Roughly half of the species of bryophytes have separate sexes (dioecious) and half are hermaphroditic (monoecious). This variation has major consequences for the ecology and evolution of the different species. In some sexually reproducing dioecious bryophytes, sex ratio has been shown to vary with environmental conditions. This study focuses on the dioecious wetland moss Drepanocladus trifarius, which rarely produces sexual branches or sporophytes and lacks apparent secondary sex characteristics, and examines whether genetic sexes exhibit different habitat preferences, i.e. whether sexual niche partitioning occurs.
A total of 277 shoots of D. trifarius were randomly sampled at 214 locations and 12 environmental factors were quantified at each site. Sex was assigned to the individual shoots collected in the natural environments, regardless of their reproductive status, using a specifically designed molecular marker associated with female sex.
Male and female shoots did not differ in shoot biomass, the sexes were randomly distributed with respect to each other, and environmental conditions at male and female sampling locations did not differ. Collectively, this demonstrates a lack of sexual niche segregation. Adult genetic sex ratio was female-biased, with 2?8 females for every male individual.
The results show that although the sexes of D. trifarius did not differ with regard to annual growth, spatial distribution or habitat requirements, the genetic sex ratio was nevertheless significantly female-biased. This supports the notion that factors other than sex-related differences in reproductive costs and sexual dimorphism can also drive the evolution of biased sex ratios in plants.
Notes
Cites: BMC Evol Biol. 2013;13:23924180692
Cites: Genetics. 2008 Jul;179(3):1425-3518562651
Cites: Evolution. 2005 Apr;59(4):814-2515926691
Cites: J Theor Biol. 1981 Mar 7;89(1):83-1297278311
Cites: Mol Ecol. 2002 Oct;11(10):2151-612296956
Cites: Am J Bot. 2014 Sep;101(9):1572-625253715
Cites: Am J Bot. 2014 Feb;101(2):348-5624500804
Cites: Genetics. 2007 Aug;176(4):2489-50017603096
Cites: J Hered. 2008 Nov-Dec;99(6):581-718502734
Cites: Oecologia. 2010 Mar;162(3):561-7019820969
Cites: Ecology. 2010 May;91(5):1380-9020503870
Cites: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Aug 27;365(1552):2549-5720643745
Cites: Ann Bot. 2011 Jan;107(1):119-2620980325
Cites: Ann Bot. 2011 May;107(6):897-90721320878
Cites: Am J Bot. 2011 Mar;98(3):352-6921613131
Cites: Trends Genet. 2011 Sep;27(9):350-721962970
Cites: J Exp Bot. 2013 Jan;64(1):67-8223183260
Cites: Evolution. 2013 Feb;67(2):567-7223356627
Cites: Evolution. 2013 Mar;67(3):661-7223461317
Cites: Ann Bot. 2013 May;111(5):917-2323444124
Cites: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 5;105(31):10847-5218658241