Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp 701–712 | Cite as

Who determines the timing of inflorescence closure of a sexual dandelion? Pollen donors versus recipients

  • Daisuke KyogokuEmail author
  • Yutaro Kataoka
  • Michio Kondoh
Original Paper


Male–male competition for mating or fertilization opportunities may in theory select for male manipulative adaptation that can harm males’ mates, leading to sexual conflict. Evolutionary theory predicts that selection will favor the manipulation by pollen of the duration of its recipients’ receptivity. However, there is insufficient evidence to show that pollen can exert effects on the duration of receptivity, a prerequisite for the evolution of pollen manipulative adaptation. Using a sexual diploid dandelion, Taraxacum japonicum, we conducted hand pollination experiments within and between populations to examine the effects of pollen on the timing of inflorescence (flower head) closure. We also examined the potential fitness consequences to the pollen recipients by field observation of seed production in populations with different inflorescence closure timing. Within-population experiments showed that pollination induced inflorescence closure even when some of the florets in the inflorescence were not yet pollinated with compatible pollen. Furthermore, between-population crosses revealed that pollen donors, recipients, and their interaction all influenced the timing of inflorescence closure. Different populations differed in the timing of inflorescence closure, which could affect the availability to the recipients of pollen for fertilization and thereby seed production. However, there were no significant differences in the rates of natural seed production in these populations. Our results demonstrate that pollen donors, as well as recipients, contribute to the duration of floral receptivity. We discuss the implications of our findings to the evolutionary theory of plant reproduction.


Dandelion Pollen competition Sexual conflict Sexual selection Taraxacum 



We are grateful to Yutaka Osada for statistical advice, Kenji Suetsugu for discussion and Sanako Matsumoto for the assistance in collecting plants. This study was supported by the Research Fellowship for Young Scientists from JSPS (16J03061) to D.K.

Author contributions

DK conceived the study, YK and DK performed the experiments and survey, and all authors contributed to write the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10682_2019_10000_MOESM1_ESM.docx (99 kb)
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 98 kb)


  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnqvist G (1998) Comparative evidence for the evolution of genitalia by sexual selection. Nature 393:784–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnqvist G, Edvardsson M, Friberg U, Nilsson T (2000) Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:10460–10464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernasconi G, Ashman TL, Birkhead TR, Bishop JDD, Grossniklaus U, Kubli E, Marshall DL et al (2004) Evolutionary ecology of the prezygotic stage. Science 303:971–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gavrilets S (2000) Rapid evolution of reproductive barriers driven by sexual conflict. Nature 403:886–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hotzy C, Arnqvist G (2009) Sperm competition favors harmful males in seed beetles. Curr Biol 19:404–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ishii HS, Sakai S (2000) Optimal timing of corolla abscission: experimental study on Erythronium japonicum (Liliaceae). Funct Ecol 14:122–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kokko H, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2006) Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:43–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kondoh M, Higashi M (2000) Reproductive isolation mechanism resulting from resolution of intragenomic conflict. Am Nat 156:511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lankinen Å, Green KK (2015) Using theories of sexual selection and sexual conflict to improve our understanding of plant ecology and evolution. AoB Plants 7:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lankinen Å, Kiboi S (2007) Pollen donor identity affects timing of stigma receptivity in Collinsia heterophylla (Plantaginaceae): a sexual conflict during pollen competition? Am Nat 170:854–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lankinen Å, Hellriegel B, Bernasconi G (2006) Sexual conflict over floral receptivity. Evolution 60:2454–2465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lankinen Å, Hydbom S, Strandh M (2017) Sexually antagonistic evolution caused by male–male competition in the pistil. Evolution 71:2359–2369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Madjidian JA, Lankinen Å (2009) Sexual conflict and sexually antagonistic coevolution in an annual plant. PLoS ONE 4:e5477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moore T, Haig D (1991) Genomic imprinting in mammalian development: a parental tug-of-war. Trends Genet 7:45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Motten AF (1986) Pollination ecology of the spring wildflower community of a temperate deciduous forest. Ecol Monogr 56:21–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Niu Y, Yang Y, Zhang ZQ, Li ZM, Sun H (2011) Floral closure induced by pollination in gynodioecious Cyananthus delavayi (Campanulaceae): effects of pollen load and type, floral morph and fitness consequences. Ann Bot 108:1257–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Neill SD (1997) Pollination regulation of flower development. Ann Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 48:547–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Perry JC, Sirot L, Wigby S (2013) The seminal symphony: how to compose an ejaculate. Trends Ecol Evol 28:414–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Proctor HC, Harder LD (1995) Effect of pollination success on floral longevity in the orchid Calypso bulbosa. Am J Bot 82:1131–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ram KR, Wolfner MF (2007) Seminal influences: Drosophila Acps and the molecular interplay between males and females during reproduction. Integr Comp Biol 47:427–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rönn J, Katvala M, Arnqvist G (2007) Coevolution between harmful male genitalia and female resistance in seed beetles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:10921–10925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schoen DJ, Ashman TL (1995) The evolution of floral longevity: resource allocation to maintenance versus construction of repeated parts in modular organisms. Evolution 49:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stephenson AG (1981) Flower and fruit abortion: proximate causes and ultimate functions. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 12:253–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sugano YC, Akimoto SI (2011) Mating asymmetry resulting from sexual conflict in the brachypterous grasshopper Podisma sapporensis. Behav Ecol 22:701–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Takami Y, Fukuhara T, Yokoyama J, Kawata M (2018) Impact of sexually antagonistic genital morphologies on female reproduction and wild population demography. Evolution 72:2449–2461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Torices R, Méndez M (2010) Fruit size decline from the margin to the center of capitula is the result of resource competition and architectural constraints. Oecologia 164:949–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wigby S, Chapman T (2005) Sex peptide causes mating costs in female Drosophila melanogaster. Curr Biol 15:316–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilkins JF, Haig D (2003) What good is genomic imprinting: the function of parent-specific gene expression. Nat Rev Genet 4:359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wu FY, Yahara T (2017) Recurved Taraxacum phyllaries function as a floral defense: experimental evidence and its implication for Taraxacum evolutionary history. Ecol Res 32:313–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science and TechnologyRyukoku UniversityOhtsuJapan
  2. 2.Ecological Integration, Graduate School of Life SciencesTohoku UniversitySendaiJapan
  3. 3.Research Institute for Food and AgricultureRyukoku UniversityOtsuJapan

Personalised recommendations