Evolution and Ecology of Plant Mating Systems

The mating system provides a description of the distribution of mating unions in a population; in hermaphrodites such as most flowering plants, this amounts to the rate of self-fertilization versus outcrossing. Selfing has evolved numerous times in flowering plants, probably because selfers transmit an extra copy of their genes to their seed progeny, and because they can reproduce in the absence of mates. Nevertheless, selfed progeny tend to be less fit and selfing detracts from an individuals outcrossing potential. As a result, most plants avoid selfing via a number of molecular, morphological or phenological adaptations. The mating system also has important implications for the genetic structure of individuals and populations: individuals show reduced heterozygosity, reduced effective recombination and reduced effects of genetic conflict; and populations of selfers tend to be more genetically differentiated from one another than outcrossers.

Key concepts

  • The mating system describes and quantifies the distribution of mating unions in a population; in hermaphroditic plants, the mating system typically refers to the selfing or outcrossing rates.
  • Self-fertilization confers an automatic selective benefit, because selfed progeny carry two copies of a parent's genome rather than just one. An important possible cost of self-fertilization is inbreeding depression, where selfed progeny have lower fitness than their outcrossed counterparts.
  • Self-fertilization can be costly because pollen used up in selfing is unavailable for competition to sire outcrossed progeny; this is known as pollen discounting.
  • Self-fertilization may be advantageous when mates or pollinators are scarce, because it provides reproductive assurance by allowing uniparental reproduction.
  • Inbreeding depression can be caused by either overdominance, where heterozygotes have an advantage over both corresponding homozygotes, or partial dominance, where fitness is reduced on one homozygote by the expression of deleterious recessive alleles.
  • Plants avoid self-fertilization through molecular self-incompatibility reactions, the spatial separation of the sexual functions within and among flowers (herkogamy or dicliny), or the temporal separation of the sexual functions (dichogamy).

Keywords: self-fertilization; inbreeding depression; self-incompatibility; flowering plants; hermaphrodite; siring success

Figure 1. The great evolutionary geneticist and statistician, Ronald Fisher, first saw that a mutation increasing the selfing rate in an otherwise outcrossing hermaphrodite population would enjoy an automatic fitness advantage, because selfers would transmit two copies of its genes to the next generation through their selfed seeds, whereas outcrossing individuals would only transmit a single copy. Fisher's simple analysis assumes that selfed and outcrossed seeds have equal fitness, and that selfing individuals continue to transmit genes by outcrossing through their pollen.
Figure 2. A diagram from Charles Darwin's book The Effects of Cross- and Self-fertilization in the Vegetable Kingdom, published in 1876. The diagram shows the average heights of selfed and outcrossed progeny of the plant Ipomaea purpurea over 10 generations. The shorter height of selfed plants indicates inbreeding depression. Darwin concluded from his numerous experiments that ‘plants abhor perpetual self-fertilization’.
Figure 3. The evolution of selfing is typically followed by the evolution of reduced flower size. The flowers of the highly selfing species Capsella rubella (a) are much smaller than those of its near relative C. grandiflora (b). Within the highly variable Californian dune species Camissonia cheiranthifolia (c), flower size likely varies positively with the outcrossing rate. Photos of Capsella courtesy of T Slotte and of Camissonia courtesy of C Eckert.
Figure 4. The flowers of the aquatic perennial herb Sagittaria latifolia are either male (top three open flowers in the inflorescence shown) or female (bottom three open flowers). Individuals in some populations (as in the image) are monoecious, with both male and female flowers on the same plant. Other populations are dioecious, with male and female flowers on different plants. Photo courtesy of M Dorken.
close
 References
    Baker HG (1955) Self-compatibility and establishment after “long-distance” dispersal. Evolution 9: 347–348.
    Barrett SCH (2002) The evolution of plant sexual diversity. Nature Reviews. Genetics 3: 274–284.
    Barrett SCH, Jesson LK and Baker AM (2000) The evolution and function of stylar polymorphisms in flowering plants. Annals of Botany 85: 253–265.
    Barton NH and Charlesworth B (1998) Why sex and recombination? Science 281: 1986–1990.
    Bhardwaj M and Eckert CG (2001) Functional analysis of synchronous dichogamy in flowering rush, Butomus umbellatus (Butomaceae). American Journal of Botany 88: 2204–2213.
    book Charlesworth B and Hughes KA (2000) "The maintenance of genetic variation in life-history traits". In: Singh RS and Krimbas CB (eds) Evolutionary Genetics from Molecules to Morphology, pp. 369–391. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Charlesworth B, Nordborg M and Charlesworth D (1997) The effects of local selection, balanced polymorphism and background selection on equilibrium patterns of genetic diversity in subdivided populations. Genetical Research 70: 155–174.
    Charlesworth D (1993) Why are unisexual flowers associated with wind-pollination and unspecialised pollinators? American Naturalist 141: 481–490.
    Charlesworth D (2003) Effects of inbreeding on the genetic diversity of populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B. Biological Sciences 358: 1051–1070.
    Charlesworth D and Charlesworth B (1978) A model for the evolution of dioecy and gynodioecy. American Naturalist 112: 975–997.
    Charlesworth D and Charlesworth B (1987) Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18: 273–288.
    book Charlesworth D and Pannell JR (2001) "Mating systems and population genetic structure in the light of coalescent theory". In: Silvertown J and Antonovics J (eds) Integrating Ecology and Evolution in a Spatial Context, pp. 73–95. Oxford: Blackwells.
    book Connor JK (2006) "Ecological genetics of floral evolution". In: Harder LD and Barrett SCH (eds) Ecology and Evolution of Flowers, pp. 260–277. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Crnokrak P and Barrett SCH (2002) Purging the genetic load: a review of the experimental evidence. Evolution 56: 2347–2358.
    Cruden RW (1977) Pollen-ovule ratios: a conservative index of breeding systems in flowering plants. Evolution 31: 32–46.
    book Darwin C (1862) On the Various Contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilised by Insects. London: John Murray.
    book Darwin C (1876) The Effects of Cross- and Self-fertilization in the Vegetable Kingdom. London: John Murray.
    book Darwin C (1877) The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species. New York: Appleton.
    Fisher RA (1941) Average excess and average effect of a gene substitution. Annals of Eugenics 11: 53–63.
    Goodwillie C, Kalisz S and Eckert CG (2005) The evolutionary enigma of mixed mating systems in plants: occurrence, theoretical explanations, and empirical evidence. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 36: 47–79.
    Graham SW and Barrett SCH (2004) Phylogenetic reconstruction of the evolution of stylar polymorphisms in Narcissus (Amaryllidaceae). American Journal of Botany 91: 1007–1021.
    Hamrick JL and Godt MJW (1996) Effects of life history traits on genetic diversity in plant species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 351: 1291–1298.
    Harder LD and Barrett SCH (1995) Mating cost of large floral displays in hermaphrodite plants. Nature 373: 512–515.
    book Harder LD and Barrett SCH (2006) Ecology and Evolution of Flowers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Herlihy CR and Eckert CG (2002) Genetic cost of reproductive assurance in a self-fertilizing plant. Nature 416: 320–323.
    Hiscock SJ and McInnis SM (2003) The diversity of self-incompatibility systems in flowering plants. Plant Biology 5: 23–32.
    Holsinger KE (2000) Reproductive systems and evolution in vascular plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 97: 7037–7042.
    Igic B, Bohs L and Kohn JR (2006) Ancient polymorphism reveals unidirectional breeding system shifts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 103: 1359–1363.
    Jarne P and Charlesworth D (1993) The evolution of the selfing rate in functionally hermaphrodite plants and animals. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 24: 441–466.
    Jordano P, Garcia C, Godoy JA and Garcia-Castano JL (2007) Differential contribution of frugivores to complex seed dispersal patterns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104: 3278–3282.
    Kalisz S, Nason JD, Hanzawa FM and Tonsor SJ (2001) Spatial population genetic structure in Trillium grandiflorum: the roles of dispersal, mating, history, and selection. Evolution 55: 1560–1568.
    Kalisz S, Vogler DW and Hanley KM (2004) Context-dependent autonomous self-fertilization yields reproductive assurance and mixed mating. Nature 430: 884–887.
    Kohn JR (1988) Why be female? Nature 335: 431.
    Kohn JR, Graham SW, Morton B, Doyle JJ and Barrett SCH (1996) Reconstruction of the evolution of reproductive characters in Pontederiaceae using phylogenetic evidence from chloroplast DNA restriction-site variation. Evolution 50: 1454–1469.
    Lande R and Schemske DW (1985) The evolution of self-fertilization and inbreeding depression in plants: I. Genetic models. Evolution 39: 24–40.
    Lande R, Schemske DW and Schultz ST (1994) High inbreeding depression, selective interference among loci, and the theshold selfing rate for purging recessive lethal mutations. Evolution 48: 965–978.
    Lloyd DG (1979) Some reproductive factors affecting the selection of self-fertilization in plants. American Naturalist 113: 67–79.
    Lloyd DG (1987) Allocations to pollen, seeds and pollination mechanisms in self-fertilizing plants. Functional Ecology 1: 83–89.
    Lloyd DG and Schoen DJ (1992) Self- and cross-fertilization in plants. I. Functional dimensions. International Journal of Plant Science 153: 358–369.
    Morgan MT, Schoen DJ and Bataillon TM (1997) The evolution of self-fertilization in perennials. American Naturalist 150: 618–638.
    Pannell JR and Barrett SCH (1998) Baker's Law revisited: reproductive assurance in a metapopulation. Evolution 52: 657–668.
    Porcher E and Lande R (2005) Reproductive compensation in the evolution of plant mating systems. New Phytologist 166: 673–684.
    Renner SS (2001) How common is heterodichogamy? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16: 595–597.
    Renner SS and Ricklefs RE (1995) Dioecy and its correlates in the flowering plants. American Journal of Botany 82: 596–606.
    Sargent RD and Otto SP (2004) A phylogenetic analysis of pollination mode and the evolution of dichogamy in angiosperms. Evolutionary Ecology Research 6: 1183–1199.
    Schoen DJ, Morgan MT and Bataillon T (1996) How does self-pollination evolve? Inferences from floral ecology and molecular genetic variation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 351: 1281–1290.
    Stebbins GL (1957) Self-fertilization and population variability in the higher plants. American Naturalist 91: 337–354.
    book Vogel S (1995) "Christian Konrad Sprengel's theory of the flower: the cradle of floral ecology". In: Lloyd DG and Barrett SCH (eds) Floral Biology: Studies on Floral Evolution in Animal-pollinated Plants, pp. 44–62. New York: Chapman and Hall.
    Weller SG and Sakai AK (1999) Using phylogenetic approaches for the analysis of plant breeding system evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 167–199.
    Wright SI, Ness RW, Foxe JP and Barrett SCH (2008) Genomic consequences of outcrossing and selfing in plants. International Journal of Plant Sciences 169: 105–118.
 Further Reading
    Charlesworth D (2006) Evolution of plant breeding systems. Current Biology 16: R726–R735.
Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Pannell, John R(Mar 2010) Evolution and Ecology of Plant Mating Systems. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0021909]