Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T08:06:53.250Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alternative modes in dispersal strategies, with an emphasis on herbaceous plants of the Middle East

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

Uzi Plitmann
Uzi Plitmann
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, Israel
Get access

Synopsis

Hypotheses concerning diaspore behaviour are presented. It is suggested that in many plants, dispersal strategy involves alternative agents (2 or more vectors) and combination of distances. The hypotheses are substantiated by data compiled from observations of dispersal modes and mechanisms in herbaceous plant species of the Middle East. Two special modes, heterocarpy and amphicarpy, represent complex strategies with different propagules on the same individual. Amphicarpy resembles cryptophytic life-form in many respects. In several other cases the same propagule can be dispersed for various distances by a single vector or through alternative modes. Combination of long-range, short-range, and in situ dispersal is described for many species; Compositae of Turkey serve as a study case of the possible abundance of this strategy.

Several combinations of different vectors that can distribute the same diaspores, alternately or successively, are recorded. It seems that the combination of wind and temporary water currents is quite common in our region. Cruciferae of Israel serve as a study case of the possible abundance of this strategy and its various combinations. It is concluded that dispersal strategies with alternate modes are typical of many herbaceous species and probably adopted by most angiosperms. The one-to-one conservative relationships between adaptation and mode, mechanism and agent, are rather misleading. An adaptation or a syndrome should not be rigidly defined as they may function in more than one way. Often, the alternate mode can be more effective than the mode attributed to that particular syndrome. By such strategy a plant can better guarantee its distribution in space.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 89: Plant Life of South-West Asia , 1986 , pp. 193 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beattie, A. J. 1983. Distribution of ant-dispersed plants. In Dispersal and Distribution, ed. Kubitzki, K., pp. 249–270. Hamburg: Paul Parey.Google Scholar
Ben-Mordechai, Y. 1981. Ecology of ants in the loess plain—Sede Zin—at Sede Boger. M.Sc. thesis, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Berg, R. Y. 1983. Plant distribution as seen from plant dispersal: General principles and basic modes of plant dispersal. In Dispersal and Distribution, ed. Kubitzki, K., pp. 13–36. Hamburg: Paul Parey.Google Scholar
Comins, N. H., Hamilton, W. D. & May, R. M. 1980. Evolutionary stable dispersal strategies. Journal of Theoretical Biology 82, 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, P. H., ed. 1975. Flora of Turkey, vol. 5. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fahn, A., 1947. Physico-anatomical investigations in the dispersal apparatus of some fruits. Palestine Journal of Botany 4, 36–45.Google Scholar
Fahn, A., & Werker, E. 1972. Anatomical mechanisms of seed dispersal. In Seed Biology, ed. Kozlowski, T. T., pp. 151–221. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, J. & Orshan, G. 1975. The distribution, emergence and survival of seedlings of Artemisia herba-alba in the Negev desert of Israel in relation to distance from adult plant. Journal of Ecology 63, 627–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galil, J. 1964. Emex spinosa and the climate of Israel. Teva Vaarez 6, 400–404 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
Gentry, A. H. 1983. Dispersal and distribution in Bignoniaceae. In Dispersal and Distribution, ed. Kubitzki, K., pp. 187–199. Hamburg: Paul Parey.Google Scholar
Ginat, D. 1962. The life-cycle of Catananche lutea. M.Sc. thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Harif, I. 1974. First year development of leading species of plant communities in the Judean Hills, and its role in succession. Ph.D thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Howe, H. F. & Smallwood, J. 1982. Ecology of seed dispersal. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13, 201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1975. Ecology of Plants in the Tropics. London: E. Arnold.Google Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1983. Dispersal of seeds by vertebrate guts. In Coevolution, ed. Futuyma, D. J. & Slatkin, M., pp. 232–262. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Koller, D. & Roth, N. 1964. Studies on the ecological and physiological significance of amphicarpy in Gymnarrhena micrantha. American Journal of Botany 51, 26–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, S. A., Cohen, D. & Hastings, A. 1984. Dispersal strategies in patchy environments. Theoretical Population Biology 26, 165–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattatia, J. 1976. The relationships between amphicarpic plants and their environment. Ph.D. thesis. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
McKey, D. 1975. The ecology of coevolved seed dispersal systems. In Coevolution of Animals and Plants, ed. Gilbert, L. E. & Raven, P. H., pp. 159–191. Austin: University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motro, U. 1982. Optimal rates of dispersal. I. Haploid populations. Theoretical Population Biology 21, 309–411.Google Scholar
Motro, U. 1983. Optimal rates of dispersal. III. Parent-offspring conflict. Theoretical Population Biology 23, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller-Schneider, P. 1977. Verbreitungsbiologie (Diasporologie) der Blütenpflanzen. 2nd edn. Zurich: Stiftung Rübel.Google Scholar
Ofer, J. 1980. The ecology of ant populations of the genus Messor and their influence on the soil and flora in pasture. Ph.D thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Pijl, L. van der 1982. Principles of Dispersal in Higher Plants. 3rd edn. Berlin and New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plitmann, U. 1965. Amphicarpy in legumes of Israel. Teva Vaarez 7, 458–462 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
Plitmann, U. 1973. Biological Flora of Israel. 4. Vicia sativa ssp. amphicarpa. Israel Journal of Botany 22, 178–194.Google Scholar
Polunin, N. 1960. Introduction to Plant Geography. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ridley, H. N. 1930. The Dispersal of Plants throughout the World. Ashford, Kent: Reeve.Google Scholar
Shmida, A. 1985. Why do some Compositae have a deciduous pappus? Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 72, 184–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stebbins, G. L. 1971. Adaptive radiation of reproductive characteristics in angiosperms. II. Seeds and seedlings. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 2, 237–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulbrich, E. 1928. Biologie der Früchle und Samen (Karpobiologie). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venable, D. L. 1984. Using intraspecific variation to study the ecological significance and evolution of plant life-histories. In Perspectives on Plant Population Ecology, eds. Dirzo, R. & Sarukhan, J., pp. 166–187. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Zohary, M. 1937. Die verbreitungsökologischen Verhältnisse der Pflanzen Palästinas. Beihefte Botanische Centralblatt 56A.Google Scholar
Zohary, M. 1962. Plant Life of Palestine. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
Zohary, M. 1966. Flora Palaestina, Part 1. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar