HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Diggle, P. K. Articles by Miller, J. S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Diggle, P. K. Articles by Miller, J. S. Agricola Articles by Diggle, P. K. Articles by Miller, J. S.

Architectural effects mimic floral sexual dimorphism in Solanum (Solanaceae)¹

²Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309 USA; ³Department of Biology, Amherst College, Amherst, Massachusetts 01002 USA

Factors underlying apparent floral sexual dimorphism were examined in six species of andromonoecious Solanum section Lasiocarpa (Solanaceae). Both multivariate and univariate analyses show that hermaphroditic flowers are significantly larger than staminate flowers for all features measured. Thus, flowers could be characterized as sexually size dimorphic. However, when size variation due to flower position (architecture) is controlled experimentally, differences between the floral genders for the nongynoecial characters disappear; there is no difference in corolla or androecium size. Staminate flowers appear to be generally smaller than hermaphroditic flowers, not because of any difference related to primary sexual function, but because they tend to occur in the distal regions of each inflorescence. In contrast, significant differences between hermaphroditic and staminate flowers for primary female traits (ovary, style, and stigma) remain after controlling for position: the two floral types are truly dimorphic for these characters. We show that consideration of architectural effects can direct and refine hypotheses concerning the evolution of andromonoecy. More generally, if architectural effects on flower size are common among taxa with unisexual flowers, then these effects may contribute to the common perception of size dimorphism in taxa with unisexual flowers.

Key Words: andromonoecy • architecture • flower morphology • positional effects • sexual dimorphism • unisexual flowers • Solanum

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Narbona, P. L. Ortiz, and M. Arista Sexual Dimorphism in the Andromonoecious Euphorbia nicaeensis: Effects of Gender and Inflorescence Development Ann. Bot., April 1, 2008; 101(5): 717 - 726. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. NARBONA, P. L. ORTIZ, and M. ARISTA Dichogamy and Sexual Dimorphism in Floral Traits in the Andromonoecious Euphorbia boetica Ann. Bot., April 1, 2005; 95(5): 779 - 787. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]