Can the meiotic sex ratio explain the sex ratio bias in adult populations in the dioicous moss Drepanocladus lycopodioides?

References

• Allen, C.E. 1919. The basis of sex inheritance in Sphærocarpos. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 58: 289–316.
   Google Scholar
• Bachtrog, D., Kirkpatrick, M., Mank, J., McDaniel, S., Pires, J., Rice, W. & Valenzuela, N. 2011. Are all sex chromosomes created equal? Trends Genet, 27: 350–7. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2011.05.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrett, S.C.H., Yakimowski, S.B., Field, D.L. & Pickup, M. 2010. Ecological genetics of sex ratios in plant populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Biological Sciences, 365: 2549–57. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisang, I. & Hedenäs, L. 2005. Sex ratio patterns in dioicous bryophytes re-visited. Journal of Bryology, 27: 207–19. doi: 10.1179/174328205X69959.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisang, I. & Hedenäs, L. 2013. Males are not shy in the wetland moss Drepanocladus lycopodioides. International Journal of Plant Science, 174: 733–9. doi: 10.1086/670154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisang, I., Ehrlén, J. & Hedenäs, L. 2006. Reproductive effort and costs of reproduction do not explain female-biased sex ratios in the moss Pseudocalliergon trifarium (Amblystegiaceae). American Journal of Botany, 93: 1313–9. doi: 10.3732/ajb.93.9.1313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisang, I., Ehrlén, J., Persson, C. & Hedenäs, L. 2014. Family affiliation, sex ratio and sporophyte frequency in unisexual mosses. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 174: 163–72. doi: 10.1111/boj.12135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisang, I., Ehrlén, J., Korpelainen, H. & Hedenäs, L. 2015. No evidence of sexual niche partitioning in a dioecious moss with rare sexual reproduction. Annals of Botany, 116: 771–9. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcv133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowker, M.A., Stark, L.R., McLetchie, D.N. & Mishler, B.D. 2000. Sex expression, skewed sex ratios, and microhabitat distribution in the dioecious desert moss Syntrichia caninervis (Pottiaceae). American Journal of Botany, 87: 517–26. doi: 10.2307/2656595
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong, T.J. & Klinkhamer, P.G.L. 2002. Sex ratios in dioecious plants. In: I.C.W. Hardy, ed. Sex ratios. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 349–64. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511542053.018.
   Google Scholar
• Field, D.L., Pickup, M. & Barrett, S.C.H. 2013a. Comparative analyses of sex-ratio variation in dioecious flowering plants. Evolution, 67: 661–72. doi: 10.1111/evo.12001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field, D.L., Pickup, M. & Barrett, S.C.H. 2013b. Ecological context and metapopulation dynamics affect sex-ratio variation among dioecious plant populations. Annals of Botany, 111: 917–23. doi: 10.1093/aob/mct040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, R.A. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
   Google Scholar
• Fuselier, L. & McLetchie, D.N. 2004. Microhabitat and sex distribution in Marchantia inflexa, a dioicous liverwort. Bryologist, 107: 345–56. doi: 10.1639/0007-2745(2004)107[0345:MASDIM]2.0.CO;2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groen, K., Stieha, C., Crowley, P. & McLetchie, D.N. 2010. Sex-specific plant responses to light intensity and canopy openness: implications for spatial segregation of the sexes. Oecologia, 162: 561–70. doi: 10.1007/s00442-009-1473-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardy, I.C.W. 2002. Sex ratios. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511542053.
   Google Scholar
• Hedenäs, L. & Bisang, I. 2015. Infraspecific diversity in a spore-dispersed species with limited distribution range. Systematics and Biodiversity, 13: 17–27. doi: 10.1080/14772000.2014.968234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedenäs, L., Bisang, I., Korpelainen, H. & Cronholm, B. 2010. The true sex ratio in European Pseudocalliergon trifarium (Bryophyta: Amblystegiaceae) revealed by a novel molecular approach. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 100: 132–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01408.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horsley, K., Stark, L.R. & McLetchie, D.N. 2011. Does the silver moss Bryum argenteum exhibit sex-specific patterns in vegetative growth rate, asexual fitness or prezygotic reproductive investment? Annals of Botany, 107: 897–907. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcr027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korpelainen, H., Bisang, I., Hedenäs, L. & Kolehmainen, J. 2008. The first sex-specific molecular marker discovered in the moss Pseudocalliergon trifarium. Journal of Heredity, 99: 581–7. doi: 10.1093/jhered/esn036.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDaniel, S.F., Willis, H.J. & Shaw, A.J. 2007. A linkage map reveals a complex basis for segregation distortion in an interpopulation cross in the moss Ceratodon purpureus. Genetics, 176: 2489–500. doi: 10.1534/genetics.107.075424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLetchie, D.N. 1992. Sex ratio from germination through maturity and its reproductive consequences in the liverwort Sphaerocarpos texanus. Oecologia, 92: 273–8. doi: 10.1007/BF00317375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, J.D., Kollar, L.M. & McLetchie, D.N. 2016. Does selection for gamete dispersal and capture lead to a sex difference in clump water-holding capacity? American Journal of Botany, 103: 1449–57. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1600096.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton, M.E. 1971. A cytological distinction between male and female Mnium undulatum Hedw. Transactions of the British Bryological Society, 6: 230–43. doi: 10.1179/006813871804146364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton, M.E. 1972. Sex-ratio differences in Mnium hornum Hedw. and M. undulatum Sw. in relation to spore germination and vegetative regeneration. Annals of Botany, 36: 163–78. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a084569
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norrell, T.E., Jones, K.S., Payton, A.C. & McDaniel, S.F. 2014. Meiotic sex ratio variation in natural populations of Ceratodon purpureus (Ditrichaceae). American Journal of Botany, 101: 1–5. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1400156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obeso, J.R. 2002. Tansley review no. 139. The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytologist, 155: 321–48. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00477.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettet, A. 1967. Sex ratios of Riccia frostii Aust., in Khartoum Province, Sudan. Transactions of the British Bryological Society, 5: 332–7. doi: 10.1179/006813867804804232.
   Google Scholar
• Rydgren, K., Halvorsen, R. & Cronberg, N. 2010. Infrequent sporophyte production maintains a female-biased sex ratio in the unisexual clonal moss Hylocomium splendens. Journal of Ecology, 98: 1224–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01639.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, A.J. & Beer, S.C. 1999. Life history variation in gametophyte populations of the moss Ceratodon purpureus (Ditrichaceae). American Journal of Botany, 86: 512–21. doi: 10.2307/2656812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, A.J. & Gaughan, J.F. 1993. Control of sex ratios in haploid populations of the moss, Ceratodon purpureus. American Journal of Botany, 80: 584–91. doi: 10.2307/2445376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair, J.P., Emlen, J. & Freeman, D.C. 2012. Biased sex ratios in plants: theory and trends. Botanical Review, 78: 63–86. doi: 10.1007/s12229-011-9065-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J. 1995. Biometry. The principles and practice of statistics in biological research. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Stark, L.R. 2002. Phenology and its repercussions on the reproductive ecology of mosses. Bryologist, 105: 204–18. doi: 10.1639/0007-2745(2002)105[0204:PAIROT]2.0.CO;2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark, L.R., McLetchie, D.N. & Roberts, S.P. 2009. Gender differences and a new adult eukaryotic record for upper thermal tolerance in the desert moss Syntrichia caninervis. Journal of Thermal Biology, 34: 131–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jtherbio.2008.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark, L.R., McLetchie, D.N. & Eppley, S.M. 2010. Sex ratios and the shy male hypothesis in the moss Bryum argenteum (Bryaceae). Bryologist, 113: 788–97. doi: 10.1639/0007-2745-113.4.788.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stouthamer, R., Hurst, G.D.D. & Breeuwer, A.A.J. 2002. Sex ratio distorters and their detection. In: I.C.W. Hardy, ed. Sex ratios. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195–2016. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511542053.010.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, D.R. & Invarsson, P.K. 2003. Common features of segregation distortion in plants and animals. Genetica, 27–35: 27–35. doi: 10.1023/A:1022308414864.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanderpoorten, A., Hedenäs, L., Cox, C.J. & Shaw, A.J. 2002. Phylogeny and morphological evolution of the Amblystegiaceae (Bryopsida). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 23: 1–21. doi: 10.1006/mpev.2001.1067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villarreal, J.C. & Renner, S.S. 2013. Correlates of monoicy and dioicy in hornworts, the apparent sister group to vascular plants. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 13: 239. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-13-239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, S.A. 2009. Sex allocation. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wyatt, R. 1985. Terminology for bryophyte sexuality: toward an unified system. Taxon, 34: 420–5. doi: 10.2307/1221208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar