These data are the average seed set estimates for dichogamous and adichogamous Chamerion angustifolium at different inflorescence sizes.
Format:
maternalID: Identification code for the maternal plant (i.e., grandmother of the counted seeds).
individualID: Identification code of the plant.
array#: The array identification number.
dichogamyType: Indicates if the plant was dichogamous.
flowerPosition: Flowers were sampled from either the bottom or top of the inflorescence.
inflorescenceSize: The number of open flowers on each plant in the array.
seedCount: Number of full seeds
notSeedCount: Number of aborted seeds
Citation:
Routley, M.B. & B.C. Husband. 2003. The effect of protandry on siring success in Chamerion angustifolium (Onagraceae) with different inflorescence sizes. Evolution, 57: 240-248 PubMedPDF
These data are the average siring-success estimates for dichogamous and adichogamous Chamerion angustifolium. Siring success is estimated from the proportion of heterozygous progeny produced at the PGI locus. Dichogamy classes were homozygous for alternate PGI alleles, so that heterozygous progeny represent interclass pollen transfer.
Format:
Array: The array identification number.
DichogamyType: The dichogamy status of the plants in the array.
FlowerSize: The number of open flowers on each plant in the array.
ProportionHeterozygousProgeny: The ratio of heterozygous to homozygous progeny at the PGI locus.
Citation:
Routley, M.B. & B.C. Husband. 2003. The effect of protandry on siring success in Chamerion angustifolium (Onagraceae) with different inflorescence sizes. Evolution, 57: 240-248 PubMedProtandryDiscounting.pdf
These data are pollen counts from anthers before and after single bee visits in populations of Chamerion angustifolium from Montana. Pollen was quantified with a Beckman-Coulter Multisizer 3 particle counter.
Format:
Population: The population sampled, either tetraploid or diploid.
Sample: An identification code representing the plant and flower sampled.
StigmaPresence: Some flowers had their stigma and style removed with forceps. Others were left intact.
Visitation: Whether the anther was sampled before or after a single bee visit.
PollenCount: The estimated amount of pollen present in the flower.
Unrelated to my “official” thesis work, I have been thinking about floral form and its influence on plant fitness. As an excuse to start a discussion with anyone interested, I’ve posted this overview of what I hope to work on next.
Plant mating systems control the transmission of genes between generations and, therefore, are a fundamental characteristic of populations. Since flowers are the reproductive organs of plants, floral form fundamentally influences plant mating systems. However, research into floral evolution has traditionally “atomized” flowers into conspicuous traits that are then investigated independently. Despite the undeniable success of this reductionist approach, an alternate research strategy called phenotypic integration, found at the intersection of morphometrics, quantitative genetics, reproductive ecology, and plant evolution, offers a unique perspective. Floral integration, in particular, asserts that the variance-covariance structure of entire flowers, rather than mean values of individual traits, may be an important target for selection. This is especially relevant for animal-pollinated, hermaphroditic flowers (i.e., most angiosperms) in which the male and female sexual organs must be positioned precisely within the path of pollen movement. Consequently, I expect high integration for anther and stigma placement relative to, for example, vegetative characters. After a long period of neglect, floral integration is beginning to receive more attention. To date, most of this research has focussed on quantifying the magnitude of integration, whereas the evolutionary significance of variation in floral integration remains an open question.