Philomatry in plants: why do so many species have limited seed dispersal?

被引:7
|
作者
Cheplick, Gregory P. [1 ]
机构
[1] City Univ New York, Biol Program, Grad Ctr, Plant Sci Subprogram, New York, NY 10016 USA
关键词
atelechory; heterocarpy; heteromorphic seeds; philopatry; seed dimorphism; SELECTIVE INTERACTIONS; INBREEDING DEPRESSION; HETEROSPERMA-PINNATUM; NUTRIENT AVAILABILITY; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY; POPULATION-STRUCTURE; SIBLING COMPETITION; DIMORPHIC ACHENES; LOCAL ADAPTATION; CAKILE-EDENTULA;
D O I
10.1002/ajb2.1791
中图分类号
Q94 [植物学];
学科分类号
071001 ;
摘要
Many have noted limited seed dispersal of plants in diverse environments and attempted evolutionary explanations for it. Although philopatric ("love of fatherland") is used by zoologists to describe organisms that remain near their place of origin, philomatric ("love of motherland") is proposed as more appropriate for plants because seeds develop on the maternal parent, fecundity and dispersal are maternally influenced characteristics, and the term dovetails with the mother-site hypothesis (MSH) for the evolution of restricted dispersal. Proximate reasons for philomatry include intrinsic drivers such as morphological features of diaspores and where on the maternal parent they are produced. Extrinsic drivers include local environmental conditions, surrounding vegetation, and ineffective dispersal agents. The MSH proposes that selection should favor philomatry in a population adapted to a particular habitat because offspring will likewise be adapted to that same habitat. Several studies show philomatry can mitigate distance-dependent costs of dispersing into surrounding inhospitable areas. Undispersed diaspores can eliminate energetic costs of accessory structures or biochemicals needed by dispersible diaspores, but it is unclear whether these costs are significant to the evolution of philomatry. Disadvantages of limited dispersal are inability to escape deteriorating habitat conditions, inability to colonize new habitats, and inbreeding among offspring. Heterocarpic species offset these disadvantages by producing dispersed plus undispersed diaspores. A conceptual framework is presented relating dispersal distance to the probability of seedling establishment. Future research should recognize dispersal as a covarying syndrome of multiple life history traits and focus on ecological selection agents that favor philomatry.
引用
收藏
页码:29 / 45
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Why do some tropical forests have so many species of trees?
    Leigh, EG
    Davidar, P
    Dick, CW
    Puyravaud, JP
    Terborgh, J
    ter Steege, H
    Wright, SJ
    [J]. BIOTROPICA, 2004, 36 (04) : 447 - 473
  • [2] WHY ARE THERE SO MANY SPECIES OF FLOWERING PLANTS
    STEBBINS, GL
    [J]. BIOSCIENCE, 1981, 31 (08) : 573 - 577
  • [3] WHY DO SO MANY CUBATURE FORMULAS HAVE SO MANY POSITIVE WEIGHTS
    COOLS, R
    HAEGEMANS, A
    [J]. BIT, 1988, 28 (04): : 792 - 802
  • [4] Why do phosphatidylinositol kinases have so many isoforms?
    Hematology-Oncology Division, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 421 Curie Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States
    [J]. Biochem. J., 1 (e5-e8):
  • [5] Why do plants produce so many terpenoid compounds?
    Pichersky, Eran
    Raguso, Robert A.
    [J]. NEW PHYTOLOGIST, 2018, 220 (03) : 692 - 702
  • [6] Why are there so many small plants? Implications for species coexistence
    Aarssen, LW
    Schamp, BS
    Pither, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, 2006, 94 (03) : 569 - 580
  • [7] Why Do Heterosporous Plants Have So Few Chromosomes?
    Kinosian, Sylvia P.
    Rowe, Carol A.
    Wolf, Paul G.
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE, 2022, 13
  • [8] Why do mountains support so many species of birds?
    Ruggiero, Adriana
    Hawkins, Bradford A.
    [J]. ECOGRAPHY, 2008, 31 (03) : 306 - 315
  • [9] Why do we have so many definitions for nanoscience and nanotechnology?
    Balogh, Lajos P.
    [J]. NANOMEDICINE-NANOTECHNOLOGY BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, 2010, 6 (03) : 397 - 398
  • [10] Why do so many petals have conical epidermal cells?
    Whitney, Heather M.
    Bennett, K. M. Veronica
    Dorling, Matthew
    Sandbach, Lucy
    Prince, David
    Chittka, Lars
    Glover, Beverley J.
    [J]. ANNALS OF BOTANY, 2011, 108 (04) : 609 - 616