* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Can classifications of functional gender be extended to all land plants?
Survey
Document related concepts
Plant defense against herbivory wikipedia , lookup
History of herbalism wikipedia , lookup
Plant use of endophytic fungi in defense wikipedia , lookup
Plant morphology wikipedia , lookup
History of botany wikipedia , lookup
Plant physiology wikipedia , lookup
Plant breeding wikipedia , lookup
Perovskia atriplicifolia wikipedia , lookup
Ornamental bulbous plant wikipedia , lookup
Historia Plantarum (Theophrastus) wikipedia , lookup
Evolutionary history of plants wikipedia , lookup
Flowering plant wikipedia , lookup
Plant evolutionary developmental biology wikipedia , lookup
Plant ecology wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 14 (2012) 153–160 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics journal homepage: www.elsevier.de/ppees Forum Can classifications of functional gender be extended to all land plants? Linley K. Jesson a,b,∗ , Phil J. Garnock-Jones b a b University of New Brunswick, Department of Biology, P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton, NB, Canada E3B5A3 School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 8 August 2011 Received in revised form 23 October 2011 Accepted 25 October 2011 Keywords: Breeding systems Cosexuality Dioecy Gametophytes Hermaphroditism Land plants Sporophytes a b s t r a c t Land plants (bryophytes, seedless vascular plants and seed plants) may have combined or separate sexes, and this variation also may occur at two life-cycle stages. Thus plants show variation in individuals’ attainment of fitness via sperms versus eggs (functional gender) and the diversity of gender morphs found in populations. We extend D.G. Lloyd’s classification of flowering plant gender to all land plants, with three main functional classes according to whether populations are dimorphic or monomorphic for gender (i.e., populations consist of either one or two distinct sex classes), and at which life cycle stages this occurs: (1) sporophyte-dimorphic, (2) sporophyte-cosexual and gametophyte-dimorphic, and (3) gametophyte-cosexual. In dimorphic sporophytes and gametophytes, morphs that reproduce mostly as females and males may be constant (dioecy) or inconstant (gynodioecy, androdioecy, trioecy). We suggest that examining the sex conditions of seedless plants using a functional perspective will reveal a diversity of sexual systems largely analogous to those found in seed plants. An extended suite of model plants with different biological attributes will allow new tests of existing models of mechanisms that select for different sexual systems, and may lead to important new questions in the field, some of which we suggest here. © 2011 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. From classification to function: the evolution of plant gender Across eukaryote lineages, some sexual organisms combine female and male functions in every individual (gender monomorphism) whereas others separate them into specialized females or males as a genetic dimorphism (and known in plants as gender dimorphism, Darwin, 1877; Lloyd, 1982; Sakai and Weller, 1999). In most animals, the position and number of gonads and genitalia are determined during embryonal development, whereas the meristematic growth forms of at least one life stage of land plants provide them with opportunities to vary the separation of sexual functions in time and space. This allows variation in quantitative expressions of gender and some controls on the extent of inbreeding (Darwin, 1876; Lloyd, 1976; Charlesworth and Charlesworth, 1987; Barrett, 1998). Historically, classification of sex expression in plants has varied among the major taxonomic groups. For example, Linnaeus (1737, 1753) focused primarily on distinguishing perfect (combining micro- and megasporophylls) from unisexual flowers. ∗ Corresponding author at: University of New Brunswick, Department of Biology, P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton, NB, Canada E3B5A3. Tel.: +1 506 452 6025. E-mail address: [email protected] (L.K. Jesson). 1433-8319/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ppees.2011.10.003 Accordingly, conditions such as monoecy and dioecy, where plants have unisexual flowers, came to be seen as deviations from a perfect (hermaphrodite) ideal. Linnaeus (1753) grouped seedless plants (including ferns and bryophytes) as “Cryptogamia”. Darwin (1877) followed Linnaeus in proposing a range of terms based largely on the morphology of flowers, but he introduced new terms distinguishing systems that are monomorphic from those that are dimorphic. For flowering plants, terms such as androdioecious, gynodioecious, polygamous, and polygamodioecious (Darwin, 1877) have been widely used to describe a variety of morphologically intermediate conditions. In many land plants, sporophytes do not specialize as female or male, but gender dimorphism can occur at the gametophyte stage. Gametophyte sexuality of cryptogamic plants continues to be often classified according to morphology (Anderson, 1980), and a plethora of terms has arisen that is based largely on the morphology of individuals (Malcolm and Malcolm, 2006). For example in mosses, instances of gender dimorphism and cosexuality are both likely to be included under the poorly defined terms heteroicous, polygamous and polyoicous. Malcolm and Malcolm (2006) treat these terms as synonymous: “Heteroicous: produces various types of inflorescences on different plants or on the same plant, so that it confusingly seems to be both dioicous and monoicous”. David G. Lloyd pioneered an understanding of the variation in seed plant reproductive strategies from a functional, rather than 154 L.K. Jesson, P.J. Garnock-Jones / Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 14 (2012) 153–160 Fig. 1. An overview of plant sexual life cycles. a descriptive, point of view, and simplified the existing terminology (Harder and Barrett, 2007). At the same time he drew important functional and terminological distinctions between phenomena pertaining to flowers, individual plants, and whole populations. Following Lloyd (1979, 1980a,b) the key considerations are whether populations are mono- or dimorphic, the proportion of fitness achieved by individuals via sperm or eggs relative to the other members of their populations (functional gender), and the relative separation in space and time of their reproductive structures. Here, we compare what is known of the diversity of functional gender within populations of seedless vascular plants and bryophytes to sexual systems documented in seed plants. We will treat herkogamy and dichogamy of seedless plants in detail elsewhere. Extending the generality of functional gender All land plants have alternation of multicellular generations, whereby haploid gametophytes alternate with diploid sporophytes (Fig. 1). Land plants differ in which generation is responsible for presenting gametes, at least in a functional sense. Strictly, gametes are produced and presented by gametophytes only. The microgametophytes of seed plants are strongly reduced so that, in most, they produce only one sperm that sires offspring. However, their megagametophytes are retained within ovules and in angiosperms these ultimately produce only one egg and embryo; even in gymnosperms where multiple eggs may be produced per ovule, almost always only one embryo matures. Thus, gametophytes in seed plants can be considered functionally equivalent to gametes even though they are produced by spores and presented by sporophytes. In land plants, both gametophytes and sporophytes may have combined or separate sexes, and their gender is quantified by their relative contributions to the next generation via female or male gametes or spores (eggs/megaspores or sperms/microspores respectively). Because all land plants have fundamentally the same lifecycle, and selection acts on both gametophyte and sporophyte stages, theory developed for flowering plants can be extended to all land plants. Additionally, because seedless plants have free-living gametophytes that vary in their sexual conditions, and these gametophytes can be easily manipulated, we can ask questions about the role of gametophyte selection that are not easily addressed using seed plant model systems. The expression of gender in land plants Three gender conditions exist in land plants (Table 1). First, plant populations can be monomorphic at both the gametophyte and sporophyte stages (e.g., many mosses, liverworts and hornworts, Lycopodiaceae, and all, or at least most, homosporous ferns). Secondly, they can be dimorphic at the gametophyte stage but monomorphic at the sporophyte stage (e.g., gender dimorphic bryophytes, perhaps a few homosporous ferns, Selaginella, Isoetes, and all heterosporous ferns and sporophyte-cosexual seed plants). Within this class, the gametophyte can be free living or endosporic, and the relative sizes and longevities of gametophytes and sporophytes can vary. Thirdly, they can be dimorphic at both gametophyte and sporophyte stages (e.g., gender dimorphic seed plants) (Fig. 1). Our terms gametophyte- and sporophyte-dioecy are equivalent to haploid- and diploid-dioecy of other authors (e.g., Bull, 1978; Bowker et al., 2000), but we prefer them because in bryophytes changes in ploidy can be associated with changes in gender (Crawford et al., 2009; Jesson et al., 2011). Thus we can avoid confusing two issues in terms such as “haploid-dioecious diploids”. Gametophyte cosexuality Cosexual gametophytes are of one type that produces both sperms and eggs. About 50% of all bryophytes are gametophyte cosexual. If the gametophyte is cosexual, the sporophyte is effectively genderless as it only produces one kind of spore (homospory) that gives rise to cosexual gametophytes. This is found in many bryophytes (e.g., Physcomitrella, Chonecolea, Dendroceros), many lycophytes (e.g., Lycopodium), Platysoma, and most homosporous ferns, but is absent in seed plants. All homosporous ferns have the capacity to be cosexual, although epigenetic control of gender through antheridiogens occurs in a number of fern families (Korpelainen, 1998) and so sex expression is environmentally labile. L.K. Jesson, P.J. Garnock-Jones / Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 14 (2012) 153–160 155 Table 1 A classification of the gender conditions found in land plants. Spores and gametes can have similar or different morphologies (isosporous and anisosporous respectively). Sporophytes Spores, gametophytes, and gametes Conditions Gametophyte cosexual Gametophyte dimorphic and sporophyte cosexual Sporophyte dimorphic Individuals genderless; populations monomorphic Individuals cosexual, populations monomorphic; isosporous, anisogamous gametophyte gender diphasy, etc. Individuals cosexual; populations monomorphic At least some individuals unisexual, populations dimorphic; isosporous or anisosporous, anisogamous gametophyte-dioecy; gametophyte-gynodioecy; gametophyte-androdioecy; gametophyte-trioecy; sporophyte-monoecy, etc. ∼50% mosses, ∼40% liverworts, ∼80% hornworts, Selaginella, Isoetes, heterosporous ferns, 90–93% of seed plants Gametophyte-gynodioecy: Atrichum altecristatum, as described by Anderson (1980). Some plants are constant female. Inconstant male plants are strongly dichogamous such that male and female phases happen in separate years. Gametophyte-trioecy: In Pogonatum microstomum polyploid populations have mixtures of hermaphroditic, female and male plants, whereas the diploid populations are gametophyte-dimorphic (Sharma, 1963) At least some individuals unisexual; populations dimorphic At least some individuals unisexual, populations dimorphic; anisosporous, anisogamous sporophyte-dioecy; sporophyte-gynodioecy; sporophyte-androdioecy, etc. Examples ∼50% mosses, ∼60% liverworts, ∼20% hornworts, Lycopodium, most ferns Examples that warrant further investigation Gametophyte-cosexuality through rhizautoicy: Aloina bifrons, male and female ramets of the same genet connected by rhizoids ∼7–10% of seed plants Sporophyte dimorphism through sex ratio distortion or spore abortion: In Macromitrium four spore sizes occur, corresponding to females, aborted females, males, and aborted males (Ramsay, 1979). If all one spore class is aborted in a single sporophyte, then this would functionally be sporophyte dimorphism. While there is no conclusive evidence that this condition occurs in seedless plants, in Ceratodon purpureus there is a genetic component to sex ratio distortion, likely due to chromosomal interactions (McDaniel et al., 2007) Gametophyte dioecy and sporophyte cosexuality Monomorphic populations Gametophytes in gender dimorphic populations specialize to produce either sperms or eggs (e.g., all seed plants, a few seedless vascular plants such as Selaginella and Marsilea, many bryophytes). Cosexual sporophytes produce both female and male spores (since the spore is simply the first cell of the gametophyte, which will either be female or male). We refer to this as heterospory, regardless of whether the male and female spores are equalsized (isospory) or unequal (anisospory), following Bateman and DiMichele (1994). It is likely that gametophyte-cosexual plants vary in their individual success at contributing genes to the next generation via sperms and eggs just as sporophyte-cosexual seed plants do (see Webb, 1979; Lloyd, 1981; Garnock-Jones, 1986; Wells and Lloyd, 1991), but we are not aware of any data that could be used to demonstrate this. Many homosporous fern gametophytes show changes in sex expression over their lifetime (gender diphasy). The ontogenetic sequences vary and can change from male to hermaphrodite, from male to female to hermaphrodite, or from female to hermaphrodite (Klekowski, 1969b; Korpelainen, 1998; Quintanilla et al., 2005). In this system, the relative contribution via eggs and sperm will change as the individual grows, and so individuals in different resource environments may differ in their contributions from one or other sex function. Some authors have described populations of dichogamous homosporous fern gametophytes as dioecious or trioecious. For example, in Culcita macrocarpa populations consist of males and hermaphrodites, while in Woodwardia radicans, populations consist of females, males, and hermaphrodites (Klekowski, 1969a,b; Quintanilla et al., 2005). However, the sex of these plants varies over the plant’s lifetime (Klekowski, 1969a; Quintanilla et al., 2005), so individuals on average will gain half their fitness via female function and half via male function and so are cosexual (Lloyd, 1980b). In Equisetum, gametophytes may be initially unisexual, but females and sometimes males may become bisexual with age (Walker, 1937; Duckett and Duckett, 1980; Duckett, 1985; Guillon and Fievet, 2003); it remains to be shown whether this is a leaky dimorphic system or a monomorphic system with strong dichogamy. Gametophyte and sporophyte dioecy Sporophyte gender dimorphism occurs when sporophytes specialize in their spore production as predominantly female or male. All known examples of sporophyte gender dimorphism are seed plants, and the condition has arisen many times independently (e.g., see Weiblen et al., 2000) although the majority of seed plant species (∼94% of flowering plant species, Renner and Ricklefs, 1995) have gender monomorphic sporophytes. Although in some seedless plants (e.g., Selaginella, Marchantia, Ceratodon) the gender of spores is determined before they leave the sporophyte, as far as we know none has developed sporophyte dimorphism. The range of functional gender in dimorphic and monomorphic populations Because gender is a quantitative phenomenon, plotting ranked estimates of phenotypic gender (e.g., the relative proportion of female shoots, archegonia, etc.) can help to determine the number of sex classes that occur in the population, providing information on the range and diversity of sexual systems that can occur in land plants (see Fig. 2). Dimorphic populations In sporophyte-dimorphic plant populations, there can be variation in the degree of constancy of the female or male sex. In 156 L.K. Jesson, P.J. Garnock-Jones / Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 14 (2012) 153–160 Cumulative proportion 1.0 1.0 (a) 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0 1.0 (c) 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 (b) 0.5 1 0.5 1 (d) 0 Phenotypic gender Fig. 2. The relative cumulative proportion of female shoots (phenotypic gender) in greenhouse populations of mosses (a) Bryum lisae and (b) Barbula unguiculata measured 6 months after isolating single germinated spores; (c) Bryum lisae and (d) Barbula unguiculata measured 14 months after single spore isolation. Gametophytes were grown from single spores of sporophytes (10 and 15 sporophytes respectively) collected from a natural population. All fertile shoots in a gametophyte were scored for presence of male, female or bisexual shoots. Bryum lisae is gametophyte-cosexual. In this species, antheridia (male sexual structures) are produced before archegonia (female sexual structures), and so initially some plants were recorded as having only male function, but became simultaneous hermaphrodite throughout the year. Barbula unguiculata is gametophyte-dimorphic, and individuals are either male or female. dioecy, both gender morphs are constant. Thus some individual plants transmit genes only via microspores whereas others transmit genes only via megaspores. In gynodioecy (Darwin, 1877; Lloyd, 1976; Webb, 1999) the male gender is inconstant, with all producing pollen but some or all individuals producing some seeds, while all female individuals produce seeds but never pollen. In the rare condition androdioecy the female gender is inconstant, with some or all individuals producing some pollen, while all male individuals produce no ovules (Darwin, 1877; Liston et al., 1990; Pannell, 1997b, 2002). Analogous conditions likely occur in gametophytes of seedless plants. The presence of females and hermaphrodites have been recorded in Platyzoma (Tryon 1964), Atrichum altecristatum (Anderson, 1980), Atrichum undulatum (Jesson et al., 2011) and Luisierella (Eckel 2007), suggesting the possibility of (gametophyte-) gynodioecy. Additionally males and hermaphrodites may perhaps occur in Sphagnum quinquefarium (Smith 1980). In the moss A. altecristatum, first year gametophytes express only female or male sex structures such that young populations can appear gametophyte-dioecious. However in their second and subsequent years, these plants are female. Based on lifetime sexual performance, this species appears to be gametophytegynodioecious, as some morphs are constant females, whereas others start life as males but then become females (Anderson, 1980, Jesson et al. unpubl. data). A similar pattern occurs in A. undulatum s.l. where females produce female gametangia consistently each year, while hermaphrodites are either simultaneous hermaphrodites, or produce male sexual structures in one year, followed by female sexual organs in later years (Jesson et al., 2012, in press). Integrating plant mating system theory: extending questions through new model systems Extending models of the evolution of selfing and outcrossing to gametophytes While seed plants and bryophytes that are gametophytedimorphic and sporophyte-cosexual experience the same types of selfing (intergametophytic selfing or autogamy), simultaneous hermaphroditic gametophytes can have an additional level of inbreeding: intragametophytic selfing (or automixis). In intragametophytic selfing, self-fertilization occurs within a gametophyte, where sperms fertilize eggs on the same gametophyte. Gametophytes produce gametes by mitosis. Thus, in the absence of mutation, sperms and eggs from a hermaphroditic gametophyte are genetically identical and selfing produces zygotes, and eventually sporophytes, that are homozygous at every locus. (It is interesting to note that despite apparent genetic uniformity, there is considerable morphological and physiological variation in spermatazoa within an individual and in gametophytes produced by intragametophytic selfing; Shaw, 1990, 1991; Renzaglia et al., 1995.) It has been predicted that intragametophytic selfing results in faster purging of genetic load at the sporophyte stage than through intergametophytic selfing (Klekowski, 1979, 1982; Hedrick, 1987). For example, simulations by Hedrick (1987) L.K. Jesson, P.J. Garnock-Jones / Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 14 (2012) 153–160 suggested that genetic load in homosporous ferns that reproduced primarily by intragametophytic selfing could be 0.5–0.6 of that for ferns undergoing intergametophytic selfing. This suggests that in gametophyte-cosexual species, inbreeding would be an evolutionarily stable state, as has been shown in seed plants (and see Lande and Schemske, 1985; Barrett and Eckert, 1990; Goodwillie et al., 2005). Despite this, mixed mating is common in ferns and mosses (Klekowski, 1982; Soltis and Soltis, 1987; Eppley et al., 2007; Wubs et al., 2010; Jesson et al., 2011), and theory developed to explain the predominance of mixed mating in flowering plants (reviewed in Goodwillie et al., 2005) can be extended to include gametophytic life-stages. What is the influence of the gametophyte stage in the selection for combined or separate sexes? Theory suggests that a male or female mutant can invade a hermaphroditic population when self-fertilization causes severe inbreeding depression, or if the benefits of reallocating resources to specialize in male or female function are high (Darwin, 1877; Charlesworth and Charlesworth, 1978; Charnov, 1982; Lloyd, 1982; Charlesworth, 1999). Inbreeding depression should be a strong evolutionary force in all cosexual plants (Klekowski, 1969b, 1973; Scofield and Schultz, 2006; Taylor et al., 2007). In addition, in polysomic polyploids, inbreeding can lead to deleterious effects in the gametophyte (Butruille and Boiteux, 2000). The amount of inbreeding depression experienced by sporophytes can be reduced if there is high overlap between genes expressed in both sporophyte and gametophyte and deleterious alleles are purged in the gametophyte (Charlesworth and Charlesworth, 1992). For example, in the moss Funaria hygrometrica, 75% of genes are expressed to some extent in both gametophyte and sporophyte (Szövényi et al., 2011), suggesting many deleterious mutations will be purged by expression at the gametophyte stage, reducing inbreeding depression in the sporophyte stage. If avoidance of inbreeding is a major force selecting for separate sexes, strong overlap between gene expression at gametophyte and sporophyte stages would lower selection for separate sexes in gametophyte-cosexual populations. However in some gametophyte-dioecious mosses inbreeding depression in the sporophyte has been shown be considerably high, suggesting that strong genetic correlations between life stages may not purge all genetic load (Taylor et al., 2007; Szövényi et al., 2009). Because gametophytes of seedless plants are nutritionally independent of the parent sporophyte, and are easily amenable to manipulation, they can be used to experimentally test theoretical predictions about the role of the gametophyte in purging inbreeding depression, and reducing the selective advantage of separate sexes. For example, if deleterious alleles have a higher fitness cost in harsh environments, purging of mildly deleterious alleles may be environment-specific, ultimately resulting in gametophytes in harsh environments experiencing less sporophytic inbreeding depression than gametophytes in benign environments. This would predict the fitness cost of inbreeding would be greater for sporophytes in benign environments or sporophytes in newly harsh environments, and a correlation between mating system and environmental stress. Testing hypotheses of the advantages of diphasy over dioecy Diphasy occurs in approximately 0.1% of angiosperm sporophytes (Lloyd and Bawa, 1984), and considerably higher ratios occur in fern gametophytes. The advantages of diphasy and gender dimorphism are similar, and include obligate outcrossing and predator avoidance (Cruden and Hermann-Parker, 1977; Thomson 157 and Barrett, 1981; Lloyd and Bawa, 1984). The advantages of dioecy include limiting dramatic sex ratio fluctuations, as the sex ratio is determined by a binomial distribution (Bull, 1980), minimizing the fitness costs of changing sex (Charnov, 1982), and reducing a need for a mechanism in plants to accurately assess their environment (Lloyd and Bawa, 1984; Zhang, 2006). Conversely, diphasy can allow for easier exploitation of favourable circumstances experienced by a plant (Charnov, 1982; Lloyd and Bawa, 1984; Zhang, 2006), especially if there are different relations between the fitness of each sex with mate availability, resource level, time, size, age, or developmental stage (Ghiselin, 1969; Charnov, 1982; Lloyd and Bawa, 1984; Day and Aarssen, 1997). Most homosporous ferns are not strictly diphasic, and have a hermaphroditic phase. This suggests that reproductive assurance may play a role in maintaining the sexual system (Baker, 1955, 1967; Stebbins, 1957; Klekowski, 1969b). Experimental tests of hypotheses selecting for sex-switching versus constant gender dimorphism should be possible using homosporous ferns as an experimental system. Research elucidating the genetics of sex expression in the gametophyte-cosexual (homosporous) fern Ceratopteris richardii has generated mutant gametophytes that are all female or all male (Warne et al., 1988; Eberle et al., 1995; Banks, 1997). Experiments examining the relative fitnesses of the different phenotypes in various combinations of sex ratios, densities, and environmental conditions provide opportunities to explicitly test the relative advantages of diphasy versus dioecy, and the conditions that may select for genetically versus environmentally determined gender. Do gametophyte-dominant plants vary in their sporophytic functional gender? Where established, sex determination in bryophyte gametophytes is chromosomal, with females and males possessing a X and Y chromosome respectively (Okada et al., 2001; McDaniel et al., 2007; also called U and V chromosomes Bachtrog et al., 2011), segregating at sporic meiosis. As a result, the primary sex ratio in most gender-dimorphic mosses is 1:1. However, genetic variation for differences in sex ratio does occur (Shaw and Gaughan, 1993; Shaw and Beer, 1999; McDaniel et al., 2007). Thus the possibility exists that there might be selection for variation in sporophytic gender. For example, in Ceratodon purpureus, strong inbreeding depression caused by matings between gametophytes from the same parent sporophyte may have severe fitness effects (Taylor et al., 2007), and in populations where spore dispersal is restricted, may result in selection on the sex ratio. In addition, other gender dimorphic mosses are known to abort 50% of their spores (Ramsay, 1979) which may lead to variation in phenotypic gender of the sporophyte. In anisosporous Macromitrium weymouthii, spores exist in four size classes, which are interpreted as females, aborted females, males and aborted males (Ramsay, 1979). While not documented, we can imagine the possibility of the invasion of a gene that would preferentially abort one spore type, resulting in sporophyte dioecy and 50% reduction in spore output. Møgensen (1978) reported a close to 50% ratio of fertile versus aborted spores in capsules of three moss species, and he suggested that genetic segregation, perhaps of sex chromosomes, could be implicated. However, in C. purpureus biased sex ratios resulting from an interpopulation cross appear to be due to interactions between sex chromosomes (McDaniel et al., 2007), and so other mechanisms for sex ratio distortion are possible. If biased sex ratios resulted in selection on sex ratios in other sporophytes in the population, then a polymorphism for all-female or all-male sporophytes might result. While this scenario is speculative and lacking evidence, such a possibility could occur in Macromitrium, Schlotheimia 158 L.K. Jesson, P.J. Garnock-Jones / Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 14 (2012) 153–160 and other gender dimorphic mosses with high numbers of spore abortion and provide an explanation for the unexplained phenomenon termed false anisospory (Møgensen, 1978, 1983). In species such as C. purpureus with known genetic variation for sex ratio distortion, studies examining the response to selection on sex ratio would provide information as to the possible constraints on sporophytic dioecy in gametophytic dominant plants. One such constraint is the inability of sporangia on unbranched sporophytes to specialize in male or female spore production. Thus in bryophytes, spore abortion of one sex is likely their only route to gender specialization. Another possible constraint is the chromosomal nature of sex determination in bryophyte gametophytes. In polysporangiophytes, chromosomal determination of gametophyte gender appears to have been lost, and to have been replaced by sporophytic control. Thus, in polysporangiophytes, spore gender depends on the kind of sporangium, and gender does not segregate at meiosis. The challenges of applying functional gender to non-vascular plants Gender plasticity and labile sex expression In many seedless plants, sex expression can change with environment, age or size, and so, for example, a small individual may be male, but become hermaphroditic or female as it acquires more resources (Lloyd and Bawa, 1984; Korpelainen, 1998). In these gender diphasic populations, most plants will make contributions as both a maternal and paternal parent over its lifetime, and, if the functional gender over the lifetime of each of the plants in the population were quantified, there would be only one gender class and so these plants are gametophyte cosexual. In homosporous ferns, the presence of other individuals in the population sex as well as the age and size of the gametophyte influence sex expression (reviewed in Cousens, 1990). In some situations, plants may reproduce over their lifetime as strictly male or female, despite having the capacity to reproduce as either sex, or as both (Klekowski, 1973; Atkinson, 1975). Environmentallyinfluenced sex expression is also documented in gender dimorphic flowering plants. For example, in androdioecious Mercurialis annua males are plastic and can become hermaphrodite at low densities (Pannell, 1997a). This type of plasticity has been considered controversial as to whether it is true androdioecy as males are not genetically determined (Delph and Wolf, 2005). While environmental determination will influence patterns of selection of specialization for male and female function (as they will be completely genetically correlated) some theory about the evolution and maintenance of dioecy should also apply in these populations (see Pannell, 2005). Regardless of the outcome of this debate, this is not an issue solely confined to ferns or seedless plants. Distinguishing diphasic or labile sex expression in cosexuals from dioecy can be problematic. Gender plots based on morphology examine only the phenotypic classes at a single point in time, and so plots based on data from one season may not be representative of lifetime success as a female or male parent (Thomson and Barrett, 1981). For example, plots of the gametophyte gender of the moss Bryum lisae grown from single spores (Fig. 2a) initially reveal two discrete sex classes: plants that produce only male sex structures (antheridia), and those that produce both male and female (archegonia) structures. In fact, this reflects dichogamy, as antheridia are produced before archegonia, and immature plants are more likely to be sampled in their male phase. A reexamination of the relative gender of plants in the greenhouse population eight months later revealed only one phenotypic sex class (Fig. 2c; LKJ unpubl. data). Gender plots can also be difficult to interpret if plants exhibit size-dependent variation in gender (as may happen in many bryophytes and ferns) because relative measures of female and male success are confounded with absolute investment in reproduction (Sarkissian et al., 2001). For example, if plants that are male when small produce more male and female structures or fruit or seeds with increasing size (e.g., Garnock-Jones, 1986; Sarkissian et al., 2001), it would appear that large plants are more female than small plants (see Sarkissian et al., 2001). In these situations, absolute measures of reproductive success may be more informative of the functional role of a plant in the population. Clonality, perenniality and infrequent sex expression Estimates of absolute female and male reproductive success of a gametophyte are needed to fully understand the range of sex conditions that exist in natural populations. The paucity of this information in non-vascular plants is likely due to the difficulty in collecting data. Field surveys of gametophyte sex ratios are not easily conducted in many populations due to extensive clonality in mosses (but see Bowker et al., 2000; Stark et al., 2010), and problems accurately identifying fern gametophytes (Hamilton and Lloyd, 1991). In addition, extensive clonality and long genet lifespans may mean that populations may not be at an evolutionary equilibrium (Vallejo-Marín et al., 2010). The development of molecular markers that allow sex and species identification and measurements of paternity and clonal structure have recently allowed more studies of mating success in natural populations in land plants (Korpelainen et al., 2008; Szövényi et al., 2009; Hedenäs et al., 2010; Ricca et al., 2011). The application of these techniques to relatively understudied species will undoubtedly reveal a greater diversity in the sex expression in land plants than has previously been appreciated, as well as a greater understanding of the frequency and causes of evolutionary transitions between breeding systems. Acknowledgements We dedicate this paper to the memory of David G. Lloyd (1937–2006), teacher, mentor, and friend to us both. Our intellectual indebtedness to David should be apparent to readers. We thank Spencer Barrett, Stuart McDaniel, and Marilyn Head and three anonymous reviewers for comments on a previous version of this manuscript, Monique Crawford, Lynda Delph, Sarah Eppley, Bill Malcolm, John Pannell, and Phil Taylor for valuable discussions, and Katie Friars and Amanda Cavanagh for assisting with moss gametangia counts. Funding was provided by the New Zealand Marsden Fund to P.J.G-J. and L.K.J. (grant VUW 303) and the Canadian Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council to L.K.J. References Anderson, L.E., 1980. Cytology and reproductive biology of mosses. In: Taylor, R.J., Leviton, A.E. (Eds.), The Mosses of North America. Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 37–76. Atkinson, L.R., 1975. The gametophyte of five old world thelypteroid ferns. Phytomorphology 25, 38–54. Bachtrog, D., Kirkpatrick, M., Mank, J.E., McDaniel, S.F., Pires, J.C., Rice, W., Valenzuela, N., 2011. Are all sex chromosomes created equal? Trends Genet. 27, 350–357. Baker, H.G., 1955. Self-compatibility and establishment after “long-distance” dispersal. Evolution 9, 347–348. Baker, H.G., 1967. Support for Baker’s Law as a rule. Evolution 21, 853–856. Banks, J., 1997. Sex determination in the fern Ceratopteris. Trends Plant Sci. 2, 175–180. L.K. Jesson, P.J. Garnock-Jones / Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 14 (2012) 153–160 Barrett, S.C.H., 1998. The evolution of mating strategies in flowering plants. Trends Plant Sci. 3, 335–341. Barrett, S.C.H., Eckert, C.G., 1990. Variation and evolution of mating systems in seed plants. In: Kawano, S. (Ed.), Biological Approaches and Evolutionary Trends in Plants. Academic Press, London, pp. 229–254. Bateman, R.M., DiMichele, W.A., 1994. Heterospory – the most iterative key innovation in the evolutionary history of the plant kingdom. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 69, 345–417. Bowker, M.A., Stark, L.R., McLetchie, D.N., Mishler, B.D., 2000. Sex expression, skewed sex ratios, and microhabitat distribution in the dioecious desert moss Syntrichia caninervis (Pottiaceae). Am. J. Bot. 87, 517–566. Bull, J.J., 1978. Sex chromosomes in haploid dioecy: a unique contrast to Muller’s theory for diploid dioecy. Am. Nat. 112, 245–250. Bull, J.J., 1980. Sex determination in reptiles. Q. Rev. Biol. 55, 3–21. Butruille, D.V., Boiteux, L.S., 2000. Selection-mutation balance in polysomic tetraploids: Impact of double reduction and gametophytic selection on the frequency and subchromosomal localization of deleterious mutations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 6608–6613. Charlesworth, B., Charlesworth, D., 1978. A model for the evolution of dioecy and gynodioecy. Am. Nat. 112, 975–997. Charlesworth, D., 1999. Theories of the evolution of dioecy. In: Geber, M.A., Dawson, T.E., Delph, L.F. (Eds.), Gender and Sexual Dimorphism in Flowering Plants. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 33–60. Charlesworth, D., Charlesworth, B., 1987. Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18, 237–268. Charlesworth, D., Charlesworth, B., 1992. The effects of selection in the gametophyte stage on mutational load. Evolution 46, 703–720. Charnov, E.L., 1982. The theory of sex allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA. Cousens, M.I., 1990. Reproductive strategies of pteridophytes. In: Lovett Doust, J., Lovett Doust, L. (Eds.), Plant Reproductive Ecology: Patterns and Strategies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 307–328. Crawford, M., Jesson, L.K., Garnock-Jones, P.J., 2009. Correlated evolution of sexual system and life history traits in mosses. Evolution 63, 1129–1142. Cruden, R.W., Hermann-Parker, S.M., 1977. Temporal dioecism: an alternative to dioecism. Evolution 31, 863–866. Darwin, C.R., 1876. The Effects of Cross and Self-fertilization in the Vegetable Kingdom. John Murray, London, UK, 487 pp. Darwin, C.R., 1877. The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species. John Murray, London, UK, 352 pp. Day, T., Aarssen, L.W., 1997. A time commitment hypothesis for size-dependent gender allocation. Evolution 51, 988–993. Delph, L.F., Wolf, D.E., 2005. Evolutionary consequences of gender plasticity in genetically dimorphic breeding systems. New Phytol. 166, 119–128. Duckett, J.G., 1985. Wild gametophytes of Equisetum sylvaticum. Am. Fern J. 75, 120–127. Duckett, J.G., Duckett, A.R., 1980. Reproductive biology and population dynamics of wild gametophytes of Equisetum. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 80, 1–7. Eberle, J., Nemacheck, J., Wen, C.-K., Hasebe, M., Banks, J.A., 1995. Ceratopteris: A model system for studying sex-determining mechanisms in plants. Int. J. Plant Sci. 156, 359–366. Eppley, S.M., Taylor, P.J., Jesson, L.K., 2007. Self-fertilization in mosses: a comparison of heterozygote deficiency between species with combined versus separate sexes. Heredity 98, 38–44. Garnock-Jones, P.J., 1986. Floret specialisation, seed production, and gender in Artemisia vulgaris (Asteraceae, Anthemideae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 92, 285–302. Ghiselin, M.T., 1969. The evolution of hermaphroditism among animals. Q. Rev. Biol. 44, 189–208. Goodwillie, C., Kalisz, S., Eckert, C.G., 2005. The evolutionary enigma of mixed mating systems in plants: occurrence, theoretical explanations, and empirical evidence. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 47–79. Guillon, J.M., Fievet, D., 2003. Environmental sex determination in response to light and biased sex ratios in Equisetum gametophytes. J. Ecol. 91, 49–57. Hamilton, R.G., Lloyd, R.M., 1991. Antheridiogen in the wild: the development of fern gametophyte communities. Funct. Ecol. 5, 804–809. Harder, L.D., Barrett, S.C.H. (Eds.), 2007. Ecology and Evolution of Flowers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 384 pp. Hedenäs, L., Bisang, I., Korpelainen, H., Cronholm, B., 2010. The true sex ratio in European Pseudocalliergon trifarium (Bryophyta: Amblystegiaceae) revealed by a novel molecular approach. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 100, 132–140. Hedrick, P.W., 1987. Genetic load and the mating system in homosporous ferns. Evolution 41, 1282–1289. Jesson, L.K., Cavanagh, A.P., Perley, D.S., 2011. Polyploidy influences sexual system and mating patterns in Atrichum undulatum sensu lato. Ann. Bot. 107, 135–143. Jesson, L.K., Perley, D.S., Cavanagh, A.P., Cameron, J.A.C., Kubien, D.S. Mating and fitness consequences of sexual system in the moss Atrichum undulatum s.l. Int. J. Plant Sci., in press. Klekowski, E.J., 1969a. Reproductive biology of the Pteridophyta. III. A study of the Blechnaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 62, 361–377. Klekowski, E.J., 1969b. Reproductive biology of the Pteridophyta. II. Theoretical considerations. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 62, 347–359. Klekowski, E.J., 1973. Genetic load in Osmunda regalis populations. Am. J. Bot. 60, 146–154. 159 Klekowski, E.J., 1979. The genetics and reproductive biology of ferns. In: Dyer, A.F. (Ed.), The Experimental Biology of Ferns. Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 133–170. Klekowski, E.J., 1982. Genetic load and soft selection in ferns. Heredity 49, 191–197. Korpelainen, H., 1998. Labile sex expression in plants. Biol. Rev. 73, 157–180. Korpelainen, H., Bisang, I., Hedenäs, L., Kolehmainen, J., 2008. The first sex-specific molecular marker discovered in the moss Pseudocalliergon trifarium. J. Hered. 99, 581–587. Lande, R., Schemske, D.W., 1985. The evolution of self-fertilization and inbreeding depression in plants. I. Genetic models. Evolution 39, 24–40. Linnaeus, C., 1737. Genera Plantarum, 1st ed. Wishoff, Leiden. Linnaeus, C., 1753. Species Plantarum. Ray Society, London. Liston, A., Rieseberg, L.H., Elias, T.S., 1990. Functional androdioecy in the flowering plant Datisca glomerata. Nature 343, 641–642. Lloyd, D.G., 1976. Transmission of genes via pollen and ovules in gynodioecious angiosperms. Theor. Popul. Biol. 9, 299–316. Lloyd, D.G., 1979. Parental strategies of angiosperms. N. Z. J. Bot. 17, 595–606. Lloyd, D.G., 1980a. The distribution of gender in four angiosperm species illustrating two evolutionary pathways to dioecy. Evolution 34, 126–134. Lloyd, D.G., 1980b. Sexual strategies in plants. III. A quantitative method for describing the gender of plants. N. Z. J. Bot. 18, 103–108. Lloyd, D.G., 1981. Sexual strategies in plants. 5. The distribution of sex in Myrica gale. Plant Syst. Evol. 138, 29–45. Lloyd, D.G., 1982. Selection of combined versus separate sexes in seed plants. Am. Nat. 120, 571–585. Lloyd, D.G., Bawa, K.S., 1984. Modification of the gender of seed plants in varying conditions. Evol. Biol. 17, 255–338. Malcolm, B., Malcolm, N., 2006. Mosses and Other Bryophytes: An Illustrated Glossary. Micro-Optics Press, Nelson, New Zealand. McDaniel, S.F., Willis, J.H., Shaw, A.J., 2007. A linkage map reveals a complex basis for segregation distortion in an interpopulation cross in the moss Ceratodon purpureus. Genetics 176, 2489–2500. Møgensen, G.S., 1978. Spore development and germination in Cinclidium (Mniaceae. Bryophyta), with special reference to spore mortality and false anispory. Can. J. Bot. 56, 1032–1060. Møgensen, G.S., 1983. The spore. In: Schuster, R.M. (Ed.), New Manual of Bryology. Vol. 1: The Hattori Botanical Laboratory. Nichinan, Japan, pp. 325–342. Okada, S., Sone, T., Fujisawa, M., Nakayama, S., Takenaka, M., Ishizaki, K., Kono, K., Shimizu-Ueda, Y., Hanajiri, T., Yamato, K.T., Fukuzawa, H., Brennicke, A., Ohyama, K., 2001. The Y chromosome in the liverwort Marchantia polymorpha has accumulated unique repeat sequences harboring a male-specific gene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 9454–9459. Pannell, J.R., 1997a. Mixed genetic and environmental sex determination in an androdioecious population of Mercurialis annua. Heredity 78, 50–56. Pannell, J.R., 1997b. Widespread functional androdioecy in Mercurialis annua L. (Euphorbiaceae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 61, 95–116. Pannell, J.R., 2002. The evolution and maintenance of androdioecy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33, 397–425. Pannell, J.R., 2005. Phenotypic plasticity and a functional vs genetic perspective of plant gender. New Phytol. 168, 506–509. Quintanilla, L.G., Pangua, E., Amigo, J., Pajaron, S., 2005. Comparative study of the sympatric ferns Culcita macrocarpa and Woodwardia radicans: sexual phenotype. Flora 200, 187–194. Ramsay, H., 1979. Anisospory and sexual dimorphism in the Musci. In: Clarke, G.C.S., Duckett, J.G. (Eds.), Bryophyte Systematics. Academic Press, London, pp. 281–316. Renner, S.S., Ricklefs, R.E., 1995. Dioecy and its correlates in the flowering plants. Am. J. Bot. 82, 596–606. Renzaglia, K.S., Rasch, E.M., Pike, L.M., 1995. Estimates of nuclear DNA content in bryophyte sperm cells: phylogenetic considerations. Am. J. Bot., 18–25. Ricca, M., Szövényi, P., Temsch, E.M., Johnson, M.G., Shaw, A.J., 2011. Interploidal hybridization and mating patterns in the Sphagnum subsecundum complex. Mol. Ecol. 20, 3202–3218. Sakai, A.K., Weller, S.G., 1999. Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants: a review of terminology, biogeographic patterns, ecological correlates and phylogenetic approaches. In: Geber, M.A., Dawson, T.E., Delph, L.F. (Eds.), Gender and Sexual Dimorphism in Flowering Plants. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Sarkissian, T.S., Barrett, S.C.H., Harder, L.D., 2001. Gender variation in Sagittaria latifolia (Alismataceae): is size all that matters? Ecology 82, 360–373. Scofield, D.G., Schultz, S.T., 2006. Mitosis, stature and evolution of plant mating systems: low-Phi and high-Phi plants. Proc. R. Soc. Biol. Sci. Ser. B 273, 275–282. Sharma, P.D., 1963. Cytology of some Himalayan Polytrichaceae. Caryologia 16, 111–120. Shaw, A.J., 1990. Intraclonal variation In morphology, growth rate, and copper tolerance in the moss Funaria hygrometrica. Evolution 44, 441–447. Shaw, A.J., 1991. The genetic structure of sporophytic and gametophytic populations of the moss. Funaria hygrometrica Hedw. Evolution 45, 1260–1274. Shaw, A.J., Beer, S.C., 1999. Life history variation in gametophyte populations of the moss Ceratodon purpureus (Ditrichaceae). Am. J. Bot. 86, 512–521. Shaw, A.J., Gaughan, J.F., 1993. Control of sex-ratios in haploid populations of the moss, Ceratodon purpureus. Am. J. Bot. 80, 584–591. Soltis, D.E., Soltis, P.S., 1987. Breeding system of the fern Dryopteris expansa: evidence for mixed mating. Am. J. Bot. 74, 504–509. Stark, L.R., McLetchie, D.N., Eppley, S.M., 2010. Sex ratios and the shy male hypothesis in the moss Bryum argenteum (Bryaceae). Bryologist 113, 788–797. 160 L.K. Jesson, P.J. Garnock-Jones / Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 14 (2012) 153–160 Stebbins, G.L., 1957. Self-fertilization and population variability in the higher plants. Am. Nat. 91, 337–354. Szövényi, P., Rensing, S.A., Lang, D., Wray, G.A., Shaw, A.J., 2011. Generation-biased gene expression in a bryophyte model system. Mol. Biol. Evol. 28, 803–812. Szövényi, P., Ricca, M., Shaw, A.J., 2009. Multiple paternity and sporophytic inbreeding depression in a dioicous moss species. Heredity 103, 394–403. Taylor, P.J., Eppley, S.M., Jesson, L.K., 2007. Sporophytic inbreeding depression in mosses occurs in a species with separate sexes but not in a species with combined sexes. Am. J. Bot. 94, 1853–1859. Thomson, J.D., Barrett, S.C.H., 1981. Temporal variation of gender in Aralia hispida Vent (Araliaceae). Evolution 35, 1094–1107. Vallejo-Marín, M., Dorken, M.E., Barrett, S.C.H., 2010. The ecological and evolutionary consequences of clonality for plant mating. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 41, 193–213. Walker, E.R., 1937. The gametophyte of Equisetum scirpoides. Am. J. Bot. 24, 40–43. Warne, T.R., Hickok, L.G., Scott, R.J., 1988. Characterization and genetic analysis of antheridiogen-insensitive mutants in the fern Ceratopteris. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 96, 371–379. Webb, C.J., 1979. Breeding systems and the evolution of dioecy in New Zealand apioid Umbelliferae. Evolution 33, 662–672. Webb, C.J., 1999. Empirical studies: evolution and maintenance of dimorphic breeding systems. In: Geber, M.A., Dawson, T.E., Delph, L.F. (Eds.), Gender and Sexual Dimorphism in Flowering Plants. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 61–95. Weiblen, G.D., Oyama, R.K., Donoghue, M.J., 2000. Phylogenetic analysis of dioecy in monocotyledons. Am. Nat. 155, 46–58. Wells, M.S., Lloyd, D.G., 1991. Dichogamy, gender variation and bet-hedging in Pseudowintera colorata. Evol. Ecol. 5, 310–326. Wubs, E.R.J., de Groot, G.A., During, H.J., Vogel, J.C., Grundmann, M., Bremer, P., Schneider, H., 2010. Mixed mating system in the fern Asplenium scolopendrium: implications for colonization potential. Ann. Bot. 106, 583–590. Zhang, D.-Y., 2006. Evolutionarily stable reproductive investment and sex allocation in plants. In: Harder, L.D., Barrett, S.C.H. (Eds.), Ecology and Evolution of Flowers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 41–60.