title: Differential niche modification by males and females of a dioecious herb: extending the Jack Sprat effect.
abstract: Males and females of dioecious plants often differ in morphological, physiological and life-history traits, probably as a result of their different requirements for reproduction. We found that the growth and reproductive effort of individuals of the dioecious herb Mercurialis annua depended on whether males or females had been growing in the soil previously. This suggests that males and females of M. annua differentially modify the soil in which they are growing. Our study indicates that sexual dimorphism in dioecious plants can give rise to increased environmental heterogeneity as a consequence of sex-specific niche modification.
authors.affiliation: Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Sánchez-Vilas
authors.affiliation: Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
authors.forename: J R
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Pannell
mesh_terms: D019665:Euphorbiaceae / Q000254:growth & development / Q000378:metabolism*; D009584:Nitrogen / Q000378:metabolism*; D012727:Sex Characteristics; D012987:Soil
chemical_list: D012987:Soil; D009584:Nitrogen
references.citation: Angers, D.A. & Caron, J. 1998. Plant-induced changes in soil structure: processes and feedbacks. Biogeochemistry 42: 55-72.
references.citation: Bierzychudek, P. & Eckhart, V. 1988. Spatial segregation of the sexes of dioecious plants. Am. Nat. 132: 34-43.
references.citation: Bullock, S.H. & Bawa, K.S. 1981. Sexual dimorphism and the annual flowering pattern in Jacaratia dolichaula (D. Smith) Woodson (Caricaceae) in a Costa Rican rain forest. Ecology 62: 1494-1504.
references.citation: Case, A.L. & Ashman, T.-L. 2005. Sex-specific physiology and its implications for the cost of reproduction. In: Reproductive Allocation in Plants (E.G. Reekie & F.A. Bazzaz, eds), pp. 129-157. Elsevier Inc, Amsterdam.
references.citation: Charlesworth, B. & Charlesworth, D. 1978. A model for the evolution of dioecy and gynodioecy. Am. Nat. 112: 975-997.
references.citation: Charnov, E.L., Maynard Smith, J. & Bull, J.J. 1976. Why be an hermaphrodite? Nature 263: 125-126.
references.citation: Cornelissen, T. & Stiling, P. 2005. Sex-biased herbivory: a meta-analysis of the effects of gender on plant-herbivore interactions. Oikos 111: 488-500.
references.citation: Cox, P.A. 1981. Niche partitioning between sexes of dioecious plants. Am. Nat. 148: 299-320.
references.citation: Dawkins, R. 1982. The Extended Phenotype. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
references.citation: Dawkins, R. 2004. Extended phenotype - but not too extended. A reply to Laland, Turner and Jablonka. Biol. Philos. 19: 377-396.
references.citation: Dawson, T.E. & Bliss, L.C. 1989. Patterns of water use and the tissue water relations in the dioecious shrub, Salix arctica: the physiological basis for habitat partitioning between the sexes. Oecologia 79: 332-343.
references.citation: Dawson, T. E. & Ehleringer, J.R. 1993. Gender-specific physiology, carbon isotope discrimination, and habitat distribution in boxelder, Acer negundo. Ecology 74: 798-815.
references.citation: Delph, L. F. 1990. Sex-differential resource allocation patterns in the subdioecious shrub Hebe subalpina. Ecology 71: 1342-1351.
references.citation: Delph, L.F. & Meagher, T.R. 1995. Sexual dimorphism masks life history trade-offs in the dioecious plant Silene latifolia. Ecology 76: 775-785.
references.citation: Eisenhauer, N., Bessler, H., Engels, C., Gleixner, G., Habekost, M., Milcu, A., Partsch, S., Sabais, A.C., Scherber, C., Steinbeiss, S., Weigelt, A., Weisser, W.W. & Scheu, S. 2010. Plant diversity effects on soil microorganisms support the singular hypothesis. Ecology 91: 485-496.
references.citation: Eppley, S.M. 2006. Females make tough neighbors: sex-specific competitive effects in seedlings of a dioecious grass. Oecologia 146: 549-554.
references.citation: Freeman, D.C., Klikoff, L.G. & Harper, K.T. 1976. Differential resource utilization by the sexes of dioecious plants. Science 193: 597-599.
references.citation: Freeman, D.C., Doust, J.L., ElKeblawy, A., Miglia, K.J. & McArthur, E.D. 1997. Sexual specialization and inbreeding avoidance in the evolution of dioecy. Bot. Rev. 63: 65-92.
references.citation: Geber, M.A., Dawson, T.E. & Delph, L.F. 1999. Gender and Sexual Dimorphism in Flowering Plants. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
references.citation: Harris, M.S. & Pannell, J.R. 2008. Roots, shoots and reproduction: sexual dimorphism in size and costs of reproductive allocation in an annual herb. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. (Biol) 275: 2595-2602.
references.citation: Huston, M. 1979. A general hypothesis of species diversity. Am. Nat. 113: 81-101.
references.citation: Levine, J.M. & HilleRisLambers, J. 2009. The importance of niches for the maintenance of species diversity. Nature 461: 254-257.
references.citation: Obeso, J.R. 2002. The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytol. 155: 321-348.
references.citation: Odling-Smee, F.J. 1988. Niche constructing phenotypes. In: The Role of Behaviour in Evolution (H.C. Plotkin, ed), pp. 73-132. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
references.citation: Onyekwelu, S.S. & Harper, J.L. 1979. Sex ratio and niche differentiation in spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.). Nature 282: 609-611.
references.citation: Pannell, J. 1997. Widespread functional androdioecy in Mercurialis annua L. (Euphorbiaceae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 61: 95-116.
references.citation: Whitham, T.G. et al. 2003. Community and ecosystem genetics: a consequence of the extended phenotype. Ecology 84: 559-573.
references.citation: Willson, M.F. 1991. Sexual selection, sexual dimorphism and plant phylogeny. Evol. Ecol. 5: 69-87.