Summary
Hermaphroditic flowering plants commonly produce many more flowers than fruits. To interpret this observation, I suggest an explanation based on trade-offs occurring between the size and the number of flowers and fruits that mature when resources are limiting. I make this suggestion concrete with the aid of a phenotypic model analysed using the ESS approach. The model includes resource allocations to male and female reproductive structures at the time of flowering and to fruit maturation. The formulation allows for non-linear relations between opportunities for fertility gain on the one hand and flower and fruit size and number on the other. Results of the model indicate that fewer fruits will be matured than flowers produced, even in the absence of previously suggested factors such as pollinator limitation and bet-hedging in the face of environmental variability. Model results emphasize the distinction between flower versus inflorescence contributions to male and female reproductive success. Analysis also shows that the fruit to flower ratio in hermaphroditic plants will be lower than that in female plants, in accord with broad taxonomic surveys. Finally, results obtained lead to empirically testable predictions about the relationship between flower size, fruit size and the fruit to flower ratio. Methods to test these predictions are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ayre, D. J. and Whelan, R. J. (1989) Factors controlling fruit set in hermaphroditic plants: studies with the Australian Proteaceae.Trends Ecol. Evol. 4, 267–72.
Bawa, K. S. (1980) Evolution of dioecy in flowering plants.Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11, 15–39.
Bawa, K. S. and Opler, P. A. (1975) Dioecism in tropical forest trees.Evolution 29, 167–79.
Bell, G. (1985) On the function of flowers.Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B 224, 223–65.
Brunet, J. (1992) Sex allocation in hermaphroditic plants.Trends Ecol. Evol. 7, 79–84.
Calvo, R. N. and Horvitz, C. C. (1990) Pollinator limitation, cost of reproduction, and fitness in plants: a transition-matrix demographic approach.Am. Nat. 136, 499–516.
Charlesworth, B. and Charlesworth, D. (1978) A model for the evolution of dioecy and gynodioecy.Am. Nat. 112, 975–97.
Charlesworth, D. (1989) Evolution of low female fertility in plants: pollen limitation, resource allocation, and genetic load.Trends Ecol. Evol. 4, 289–92.
Charlesworth, D. and Charlesworth, B. (1981) Allocation of resources to male and female functions in hermaphrodites.Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 15, 57–74.
Charlesworth, D. and Morgan, M. T. (1991) Allocation of resources to sex functions in flowering plants.Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 332, 91–102.
Charnov, E. L. (1979) Simultaneous hermaphroditism and sexual selection.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci., USA 76, 2480–4.
Charnov, E. L. (1982)The Theory of Sex Allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA
Charnov, E. L., Maynard Smith, J. and Bull, J. J. (1976) Why be an hermaphrodite?Nature 263, 125–6.
Cohen, D. and Dukas, R. (1990) The optimal number of female flowers and the fruits-to-flowers ratio in plants under pollination and resource limitations.Am. Nat. 135, 218–41.
Couvet, D., Henry, J.-P. and Gouyon, P.-H. (1985) Sexual selection in hermaphroditic plants: the case of gynodioecy.Am. Nat. 126, 294–9.
Ehrlén, J. (1991) Why do plants produce surplus flowers? A reserve-ovary model.Am. Nat. 138, 918–33.
Fisher, R. A. (1930)The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Dover Publications, New York, USA.
Frank, S. A. (1987) Individual and population sex allocation patterns.Theore. Pop. Biol. 31 47–74.
Gill, P. E., Murray, W. and Wright, M. H. (1981)Practical Optimization. Academic Press, New York, USA.
Givnish, T. J. (1980) Ecological constraints on the evolution of breeding systems in seed plants: dioecy and dispersal in gymnosperms.Evolution,34 959–72.
Haig, D. and Westoby, M. (1988) On limits to seed production.Am. Nat. 131 757–9.
Janzen, D. H. (1971) Seed predation by animals.Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2 465–92.
Kozlowski, J. and Stearns, S. C. (1989) Hypotheses for the production of excess zygotes: models of bethedging and selective abortion.Evolution 43 1369–77.
Lloyd, D. G. (1975) Theoretical sex ratios of dioecious and gynodioecious angiosperms.Heredity,32 11–34.
Lloyd, D. G. (1977) Genetic and phenotypic models of natural selection.J. Theore. Biol. 69 543–60.
Lloyd, D. G. (1980) Sexual strategies in plants. I. An hypothesis of serial adjustment of maternal investment during one reproductive session.New Phytol. 86 69–79.
Lloyd, D. G. (1983) Evolutionarily stable sex ratios and sex allocations.J. Theore. Biol. 105 525–39.
Lloyd, D. G. (1984) Gender allocation in outcrossing cosexual plants. InPerspectives on Plant Population Ecology (R. Dirzo and J. Sarukhan, eds), pp. 277–300. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
Lloyd, D. G. (1987a) Allocations to pollen, seeds and pollination mechanisms in self-fertilizing plants.Funct. Ecol. 1 83–9.
Lloyd, D. G. (1987b) Benefits and costs of biparental and uniparental reproduction in plants. InThe Evolution of Sex: An Examination of Current Ideas (B. Levin and R. Michod, eds), pp. 233–52. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, USA.
Lloyd, D. G. (1987c) A general principle for the allocation of limited resources.Evol. Ecol. 2 175–87.
Lloyd, D. G. (1987d) Selection of offspring size at independence and other size-versus-number strategies.Am. Nat. 129 800–17.
Macior, L. W. (1970) The pollination ecology ofPedicularis in Colorado.Am. J. Bot. 57 716–28.
Macior, L. W. (1973) The pollination ecology ofPedicularis on Mount Rainier.Am. J. Bot. 60 863–71.
Macior, L. W. (1975) The pollination ecology ofPedicularis (Scrophulariaceae) in the Yukon territory.Am. J. Bot. 62 1065–72.
Maynard Smith, J. (1982)Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Morgan, M. T. (1992) The evolution of traits influencing male and female fertility in outcrossing plants.Am. Nat. 139 1022–51.
Queller, D. C. (1983) Sexual selection in a hermaphroditic plant.Nature 305 706–7.
Schoen, D. J. and Dubuc, M. (1990) The evolution of inflorescence size and number: a gamete-packaging strategy in plants.Am. Nat. 135 841–57.
Seger, J. and Brockmann, H. J. (1987) What is bet-hedging? InOxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology (P. H. Harvey and L. Partridge, eds), pp. 182–211. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Smith, C. C. and Fretwell, S. D. (1974) The optimal balance between size and number of offspring.Am. Nat. 108 499–506.
Spalik, K. (1990) On evolution of andromonoecy and ‘overproduction’ of flowers: a resource allocation model.Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 42 325–36.
Stephenson, A. G. (1981) Flower and fruit abortion: proximate causes and ultimate function.Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 12 253–79.
Sutherland, S. (1986a) Floral sex ratios, fruit-set, and resource allocation in plants.Ecology 67 991–1001.
Sutherland, S. (1986b) Patterns of fruit-set: what controls fruit-flower ratio in plants?Evolution 40 117–28.
Sutherland, S. and Delph, L. F. (1984) On the importance of male fitness in plants: patterns of fruit set.Ecology 65 1093–104.
Walker, B. A. and Whelan, R. J. (1991) Can andromonoecy explain low fruit: flower ratios in the Proteaceae?Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 44 41–6.
Willson, M. F. (1979) Sexual selection in plants.Am. Nat. 113 770–90.
Willson, M. F. and Price, P. W. (1977) The evolution of inflorescence size inAsclepias (Asclepiadaceae).Evolution 31 495–511.
Willson, M. F. and Rathcke, B. J. (1974) Adaptive design of the floral display inAsclepias syriaca L.Am. Midl. Nat. 92 47–57.
Wolfram Research, Inc. (1991)Mathematica. Wolfram Research, Inc., Champaign, IL, USA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Morgan, M. Fruit to flower ratios and trade-offs in size and number. Evol Ecol 7, 219–232 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01237740
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01237740