Free Access
Issue
Ann. For. Sci.
Volume 66, Number 8, December 2009
Article Number 812
Number of page(s) 9
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/forest/2009068
Published online 25 November 2009
  • Allen G.A. and Antos J.A., 1998. Relative reproductive effort in males and females of the dioecious shrub Oemleria cerasiformis. Oecologia 76: 111–118 [Google Scholar]
  • Allen G.A. and Antos J.A., 1993. Sex ratio variation in the dioecious shrub Oemleria cerasiformis. Am. Nat. 141: 537–553 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Antos J.A. and Allen G.A., 1999. Patterns of reproductive effort in male and female shrubs of Oemleria cerasiformis: A 6-year study. J. Ecol. 87: 77–84 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Armstrong J.E. and Irvine A.K., 1989. Flowering, sex ratios, pollen-ovule ratios, fruit set, and reproductive effort of a dioecious tress, Myristica insipida (Myristicaceae), in two different rain forest communities. Am. J. Bot. 76: 74–85 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Barrett S.C.H. and Helenurm K., 1981. Floral sex ratios and lifehistory in Aralia nudicaulis (Araliaceae). Evolution 35: 752–62 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Besag J.E. and Diggle P.J., 1977. Simple Monte Carlo tests for spatial pattern. Appl. Stat. 26: 327–333 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bonhomme R. and Chartier P., 1972. The interpretation and automatic measurement of hemispherical photographs to obtain sunlit folige area and gap frequency. Isr. J. Agric. Res. 22: 53–61 [Google Scholar]
  • Bullock S.H., 1992. Effects of sex, size and substrate on growth and mortality of trees in tropical wet forest. Oecologia 9l: 52–55 [Google Scholar]
  • Callaway R.M., DeLucia E.H., Moore D., Nowak R. and Schlesinger W.H., 1996. Competition and facilitation: contrasting effects of Artemisia tridentata on desert vs. montane pines. Ecology 77: 2130–2141 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • China Soil Council, 1999. Soil agricultural chemical analysis procedure, Chinese Agricultural Science Press, Beijing. [Google Scholar]
  • Cipollini M.L. and Stiles E.W., 1991. Costs of reproduction in Nyssa sylvatica: sexual dimorphism in reproductive frequency and nutrient flux. Oecologia 86: 585–593 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Cipollini M.L. and Whigham D.F., 1994. Sexual dimorphism and cost of reproduction in the dioecious shrub Lindera benzoin (Lauraceae). Am. J. Bot. 81: 65–75 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Collet C., Guehl J.M., Frochot H. and Ferhi A., 1996. Effect of two grasses differing in their growth dynamics on the water relations and the growth of Quercus petraea seedlings. Can. J. Bot. 74: 1562–1571 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cornelissen T. and Stiling P., 2005. Sex-biased herbivory: a meta-analysis of the effects of gender on plant-herbivore interactions. Oikos 111: 488–500 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cox P.A., 1981. Niche partitioning between sexes of dioecious plants. Am. Nat. 117: 295–307 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Davidson C.G. and Remphrey W.R., 1990. An analysis of architectural parameters of male and female Fraxinus pennsylvanica in relation to crown shape and crown location. Can. J. Bot. 68: 2035–2043 [Google Scholar]
  • Dawson T.E. and Ehleringer J.R., 1993. Gender-specific physiology, carbon isotope discrimination, and habitat distribution in box elder, Acer negundo. Ecology 74: 798–815 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Delph L.F., 1999. Sexual dimorphism in live history. In: Geber M.A., Dawson T.E., Delph L.F. (Eds.), Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 149–173 [Google Scholar]
  • Diggle P.J., 1983. Statistical analysis of spatial point patterns, Academic Press, London [Google Scholar]
  • Duncan R., 1989. An evaluation of errors in tree age estimates based on increment cores in kahikatea (Dacrycarpus dacrydioides). N. Z. Nat. Sci. 16: 31–37 [Google Scholar]
  • Garcia M.B. and Antor R.J., 1995. Sex ratio and sexual dimorphism in the dioecious Borderea pyrenaica (Dioscoreaceae). Oecologia 101: 59–67 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gauquelin T., Bertaudière-Montès V., Badri W. and Montès N., 2002. Sex ratio and sexual dimorphism in mountain dioecious thuriferous juniper (Juniperus thurifera L., Cupressaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 138: 237–244 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gehring J.L. and Linhart Y.B., 1993. Sexual dimorphisms and response to low resources in the dioecious plant Silene latifolia (Caryophyllaceae). Int. J. Plant Sci. 154: 152–162 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Goreaud F. and Pélissier R., 2003. Avoiding misinterpretation of biotic interaction with the intertype K12-function: population independence vs. random labeling hypotheses. J. Veg. Sci. 14: 681–692 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Grant M.C. and Mitton J.B., 1979. Elevational gradients in adult sex ratios and sexual differentiation in vegetative growth rates in Populus tremuloides Michx. Evolution 33: 914–918 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gross K.L. and Soule J.D., 1981. Differences in biomass allocation to reproductive and vegetative structures of male and females plants of a dioecious, perennial herb, Silene alba (Miller) Krause. Am. J. Bot. 68: 801–807 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Guillon J.M. and Fievet D., 2003. Environmental sex determination in response to light and biased sex ratios in Equisetum gametophytes. J. Ecol. 91: 49–57 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • He F. and Duncan R.P., 2000. Density-dependent effects on tree survival in an old-growth Douglas fir forest. J. Ecol. 88: 676–688 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Herrera C.M., 1988. Plant size, spacing patterns, and host plant selection in Osyris quadripartita, a hemiparasitic dioecious shrub. J. Ecol. 76: 995–1006 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hill P.W., H, ley L.L. and Raven J.A., 1996. Juniperus communis L. spp. communis at Balnaguard, Scotland: foliar carbon discrimination (13C and 15-N natural abundance (15N suggest gender-linked differences in water and N use. Bot. J. Scotland 48: 209–224 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hoffmann A.J. and Alliende M.C., 1984. Interactions in the patterns of vegetative growth and reproduction in woody dioecious plants. Oecologia 61: 109–114 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Holmes R.L., 1983. Computer-assisted quality control in tree-ring dating and measurement. Tree-Ring Bull. 44: 69–75 [Google Scholar]
  • Houle G. and Duchesne M., 1999. The spatial pattern of a Juniperus communis var. depressa population on a continental dune in subarctic Québec. Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 29: 446–450 [Google Scholar]
  • Houssard C., Thompson J.D. and Escarre J., 1994. Do sex related differences in response to environmental variation influence the sex ratio in the dioecious Rumex acetosella. Oikos 70: 80–90 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Jing S.W. and Coley P.D., 1990. Dioecy and herbivory: the effect of growth rate on plant defense in Acer negundo. Oikos 58: 369–377 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kohorn L.U., 1994. Shoot morphology and reproduction in Jojoba: advantages of sexual dimorphism. Ecology 75: 2384–2394 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Korpelainen H., 1992. Patterns of resource allocation in male and female plants of Rumex acetosa and R. acetosella. Oecologia 89: 133–139 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Krischik V.A. and Denno R.F., 1990. Patterns of growth, reproduction, defense, and herbivory in the dioecious shrub Baccharis halimifolia (Compositae). Oecologia 83: 182–190 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • LeeW.K. and Gadow K.V., 1997. Iterative Bestimmung der Konkurrenzbäume in Pinus densiflora Beständen. Allg. Forst-Jagdztg: 168(3/4): 41–44. [Google Scholar]
  • LeeW.K., GadowK.V., Chung D.J.,LeeJ.L. and ShinM.Y. 2003. DBH growth model for Pinus densiflora and Quercus variabilis mixed forests in central Korea. Ecol. Mod. 176: 187–200. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lloyd D.G. and Webb C.J., 1977. Secondary sex characteristics in plants. Bot. Rev. 43: 177–216 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lovett Doust J., O’ Brien G. and Lovett Doust L., 1987. Effects of density on the secondary sex characteristics and sex ratio in Silene alba (Caryophyllaceae). Am. J. Bot. 74: 40–46 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lovett-Doust J. and Lovett-Doust L., 1988. Modules of production and reproduction in a dioecious clonal shrub, Rhus typhina. Ecology 69: 741–750 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Luken J.O., 1987. Interactions between seed production and vegetative growth in staghorn sumac, Rhus typhina. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club. 114: 247–251 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Marion C. and Houle G., 1996. No differential consequences of reproduction according to sex in Juniperus communis var. depressa (Cupressaceae). Am. J. Bot. 83: 480–488 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Meagher T.R. and Antonovics J., 1982. The population biology of Chamaelirium luteum, a dioecious member of the lily family: life history studies. Ecology 63: 1690–1700 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Nanami S., Kawaguchi H. and Yamakura T., 2005. Sex ratio and gender-dependent neighboring effects in Podocarpus nagi, a dioecious tree. Plant Ecol. 177: 209–222 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Nicotra A.B., 1999. Sexually dimorphic growth in the dioecious tropical shrub, Siparuna grandiflora. Funct. Ecol. 13: 322–331 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Obeso J.R., Alvarez-Santullano M. and Retuerto R., 1998. Sex ratios, size distributions, and sexual dimorphism in the dioecious tree Ilex aquifolium (Aquifoliaceae). Am. J. Bot. 85: 1602–1608 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Obeso J.R., 1997. Costs of reproduction in Ilex aquifolium: effects at tree, 1-year shoot and leaf levels. J. Ecol. 85: 159–166 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Obeso J.R., 2002. The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytol. 155: 321–348 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Onyekwelu S.S. and Harper J.L., 1979. Sex ratio and niche differentiation in spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.). Nature 282: 609–611 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Peterson C.J. and Squiers E.R., 1995. Competition and succession in an aspen–white-pine forest. J. Ecol. 83: 449–457 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pickering C.M. and Arthur J.M., 2003. Patterns of resource allocation in the dioecious alpine herb Aciphylla simplicifolia (Apiaceae). Austral Ecol. 28: 566–574 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pickering C.M., 2000. Sex-specific differences in floral display and resource allocation in Australian alpine dioecious Aciphylla glacialis (Apiaceae). Aust. J. Bot. 48: 81–91 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Popp J.W. and Reinartz J.A., 1988. Sexual dimorphism in biomass allocation and clonal growth of Xanthoxylum americamum. Am. J. Bot. 75: 1732–1741 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Putwain P.D. and Harper J.L., 1972. Studies in the dynamics of plant populations. V. Mechanisms governing the sex ratios in Rumex acetosa and R. acetosella. J. Ecol. 60: 113–129 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ramadan A., El-Keblawy A., Shaltout K. and Lovett Doust J., 1994. Sexual polymorphism, growth, and reproductive effort in Egyptian Thymelaea hirsute (Thymelaeaceae). Am. J. Bot. 81: 847–857 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ramp P.F. and Stephenson S.N., 1988. Gender dimorphism in growth and mass partitioning by box-elder (Acer negundo L.). Am. Midl. Nat. 119: 420–430 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Retuerto R., Lema B.F., Roiloa S.R. and Obeso J.R., 2000. Gender, light and water effects in carbon isotope discrimination, and growth rates in the dioecious tree Ilex aquifolium. Funct. Ecol. 14: 529–537 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ripley B.D., 1981. Spatial statistics., John Wiley, New York [Google Scholar]
  • Rocheleau A.F. and Houle G., 2001. Different cost of reproduction for the males and females of the rare dioecious shrub Corema conradii (Empetraceae). Am. J. Bot. 88: 659–666 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sakai A. and Burris T., 1985. Growth in male and female aspen clones: a 25-year longitudinal study. Ecology 66: 1921–1927 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sakai A.K. and Sharik T.L., 1988. Clonal growth of male and female Bigtooth Aspen (Populus grandidentata). Ecology 69: 2031–2033 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Tryon E.H. and Pease R.W., 1953. Shading effects of natural canopies on holly characteristics. Castanea 18: 70–83 [Google Scholar]
  • Upton G. and Fingleton B., 1985. Spatial data analysis by example. Vol. 1. point pattern and quantitative data., John Wiley, New York [Google Scholar]
  • Vasiliauskas S.A. and Aarssen L.W., 1992. Sex ratio and neighbor effects in monospecific stands of Juniperus virginiana. Ecology 73: 622–632 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Willson M.F., 1986. On the cost of reproduction in plants: Acer negundo. Am. Midl. Nat. 115: 204–207 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wright S., 1920. The relative importance of heredity and environment in determining the piebald pattern of guinea pigs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 6: 320–332 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wright S., 1934. The method of path coefficients. Ann. Math. Stat. 5: 161–215 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhan Y.G., Yin L.H., Liu X.M. and Zhang G.Q., 2005. Development of macrospore and microspore, male and female gametophytes of Fraxinus mandshurica Rupr. and its phylogenetic significance. Int. J. Automation Comp. 27: 42–47 [Google Scholar]