Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao The Botanical Reviewarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
The Botanical Review
Article . 1993 . Peer-reviewed
License: Springer TDM
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 1 versions
addClaim

Dichogamy in angiosperms

Authors: Robert I. Bertin; Christian M. Newman;

Dichogamy in angiosperms

Abstract

We obtained information on dichogamy and other aspects of the biology of over 4200 species of angiosperms from several hundred published and unpublished sources. We used this information to describe patterns of occurrence of dichogamy and to test specific hypotheses relating dichogamy to other characteristics of plants or their environments. Protandry was more common than protogyny at the intrafloral level, but the reverse was true at the interfloral level. Patterns of dichogamy varied significantly among major taxa, with protogyny more common among monocotyledons and primitive dicotyledons, and protandry expecially common in the Asteridae. Arctic species tended to be less dichogamous and more protogynous than temperate and tropical species. Aquatic and alpine species were especially protogynous. Patterns of dichogamy varied among sexual systems, with gynomonoecious and gynodioecious species especially protandrous, and monoecious species highly protogynous. Autogamous and self-compatible species were disproportionately protogynous. Flowers of intraflorally dichogamous species were slightly larger than those of adichogamous species, owing to the presence of many autogamous species in the latter group. Species with interfloral protogyny bore much smaller flowers than did species with interfloral protandry. Early-blooming species in north-temperate and polar regions were disproportionately protogynous. Sexual structures that abscised, shriveled or moved after completion of their function tended to be presented first, and those that facilitated the other sexual function were presented second. A negative association existed between type of intrafloral and interfloral dichogamy in diclinous species. Most animal-pollinated flowers were protandrous, except beetle-pollinated and refuge and trap blossoms. Wind pollination was markedly associated with protogyny. Vertical inflorescences visited by upwardly-moving vectors were protandrous. Our results suggest that three primary factors may be involved in promoting dichogamy: selection for avoidance of pollen-pistil interference, selection for avoidance of self-fertilization, and selection for synchrony of pollen discharge and stigma receptivity in the different flower types of diclinous species. In contrast to many earlier workers we reject the thesis that avoidance of self-fertilization is the universal or even the most important force in the evolution of most forms of dichogamy. We attribute the prevalence of intrafloral protandry to selection for avoiding interference between pollen export and pollen receipt. Intrafloral protogyny was associated with imprecise pollen transfer, where other means of avoiding pollen-pistil interference (e.g., herkogamy) are likely to be of limited value. The prevalence of interfloral protogyny seems to reflect the smaller size of unisexual flowers than bisexual flowers, the absence of intrafloral pollen-pistil interference in diclinous species, and selection for synchrony of pollen discharge from one flower type with stigma receptivity in the other.

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    216
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 1%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
216
Top 1%
Top 1%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!