4.4 Review

Sexual differences and sex ratios of dioecious plants under stressful environments

Journal

JOURNAL OF PLANT ECOLOGY
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages 920-933

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jpe/rtab038

Keywords

dioecy; stress tolerance; sexual dimorphism; sex ratios; competition; spatial segregation

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [U1803231]
  2. Talent Program of the Hangzhou Normal University [2016QDL020]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dioecious plants exhibit sexual dimorphism in both sexual features and secondary sex characteristics. Responses to stress may vary between sexes depending on species and stress types, highlighting the need for further research on dioecious plant species to generalize stress effects.
Dioecious plants exhibit sexual dimorphism in both sexual features (reproductive organs) and secondary sex characteristics (vegetative traits). Sexual differences in secondary traits, including morphological, physiological and ecological characters, have been commonly associated with trade-offs between the cost of reproduction and other plant functions. Such trade-offs may be modified by environmental stressors, although there is evidence that sexually dimorphic responses to stress do not always exist in all plant species. When sexual dimorphism exists, sexually different responses appear to depend on the species and stress types. Yet, further studies on dioecious plant species are needed to allow the generalization of stress effects on males and females. Additionally, sexual dimorphism may influence the frequency and distribution of the sexes along environmental gradients, likely causing niche differentiation and spatial segregation of sexes. At the present, the causes and mechanisms governing sex ratio biases are poorly understood. This review aims to discuss sex-specific responses and sex ratio biases occurring under adverse conditions, which will advance our knowledge of sexually dimorphic responses to environmental stressors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available