Download PDF
Plant Biol (Stuttg) 2007; 9(4): 462-468
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-964965
Research Paper

Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart KG · New York

Equivalence of Three Allocation Currencies as Estimates of Reproductive Allocation and Somatic Cost of Reproduction in Pinguicula vulgaris

M. Méndez1 , 2 , 3 , P. S. Karlsson1 , 4 , 5
  • 1Department of Plant Ecology - Evolutionary Biology Center, Uppsala University, Villavägen 14, 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
  • 2Botanical Institute, Stockholm University, Lilla Frescativägen 5, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
  • 3Present address: Área de Biodiversidad y Conservación, Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, c/Tulipán s/n, 28933 Móstoles, Spain
  • 4Abisko Scientific Research Station, Royal Academy of Science, 981 07 Abisko, Sweden
  • 5Present address: Swedish Research Council, 111 56 Stockholm, Sweden
Further Information

Publication History

Received: November 17, 2006

Accepted: January 12, 2007

Publication Date:
02 April 2007 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Which is the most appropriate currency (biomass, energy, water, or some mineral nutrient) for expressing resource allocation in plants has been repeatedly discussed. Researchers need to assess to which extent interindividual, interpopulational, or interspecific comparisons of resource allocation could be affected by the allocation currency chosen. The “currency issue” is relevant to at least three related aspects of resource allocation to reproduction: (a) reproductive allocation (RA), (b) size-dependence of reproductive allocation, and (c) somatic cost of reproduction (SCR). Empirical tests have mostly dealt with the first aspect only. We examined the equivalence of estimates for the three aspects above across three different allocation currencies (dry mass, N, P) in 11 populations of Pinguicula vulgaris. For RA we studied the equivalence of allocation currencies at three scales: among individuals of the same population, between populations of the same species, and among species. Equivalence of currencies in the ranking of RA for individuals within populations was high (Rs ≥ 0.43) and did not strongly decrease when comparing populations or species. Excepting for size-dependence of RA, ranking of RA, or SCR between populations was equivalent for biomass and N, but not for P. Our study gives two positive guidelines for empirical plant reproductive ecologists facing the “currency issue”: (1) become increasingly concerned about the “currency issue” as you increase the scale of your comparison from individuals to populations to species, and (2) avoid estimating allocation in redundant currencies (biomass and N in our case) and choose preferentially “complementary” currencies that provide a broader view of allocation patterns (biomass and P in our case).

Key words

Allocation currency - intraspecific comparison - Pinguicula vulgaris - reproductive allocation - size-dependence - somatic cost of reproduction

References

  • 1 Abrahamson W. G., Caswell H.. On the comparative allocation of biomass, energy, and nutrients in plants.  Ecology. (1982);  63 982-991
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ashman T.-L.. Reproductive allocation in hermaphrodite and female plants of Sidalcea oregana ssp. spicata (Malvaceae) using four currencies.  American Journal of Botany. (1994);  81 433-438
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bazzaz F. A.. Allocation of resources in plants: state of the science and critical questions. Bazzaz, F. A. and Grace, J., eds. Plant Resource Allocation. San Diego, CA; Academic Press (1997): 1-37
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Bazzaz F. A., Reekie E. G.. The meaning and measurement of reproductive effort in plants. White, J., ed. Studies on Plant Demography: A Festschrift for John L. Harper. London; Academic Press (1985): 373-387
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Bazzaz F. A., Ackerly D. D., Reekie E. G.. Reproductive allocation in plants. Fenner, M., ed. Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities. Wallingford; CAB International (2000): 1-29
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Bloom A. J., Chapin III. F. S., Mooney H. A.. Resource limitation in plants-an economic analogy.  Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. (1985);  16 363-392
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bonser S. P., Aarssen L. W.. Allometry and development in herbaceous plants: functional responses of meristem allocation to light and nutrient availability.  American Journal of Botany. (2003);  90 404-412
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chapin F. S. III., Bloom A. J., Field C. B., Waring R. H.. Plant responses to multiple environmental factors.  BioScience. (1987);  37 49-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cipollini M. L., Stiles E. W.. Costs of reproduction in Nyssa sylvatica: sexual dimorphism in reproductive frequency and nutrient flux.  Oecologia. (1991);  86 585-593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Eckstein R. L., Karlsson P. S.. The effect of reproduction on nitrogen use-efficiency of three species of the carnivorous genus Pinguicula.  Journal of Ecology. (2001);  89 798-806
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Fitter A. H., Setters N. L.. Vegetative and reproductive allocation of phosphorus and potassium in relation to biomass in six species of Viola.  Journal of Ecology. (1988);  76 617-636
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Garten Jr. C. T.. Multivariate perspectives on the ecology of plant mineral element composition.  American Naturalist. (1978);  112 533-544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Harper J. L., Ogden J.. The reproductive strategy of higher plants. I. The concept of strategy with special reference to Senecio vulgaris L.  Journal of Ecology. (1970);  58 681-698
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hemborg Å., Karlsson P. S.. Somatic costs of reproduction in eight subarctic plant species.  Oikos. (1998 a);  82 149-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hemborg Å., Karlsson P. S.. Altitudinal variation in size effects on plant reproductive effort and somatic costs of reproduction.  Écoscience. (1998 b);  5 517-525
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Karlsson P. S.. Seasonal patterns of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium utilization by three Pinguicula species.  Functional Ecology. (1988);  2 203-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Karlsson P. S., Méndez M.. The resource economy of plant reproduction. Reekie, E. G. and Bazzaz, F. A., eds. Reproductive Allocation in Plants. Burlington, MA; Elsevier Academic Press (2005): 1-49
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Karlsson P. S., Svensson B. M., Carlsson B. Å., Nordell K. O.. Resource investment in reproduction and its consequences in three Pinguicula species.  Oikos. (1990);  59 393-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lovett Doust J.. A comparative study of life history and resource allocation in selected Umbelliferae.  Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. (1980);  13 139-154
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Marshall C., Watson M. A.. Ecological and physiological aspects of reproductive allocation. Marshall, C. and Grace, J., eds. Fruit and Seed Production: Aspects of Development, Environmental Physiology and Ecology. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press (1992): 173-202
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Méndez M., Karlsson P. S.. Between-population variation in size-dependent reproduction and reproductive allocation in Pinguicula vulgaris L. (Lentibulariaceae) and its environmental correlates.  Oikos. (2004);  104 59-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Méndez M., Karlsson P. S.. Nutrient stoichiometry in Pinguicula vulgaris: nutrient availability, plant size and reproductive status.  Ecology. (2005);  86 982-991
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Niklas K. J., Cobb E. D.. N, P, and C stoichiometry of Eranthis hyemalis (Ranunculaceae) and the allometry of plant growth.  American Journal of Botany. (2005);  92 1256-1263
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ohlson M.. Size-dependent reproductive effort in three populations of Saxifraga hirculus in Sweden.  Journal of Ecology. (1988);  76 1007-1016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Orgeas J., Ourcival J.-M., Bonin G.. Seasonal and spatial patterns of foliar nutrients in cork oak (Quercus suber L.) growing on siliceous soils in Provence (France).  Plant Ecology. (2002);  164 201-211
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pakonen T., Laine K., Havas P., Saari E.. Effects of berry production and deblossoming on growth, carbohydrates and nitrogen compounds in Vaccinium myrtillus in north Finland.  Acta Botanica Fennica. (1988);  136 37-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Reekie E. G., Bazzaz F. A.. Reproductive effort in plants. 3. Effect of reproduction on vegetative activity.  American Naturalist. (1987);  129 907-919
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Rubio G., Zhu J., Lynch J. P.. A critical test of the two prevailing theories on plant response to nutrient availability.  American Journal of Botany. (2003);  90 143-152
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Samson D. A., Werk K. S.. Size-dependent effects in the analysis of reproductive effort in plants.  American Naturalist. (1986);  127 667-680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Thompson K., Stewart A. J. A.. The measurement and meaning of reproductive effort in plants.  American Naturalist. (1981);  117 205-211
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Thorén L. M., Karlsson P. S., Tuomi J.. Somatic cost of reproduction in three carnivorous Pinguicula species.  Oikos. (1996);  76 427-434
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Tolvanen A., Laine K.. Effects of reproduction and artificial herbivory on vegetative growth and resource levels in deciduous and evergreen dwarf shrubs.  Canadian Journal of Botany. (1997);  75 656-666
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Tuomi J., Hakala T., Haukioja E.. Alternative concepts of reproductive effort, costs of reproduction, and selection in life-history evolution.  American Zoologist. (1983);  23 25-34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 van Andel J., Vera F.. Reproductive allocation in Senecio sylvaticus and Chamaenerion angustifolium in relation to mineral nutrition.  Journal of Ecology. (1977);  65 747-758
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

M. Méndez

Área de Biodiversidad y Conservación
Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos

c/Tulipán s/n

28933 Móstoles

Spain

Email: marcos.mendez@urjc.es

Editor: H. de Kroon

      >