SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Agren, J. & Schemske, D.W. 1995. Sex allocation in the monoecious herb Begonia semiovata. Evolution 49: 121 130.
  • 2
    Ashman, T.L. & Baker, I. 1992. Variation in floral sex allocation with time of season and currency. Ecology 73: 1237 1243.
  • 3
    Atlan, A., Gouyon, P.H., Fournial, T., Pomente, D., Couvet, D. 1992. Sex allocation in an hermaphroditic plant: the case of gynodieocy in Thymus vulgaris. J. Evol. Biol. 5: 189 203.
  • 4
    Becker, W.A. 1985. Manual of Quantitative Genetics. Academic Enterprises, Washington.
  • 5
    Bickel, A.M. & Freeman, D.C. 1993. Effects of pollen vector and geometry on floral sex ratio in monoecious plants. Am. Midl. Nat. 130: 239 247.
  • 6
    Burd, M. & Allen, T.F.H. 1988. Sexual allocation strategy in wind-pollinated plants. Evolution 42: 403 407.
  • 7
    Brunet, J. 1992. Sex allocation in hermaphroditic plants. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7: 79 83.
  • 8
    Campbell, D.R. 1992. Variation in sex allocation and floral morphology in Ipomopsis aggregata (Polemoniaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 79: 516 521.
  • 9
    Campbell, D.R. 1997. Genetic correlation between biomass allocation to male and female functions in a natural population of Ipomopsis aggregata. Heredity 79: 606 614.
  • 10
    Charlesworth, B. & Charlesworth, D. 1981. Allocation to the male and female function in hermaphrodites. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 15: 57 74.
  • 11
    Charlesworth, D. & Morgan, M.T. 1991. Allocation of resources to sex functions in flowering plants. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Series B 332: 91 102.
  • 12
    Charnov, E.L. 1982. The Theory of Sex Allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  • 13
    Charnov, E.L., Maynard Smith, J.M., Bull., J.J. 1976. Why be a hermaphrodite? Nature 263: 125 126.
  • 14
    Dajoz, I. & Sandmeier, M. 1997. Plant size effects on allocation to male and female function in pearl millet, a hermaphroditic wind-pollinated species. Can. J. Bot. 75: 228 235.
  • 15
    Darwin, C. 1877. Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species. John Murray, London.
  • 16
    Falconer, D.S. 1981. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Longman Group Ltd, London.
  • 17
    Fenster, C.B. & Carr, D.E. 1997. Genetics of sex allocation in Mimulus (Scrophulariaceae). J. Evol. Biol. 10: 641 661.DOI: 10.1007/s000360050046
  • 18
    Fox, F.F. 1993. Size and sex allocation in monoecious woody plants. Oecologia 94: 110 113.
  • 19
    Freeman, D.C., Harper, K.T., Charnov, E.L. 1980. Sex change in plants: old observations and new hypotheses. Oecologia 47: 222 232.
  • 20
    Garnier, P., Maurice, S., Olivieri, I. 1993. Costly pollen in maize. Evolution 47: 946 949.
  • 21
    Ghiselin, M. 1969. The evolution of hermaphroditism among animals. Q. Rev. Biol. 44: 189 208.
  • 22
    Goldman, D.A. & Willson, M.F. 1986. Sex allocation in functionally hermaphroditic plants: a review and critique. Bot. Rev. 52: 157 194.
  • 23
    Hewitt, E.J. 1966. Sand and Water Culture Methods Used in the Study of Plant Nutrition. Commonwealth Agric. Bureaux, Farnham Royal, England.
  • 24
    Horovitz, A. 1978. Is the hermaphrodite flowering plant equisexual? Amer. J. Bot. 65: 485 486.
  • 25
    Houle, D. 1991. Genetic covariances of fitness correlates: what genetic correlations are made of and why it matters. Evolution 45: 630 648.
  • 26
    Houle, D. 1992. Comparing evolvability and variability in quantitative traits. Genetics 130: 195 204.
  • 27
    Iwasa, Y. 1991. Sex change evolution and the cost of reproduction. Behav. Ecol. 2: 56 68.
  • 28
    De Jong, G. 1993. Covariances between traits deriving from successive allocations of a resource. Funct. Ecol. 7: 75 83.
  • 29
    De Jong, G. & Van Noordwijk, A.J. 1992. Acquisition and allocation of resources: genetic (co) variances, selection and life histories. Amer. Nat. 139: 749 770.
  • 30
    De Jong, T.J. & Klinkhamer, P.G.L. 1989. Size-dependency of sex allocation in hermaphroditic, monocarpic plants. Funct. Ecol. 3: 201 206.
  • 31
    De Jong, T.J., Klinkhamer, P.G.L., Rademaker, M.C.J. 1999. How geitonogamous selfing affects sex allocation in hermaphroditic plants. J. Evol. Biol. 12: 166 176.
  • 32
    Klinkhamer, P.G.L. & De Jong, T.J. 1997. Size-dependent sex allocation to male and female reproduction. In: Plant Resource Allocation (F. A. Bazzaz & J. Grace, eds), pp. 211–229. Academic Press, San Diego.
  • 33
    Klinkhamer, P.G.L., De Jong, T.J., Metz, H. 1997. Sex and size in cosexual plants. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 12: 260 265.DOI: 10.1016/s0169-5347(97)01078-1
  • 34
    Koelewijn, H.P. 1996. Sexual differences in reproductive characters in gynodioecious Plantago coronopus. Oikos 75: 443 452.
  • 35
    Koelewijn, H.P. 1998. Effects of different levels of inbreeding on progeny fitness in Plantago coronopus. Evolution 52: 692 702.
  • 36
    Koelewijn, H.P. & Van Damme, J.M.M. 1995a. Genetics of male sterility in Plantago coronopus. I. Cytoplasmic variation . Genetics 139: 1749 1758.
  • 37
    Koelewijn, H.P. & Van Damme, J.M.M. 1995b. Genetics of male sterility in Plantago coronopus. II. Nuclear genetic variation . Genetics 139: 1759 1775.
  • 38
    Koelewijn, H.P. & Van Damme, J.M.M. 1996. Gender variation, partial male sterility and labile sex expression in gynodioecious Plantago coronopus. New Phytol. 132: 67 76.
  • 39
    Kudo, G. 1993. Size-dependent resource allocation pattern and gender variation of Anemone debilis Fisch. Plant Species Biology 8: 29 34.
  • 40
    LaBarbera, N. 1989. Analyzing body size as a factor in ecology and evolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20: 97 117.
  • 41
    Lambers, H., Cambridge, M., Konings, H., Pons, T.L., eds. 1989. Causes and Consequences of Variation in Growth Rate and Productivity of Higher Plants. SPB Academic Publishers, The Hague.
  • 42
    Lande, R. & Arnold, S.J. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37: 1210 1267.
  • 43
    Lawrence, M.J. 1984. The genetical analysis of ecological traits. In: Evolutionary Ecology (B. Shorrocks, ed.), pp. 27–63. Blackwell, Oxford.
  • 44
    Lloyd, D.G. 1980. Sexual strategies in plants. III. A quantitative method for describing the gender of plants. New Zeal. J. Bot. 18: 103 108.
  • 45
    Lloyd, D.G. 1984. Gender allocations in outcrossing cosexual plants. In: Perspectives on Plant Population Ecology (R. Dirzo & J. Sarukan, eds), pp. 277–300.Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.
  • 46
    Lloyd, D.G. & Bawa, K.S. 1984. Modification of the gender of seed plants in varying conditions. Evol. Biol. 17: 255 338.
  • 47
    Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. 1998. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.
  • 48
    Mazer, S.J. 1987. The quantitative genetics of life history and fitness components in Raphanus raphanistrum L. (Brasicaceae): ecological and evolutionary consequences of seed weight variation. Amer. Nat. 130: 891 914.
  • 49
    Mazer, S.J. 1992. Environmental and genetic sources of variation in foral traits and phenotypic gender in wild radish: consequences for natural selection. In: Ecology and Evolution of Plant Reproduction (R. Wyatt, ed.), pp. 281–325.Chapman & Hall, New York.
  • 50
    Mazer, S.J. & Delesalle, V.A. 1998. Contrasting variation and covariation between gender-related traits in autogamous versus outcrossing species: alternative evolutionary predictions. Evol. Ecol. 12: 403 425.
  • 51
    Mazer, S.J., Delesalle, V.A., Neal, P.R. 1999. Responses of floral traits to selection on primary sexual investment in Spergularia marina: The battle between the sexes . Evolution 53: 403 425.
  • 52
    McKone, M.J. 1987. Sex allocation and outcrossing rate: a test of theoretical predictions using bromegrass (Bromus). Evolution 41: 591 598.
  • 53
    McKone, M.J. 1989. Intraspecific variation in pollen yield in bromegrass (Poaceae: Bromus). Am. J. Bot. 76: 231 237.
  • 54
    McKone, M.J. & Tonkyn, D.W. 1986. Intrapopulation gender variation in common ragweed (Asteracea: Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), a monoecious annual herb. Oecologia 70: 63 67.
  • 55
    Morgan, M. 1992. The evolution of traits influencing male and female fertility in outcrossing plants. Amer. Nat. 139: 1022 1051.
  • 56
    Morgan, M. & Schoen, D.J. 1997. The role of theory in an emerging new plant reproductive biology. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 12: 231 234.DOI: 10.1016/s0169-5347(97)01045-8
  • 57
    Van Noordwijk, A.J. & De Jong, G. 1986. Acquisition and allocation of resources: their influence on variation in life history tactics. Amer. Nat. 128: 137 142.
  • 58
    O’Neill, P. & Schmitt, J. 1993. Genetic constraints on the independent evolution of male and female reproductive characters in the tristylous plant Lythrum salicaria. Evolution 47: 1457 1471.
  • 59
    Pease, C.M. & Bull., J.J. 1988. A critique of methods for measuring life-history trade-offs. J. Evol. Biol. 1: 293 303.
  • 60
    Peters, R.H. 1983. The Ecological Implications of Body Size. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • 61
    Petersen, C.W. & Fischer, E.A. 1996. Intraspecific variation in sex allocation in a simultaneous hermaphrodite: the effect of individual size. Evolution 50: 636 645.
  • 62
    Pickering, C.M. & Ash, J.E. 1993. Gender variation in hermaphrodite plants: evidence from five species of alpine Ranunculus. Oikos 68: 539 548.
  • 63
    Poot, P. 1997. Reproductive allocation and resource compensation in male-sterile, partially male-sterile and hermaphroditic plants of Plantago lanceolata. Amer. J. Bot. 84: 1256 1265.
  • 64
    Prothero, J. 1986. Methodological aspects of scaling in biology. J. Theor. Biol. 118: 259 286.
  • 65
    Rayner, J.M.V. 1985. Linear relations in biomechanics: the statistics of scaling functions. J. Zool. London. (a) 206: 415 439.
  • 66
    Reekie, E.G. & Bazzaz, F.A. 1987. Reproductive effort in plants. 2. Does carbon reflect the allocation of other resources? Amer. Nat. 129: 897 906.
  • 67
    Ross, M.D. 1989. Sexual asymmetry in hermaphroditic plants. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5: 39 42.
  • 68
    Ross, M.D. & Gregorius, H.R. 1983. Outcrossing and sex function in hermaphrodites: a resource allocation model. Amer. Nat. 121: 201 224.
  • 69
    Salonen, K. 1981. Determimation of carbon – An alternative method for the estimation of biomass of zooplankton. Lamni Notes 5: 7 11.
  • 70
    Sandmeier, M. & Dajoz, I. 1997. Allocation to reproduction in pearl millet: Correlations between male and female functions. Int. J. Plant Sci. 158: 510 518.
  • 71
    Savolainen, O., Karkkainen, K., Harju, A., Nikkanen, T., Rusanen, M. 1993. Fertility variation in Pinus sylvestris: a test of sex allocation theory . Amer. J. Bot. 80: 1016 1020.
  • 72
    Schat, H. 1982. On the ecology of some dutch dune slack plants. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
  • 73
    Snow, A.A., Spira, T.P., Simpson, R., Klips, R.A. 1995. The ecology of geitonogamous pollination. In: Floral Biology (D. G. Lloyd & S. C. H. Barrett, eds), pp. 191–216.Chapman & Hall, New York.
  • 74
    Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J. 1994. Biometry. W.H. Freeman, New York.
  • 75
    Solomon, B.P. 1989. Size-dependent sex ratios in the monoecious, wind-pollinated annual, Xanthium strumarium. Amer. Midl. Nat. 121: 209 218.
  • 76
    Stanton, M.L. & Galloway, L.F. 1990. Natural selection and allocation to reproduction in flowering plants. In: Sex Allocation and Sex Change: Experiments and Models (M. Mangel, ed.), pp. 1–50. American Mathematical Society, Providence.
  • 77
    Stearns, S.C. 1992. The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • 78
    Stephenson, A.G. 1981. Flower and fruit abortion: proximate causes and ultimate functions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 12: 253 279.
  • 79
    Waite, S. & Hutchings, M.J. 1982. Plastic energy allocation patterns in Plantago coronopus. Oikos 38: 333 342.
  • 80
    Wolff, K., Friso, B., Van Damme, J.M.M. 1988. Outcrossing rates and male sterility in natural populations of Plantago coronopus. Theor. Appl. Gen. 76: 190 196.
  • 81
    Wright, S.I. & Barrett, S.C.H. 1999. Size-dependent gender modification in a hermaphroditic perennial herb. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266: 225 232.