SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Alexandersson R, Johnson SD. 2002. Pollinator-mediated selection on flower-tube length in a hawkmoth-pollinated Gladiolus (Iridaceae). Proceedings of the Royal Society – Biological Sciences (Series B) 269: 631636.
  • Arathi HS, Kelly JK. 2004. Corolla morphology facilitates both autogamy and bumblebee pollination in Mimulus guttatus. International Journal of Plant Sciences 165: 10391045.
  • Ashman T-L, Knight TM, Steets JA, Amarasekare P, Burd M, Campbell DR, Dudash MR, Johnston MO, Mazer SJ, Mitchell RJ et al. 2004. Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: Ecological and evolutionary causes and consequences. Ecology 85: 24082421.
  • Ashman T-L, Morgan MT. 2004. Explaining phenotypic selection on plant attractive characters: Male function, gender balance or ecological context? Proceedings of the Royal Society – Biological Sciences (Series B) 271: 553559.
  • Barrett SCH, Harder LD. 1996. Ecology and evolution of plant mating. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 7379.
  • Burd M. 1994. Bateman's principle and plant reproduction: the role of pollen limitation in fruit and seed set. Botanical Review 60: 81139.
  • Busch JW. 2005. The evolution of self-compatibility in geographically peripheral populations of Leavenworthia alabamica (Brassicaceae). American Journal of Botany 92: 15031512.
  • Campbell DR. 1989. Measurements of selection in a hermaphroditic plant: variation in male and female pollination success. Evolution 43: 318334.
  • Carr DE, Fenster CB. 1994. Levels of genetic variation and covariation for Mimulus (Scrophulariaceae) floral traits. Heredity 72: 606618.
  • Caruso CM. 2000. Competition for pollination influences selection on floral traits of Ipomopsis aggregata. Evolution 54: 15461557.
  • Caruso CM, Remington DLD, Ostergren KE. 2005. Variation in resource limitation of plant reproduction influences natural selection on floral traits of Asclepias syriaca. Oecologia 146: 6876.
  • Dole JA. 1992. Reproductive assurance mechanisms in three taxa of the Mimulus guttatus complex (Scrophulariaceae). American Journal of Botany 79: 650659.
  • Dudash MR, Ritland K. 1991. Multiple paternity and self-fertilization in relation to floral age in Mimulus guttatus (Scrophulariaceae). American Journal of Botany 78: 17461753.
  • Elle E, Carney R. 2003. Reproductive assurance varies with flower size in Collinsia parviflora (Scrophulariaceae). American Journal of Botany 90: 888896.
  • Fenster CB, Armbruster WS, Wilson P, Dudash MR, Thomson JD. 2004. Pollination syndromes and floral specialization. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35: 375403.
  • Fenster CB, Ritland K. 1994. Evidence for natural selection on mating system in Mimulus (Scrophulariaceae). International Journal of Plant Sciences 155: 588596.
  • Fetscher AE. 2001. Resolution of male-female conflict in an hermaphroditic flower. Proceedings of the Royal Society – Biological Sciences (Series B) 268: 525529.
  • Fishman L. 2000. Pollen discounting and the evolution of selfing in Arenaria uniflora (Caryophyllaceae). Evolution 54: 15581565.
  • Fishman L, Kelly AJ, Willis JH. 2002. Minor quantitative trait loci underlie floral traits associated with mating system divergence in Mimulus. Evolution 56: 21382155.
  • Fishman L, Willis JH. 2001. Evidence for Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibilities contributing to the sterility of hybrids between Mimulus guttatus and M. nasutus. Evolution 55: 19321942.
  • Goodwillie C. 2001. Pollen limitation and the evolution of self-compatibility in Linanthus (Polemoniaceae). International Journal of Plant Sciences 162: 12831292.
  • Goodwillie C, Kalisz S, Eckert CG. 2005. The evolutionary enigma of mixed mating systems in plants: occurrence, theoretical explanations, and empirical evidence. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 36: 4779.
  • Harder LD, Barrett SCH. 1995. Mating cost of large floral displays in hermaphrodite plants. Nature 373: 512515.
  • Kalisz S, Vogler DW, Hanley KM. 2004. Context-dependent autonomous self-fertilization yields reproductive assurance and mixed mating. Nature 430: 884887.
  • Kelly JK, Arathi HS. 2003. Inbreeding and the genetic variance in floral traits of Mimulus guttatus. Heredity 90: 7783.
  • Kelly JK, Willis JH. 2001. Deleterious mutations and genetic variation for flower size in Mimulus guttatus. Evolution 55: 937942.
  • Kelly JK, Willis JH. 2002. A manipulative experiment to estimate biparental inbreeding in monkeyflowers. International Journal of Plant Sciences 163: 575579.
  • Knight TM, Steets JA, Vamosi JC, Mazer SJ, Burd M, Campbell DR, Dudash MR, Johnston MO, Mitchell RJ, Ashman T-L. 2005. Pollen limitation of plant reproduction pattern and process. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 36: 467497.
  • Lande R, Arnold SJ. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37: 12101226.
  • Lloyd DG. 1979. Some reproductive factors affecting the selection of self-fertilization in plants. American Naturalist 113: 6779.
  • Maad J, Alexandersson R. 2004. Variable selection in Platanthera bifolia (Orchidaceae): Phenotypic selection differed between sex functions in a drought year. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17: 642650.
  • Mitchell-Olds T, Shaw RG. 1987. Regression analysis of natural selection: statistical inference and biological interpretation. Evolution 41: 11491161.
  • Moeller DA. 2006. Geographic structure of pollinator communities, reproductive assurance, and the evolution of self-pollination. Ecology 87: 15101522.
  • Moeller DA, Geber MA. 2005. Ecological context of the evolution of self-pollination in Clarkia xantiana: population size, plant communities, and reproductive assurance. Evolution 59: 786799.
  • Morgan MT, Wilson WG. 2005. Self-fertilization and the escape from pollen limitation in variable pollination environments. Evolution 59: 11431148.
  • Porcher E, Lande R. 2005. The evolution of self-fertilization and inbreeding depression under pollen discounting and pollen limitation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18: 497508.
  • Rausher MD. 1992. The measurement of selection on quantitative traits: biases due to environmental covariances between traits and fitness. Evolution 46: 616626.
  • Robertson AW, Diaz A, Macnair MR. 1994. The quantitative genetics of floral characters in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity 72: 300311.
  • SAS Institute. 2003. JMP User's Guide, version 5.1. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute, Inc.
  • Schluter D. 1996. Adaptive radiation along genetic lines of least resistance. Evolution 50: 17661774.
  • Sweigart A, Karoly K, Jones A, Willis JH. 1999. The distribution of individual inbreeding coefficients and pairwise relatedness in a population of Mimulus guttatus. Heredity 83: 625632.
  • Totland O. 2004. No evidence for a role of pollinator discrimination in causing selection on flower size through female reproduction. Oikos 106: 558564.
  • Van Kleunen M, Ritland K. 2004. Predicting evolution of floral traits associated with mating system in a natural plant population. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17: 13891399.
  • Vanhoenacker D, Agren J, Ehrlen J. 2006. Spatio-temporal variation in pollen limitation and reproductive success of two scape morphs in Primula farinosa. New Phytologist 169: 615621.
  • Vickery RK Jr. 1978. Case studies in the evolution of species complexes in Mimulus. Evolutionary Biology 11: 405507.
  • Wade MJ, Kalisz S. 1990. The causes of natural selection. Evolution 44: 19471955.
  • Willis JH. 1993. Partial self-fertilization and inbreeding depression in two populations of Mimulus guttatus. Heredity 71: 145154.
  • Willis JH. 1996. Measures of phenotypic selection are biased by partial inbreeding. Evolution 50: 15011511.
  • Willis JH. 1999. The role of genes of large effect in inbreeding depression in Mimulus guttatus. Evolution 53: 16781691.