同时成熟的两性花中。该文首先介绍了雌雄同体植物性别干扰的含义及其各种形式,进而用性别干扰理论来解释各种花部性状的适应意义,同时还回顾了植物中关于性别干扰的少数实验证据。该文强调,通常被解释为避免自交的花部机制实际上更大可能是为了避免性别干扰。从更广泛意义上,自交也可以看成是一种形式的性别干扰。

关键词： 性别干扰; 避免自交; 近交衰退; 雌雄同体

本文引用格式

白伟宁, 张大勇 . 雌雄同体植物的性别干扰及其进化意义[J]. 植物生态学报, 2005 , 29(4) : 672 -679 . DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2005.0090

Abstract

The fundamental sexual condition of the vast majority of flowering plant species is hermaphroditism. Hermaphroditic individuals both receive and disperse pollen and may ultimately function as both maternal and paternal parents to the next generation of individuals. Such dual sex roles can result in conflicts and compromise the parental roles of plants during pollination and mating. Our aim in this review is to introduce the key concepts and various forms of sexual interference in flowering plants. Sexual interference can potentially take several distinct forms with contrasting reproductive consequences and has been recognized as occurring within flowers and between flowers. Intra-floral interference includes physical interference between sex functions, pollen clogging, and ovule discounting, while inter-floral interference refers to geitonogamous pollen discounting. The adaptive significance of floral diversity such as dichogamy, herkogamy, unisexuality, and self-incompatibility has largely been regarded in the literature as resulting only from selection to avoid selfing and the harmful effects of inbreeding, but without regard to the possibly important role that sexual interference has played. We review the limited experimental evidence for interference between sex functions and evaluate the hypothesis that some floral adaptations may serve an alternative function in reducing mating costs. In a broader sense, selfing also may be regarded as a form of sexual interference, or more specifically, male function (pollen dispersal) interfering with female function (seed production). Through imaginative experiments involving floral manipulations, it is possible to evaluate various forms of sexual interference in plants and their potential ecological and evolutionary significance.

Key words： Sexual interference; Selfing avoidance; Inbreeding depression; Co-sexuality

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

参考文献

[1] Barrett SCH (1998). The evolution of mating strategies in flowering plants. Trends in Plant Science, 3,335-341.
[2] Barrett SCH (2002). Sexual interference of the floral kind. Heredity, 88,154-159.
[3] Barrett SCH (2003). Mating strategies in flowering plants: the outcrossing-selfing paradigm and beyond. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 358,991-1004.
[4] Barrett SCH, Jesson LK, Baker HG (2000). The evolution and function of stylar polymorphisms in flowering plants. Annals of Botany, 85,253-265.
[5] Bawa KS, Beach JH (1981). Evolution of sexual systems in flowering plants. Annals of Missouri Botanical Gardens, 68,254-274.
[6] Bell G (1985). On the function of flowers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B-Biological Sciences, 224,223-265.
[7] Bertin RI, Newman CM (1993). Dichogamy in angiosperms. The Botanical Review, 59,112-152.
[8] Bertin RI, Sullivan MS (1988). Pollen interference and cryptic self-fertility in Campsis radicans. American Journal of Botany, 75,1140-1147.
[9] Broyles SB, Wyatt R (1997). The pollen donation hypothesis revisited: a response to queller. American Naturalist, 149,595-599.
[10] Charlesworth D (1993). Why are unisexual flowers associated with wind pollination and unspecialized pollinators. American Naturalist, 141,481-490.
[11] Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B (1987). Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary significance. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 18,237-268.
[12] Connor HE (1979). Breeding systems in the grasses: a survey. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 17,547-574.
[13] Darwin C (1877). The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species. John Murray, London.
[14] Eckert CG (2000). Contributions of autogamy and geitonogamy to self-fertilization in a mass-flowering, clonal plant. Ecology, 81,532-542.
[15] Fetscher AE (2001). Resolution of male-female conflict in an hermaphrodite flower. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 268,525-529.
[16] Galen C, Gregory T, Galloway LF (1989). Costs of self-pollination in a self-incompatible plant, Polemonium viscosum. American Journal of Botany, 76,1675-1680.
[17] Givnish TJ (1980). Ecological constraints on the evolution of breeding systems in seed plants: dioecy and dispersal in gymnosperms. Evolution, 34,959-972.
[18] Godley EJ (1955). Monoecy and incompatibility. Nature, 176,1176-1177.
[19] Harder LD, Barrett SCH (1995). Mating cost of large floral displays in hermaphrodite plants. Nature, 373,512-515.
[20] Harder LD, Barrett SCH (1996). Pollen dispersal and mating patterns in animal-pollinated plants. In: Lloyd DG, Barrett SCH eds. Floral Biology. Chapman Hall , New York.
[21] Harder LD, Barrett SCH, Cole WW (2000). The mating consequences of sexual segregation within inflorescences of flowering plants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 267,315-320.
[22] Harder LD, Wilson WG (1998). A clarification of pollen discounting and its joint effect with inbreeding depression on mating-system evolution. American Naturalist, 152,684-695.
[23] Holsinger KE (1996). Pollination biology and the evolution of mating systems in flowering plants. Evolutionary Biology, 29,107-149.
[24] Holsinger KE, Feldman MW, Christiansen FB (1984). The evolution of self-fertilization in plants: a population genetic model. American Naturalist, 124,446-453.
[25] Ingram R, Taylor L (1982). The genetic control of a non-radiate condition in Senecio squalidus L. and some observations on the role of ray florets in the Compositae. New Phytologist, 91,749-756.
[26] Jesson LK, Barrett SCH (2002a). Enantiostyly in wachendorfia(Haemodoraceae): the influence of reproductive systems on the maintenance of the polymorphism. American Journal of Botany, 89,253-262.
[27] Jesson LK, Barrett SCH (2002b). Enantiostyly: solving the puzzle of mirror-image flowers. Nature, 417,707.
[28] Jesson LK, Barrett SCH (2002c). The genetics of mirror-image flowers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 269,1835-1839.
[29] Kerner A (1895). The Natural History of Plants. Blackie, London.
[30] Li QJ, Xu ZF, Kress WJ, Xia YM, Zhang L, Deng XB, Gao JY, Bai ZL (2001). Flexible style that encourages outcrossing. Nature, 410,432.
[31] Lloyd DG (1992). Self-fertilization and cross-fertilization in plants.2. The selection of self-fertilization. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 153,370-380.
[32] Lloyd DG, Schoen DJ (1992). Self-fertilization and cross-fertilization in plants.1. Functional dimensions. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 153,358-369.
[33] Lloyd DG, Webb CJ (1986). The avoidance of interference between the presentation of pollen and stigamas in angiosperms. I. Dichogamy. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 24,135-162.
[34] Lloyd DG, Yates JMA (1982). Intrasexual selection and the segregation of pollen and stigmas in hermaphrodite plants, exemplified by Wahlenbergia albomarginata(Campanulaceae). Evolution, 36,903-913.
[35] Meng JL(孟金陵) (1995). Reproductive Genetics in Plants (植物生殖遗传学). Science Press, Beijing.(in chinese).
[36] Proctor M, Yeo P, Lack A (1996). The Natural History of Pollination. Timber Press, Inc, Portland , OR.
[37] Queller DC (1983). Sexual selection in an hermaproditic plant. Nature, 305,706-707.
[38] Routley MB (2003). The Temporal Separation of Gender in Flowering Plants: an evolutionary analysis. PhD dissertation, The University of Guelph, Canada.
[39] Routley MB, Husband BC (2003). The effect of protandry on siring success in Chamerion anfustifolium (Onagraceae) with different inflorescence sizes. Evolution, 57,240-248.
[40] Sage TL, Strumas F, Cole WW, Barrett SCH (1999). Differential ovule development following self- and cross-pollination: the basis of self-sterility in Narcissus triandrus (Amaryllidaceae). American Journal of Botany, 86,855-870.
[41] Waser NM, Price MV (1991). Reproductive costs of self-pollinationin Ipomopsis aggregata (Polemoniaceae). American Journal of Botany, 78,1036-1043.
[42] Webb CJ, Bawa KS (1983). Pollen dispersal by hummingbirds and butterflies: a comparative study of two lowland tropical plants. Evolution, 36,1258-1270.
[43] Webb CJ, Lloyd DG (1986). The avoidance of interference between the presentation of pollen and stigmas in angiosperms. II. Herkogamy. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 24,163-178.
[44] Willson MF, Rathcke BJ (1974). Adaptive design of the floral display in Asclepias syriaca L. American Midland Naturalist, 92,47-57.
[45] Wyatt R (1983). Plant-pollinator interactions and the evolution of breeding systems. In: Real L ed. Pollination Biology. Academic Press , Orlando.
[46] Zhang DY(张大勇) (2004). Life History Evolution and Reproductive Eecology in Plants (植物生活史进化与繁殖生态学). Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉

[an error occurred while processing this directive]