The measurement of fitness is critical to biological research. Although the determination of fitness for some organisms may be relatively straightforward under controlled conditions, it is often a difficult or nearly impossible task in nature. Plants are no exception. The potential for long-distance pollen dispersal, likelihood of multiple reproductive events per inflorescence, varying degrees of reproductive growth in perennials, and asexual reproduction all confound accurate fitness measurements. For these reasons, biomass is frequently used as a proxy for plant fitness. However, the suitability of indirect fitness measurements such as plant size is rarely evaluated. This review outlines the important associations between plant performance, fecundity, and fitness. We make a case for the reliability of biomass as an estimate of fitness when comparing conspecifics of the same age class. We reviewed 170 studies on plant fitness and discuss the metrics commonly employed for fitness estimations. We find that biomass or growth rate are frequently used and often positively associated with fecundity, which in turn suggests greater overall fitness. Our results support the utility of biomass as an appropriate surrogate for fitness under many circumstances, and suggest that additional fitness measures should be reported along with biomass or growth rate whenever possible.

Department of Biology Portland State University Portland Oregon 97201 USA

Department of Biology Portland State University Portland Oregon 97201 USA; Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences České Budějovice 37005 Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Aarssen L. W. 2007. Death without sex—the “problem of the small” and selection for reproductive economy in flowering plants. Evolutionary Ecology 22: 279–298.

Aarssen L. W. 2014. Estimating fitness from offspring counts in clonal seed plants. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 7: 77–83.

Aarssen L. W., Clauss M. J. 1992. Genotypic variation in fecundity allocation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Journal of Ecology 80: 109–114.

Aarssen L. W., Taylor D. R. 1992. Fecundity allocation in herbaceous plants. Oikos 65: 225–232.

Aarssen L. W., Schamp B. S., Wight S. 2014. Big plants—Do they affect neighbourhood species richness and composition in herbaceous vegetation? Acta Oecologica 55: 36–42.

Agrawal A., Strauss S., Stout M. 1999. Costs of induced responses and tolerance to herbivory in male and female fitness components of wild radish. Evolution 53: 1093–1104. PubMed

Ågren G. I. 1985a. Theory for growth of plants derived from the nitrogen productivity concept. Physiologia Plantarum 64: 17–28.

Ågren G. I. 1985b. Limits to plant productivity. Journal of Theoretical Biology 113: 89–92.

Ashmun J. W., Thomas R. J., Pitelka L. F. 1982. Translocation of photoassimilates between sister ramets in two rhizomatous forest herbs. Annals of Botany 49: 403–415.

Aspi J., Jäkäläniemi A., Tuomi J., Siikamäki P. 2003. Multilevel phenotypic selection on morphological characters in a metapopulation of Silene tatarica. Evolution 57: 509–517. PubMed

Barrett S. C. H. 2003. Mating strategies in flowering plants: The outcrossing-selfing paradigm and beyond. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 358: 991–1004. PubMed PMC

Barrett S. C. H. 2015. Influences of clonality on plant sexual reproduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 112: 8859–8866. PubMed PMC

Bawa K. 1980. Evolution of dioecy in flowering plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11: 15–39.

Bazzaz F., Chiariello N., Coley P., Pitelka L. 1987. Allocating resources to reproduction and defense. Bioscience 37: 58–67.

Bernasconi G. 2003. Seed paternity in flowering plants: An evolutionary perspective. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 6: 149–158.

Bonser S. P., Aarssen L. W. 2003. Allometry and development in herbaceous plants: Functional responses of meristem allocation to light and nutrient availability. American Journal of Botany 90: 404–412. PubMed

Burczyk J., Adams W. T., Birkes D. S., Chybicki I. J. 2006. Using genetic markers to directly estimate gene flow and reproductive success parameters in plants on the basis of naturally regenerated seedlings. Genetics 173: 363–372. PubMed PMC

Burd M. 1994. Bateman’s principle and plant reproduction: The role of pollen limitation in fruit and seed set. Botanical Review 60: 83–139.

Campbell D. R. 2000. Experimental tests of sex-allocation theory in plants. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15: 227–232. PubMed

Coley P. D., Bryant J. P., Chapin F. S. 1985. Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 230: 895–899. PubMed

Crosby K., Latta R. G. 2013. A test of the reproductive economy hypothesis in plants: More offspring per capita come from large (not small) parents in Avena barbata. Evolutionary Ecology 27: 193–203.

de Jong T. J., Klinkhamer P. G. L. 1994. Plant size and reproductive success through female and male function. Journal of Ecology 82: 399–402.

Echarte L., Andrade F. H. 2003. Harvest index stability of Argentinean maize hybrids released between 1965 and 1993. Field Crops Research 82: 1–12.

Ellstrand N. 1984. Multiple paternity factors within the fruits of the wild radish, Raphanus sativus. American Naturalist 123: 819–828.

Elshire R. J., Glaubitz J. C., Sun Q., Poland J. A., Kawamoto K., Buckler E. S., Mitchell S. E. 2011. A robust, simple genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) approach for high diversity species. PLoS ONE 6: e19379. PubMed PMC

Eriksson O. 1992. Evolution of seed dispersal and recruitment in clonal plants. Oikos 63: 439–448.

Everham E. M., Brokaw N. V. L. 1996. Forest damage and recovery from catastrophic wind. Botanical Review 62: 113–185.

Feeny P. 1976. Plant apparency and chemical defense. In J. W. Wallace and R. L. Mansell [eds.], Biochemical interaction between plants and insects, 1–40. Springer, New York, New York, USA.

Fisher R. A. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection: A complete variorum edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Fox G. A. 1990. Drought and the evolution of flowering time in desert annuals. American Journal of Botany 77: 1508–1518.

Garant D., Kruuk L. E. B. 2005. How to use molecular marker data to measure evolutionary parameters in wild populations. Molecular Ecology 14: 1843–1859. PubMed

Geber M. A., Watson M. A., Furnish R. 1992. Genetic differences in clonal demography in Eichhornia crassipes. Journal of Ecology 80: 329–341.

Goodwillie C., Kalisz S., Eckert C. G. 2005. The evolutionary enigma of mixed mating systems in plants: Occurrence, theoretical explanations, and empirical evidence. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 36: 47–79.

Grime J. P. 2006. Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom.

Haldane J. B. S. 1937. The effect of variation on fitness. American Naturalist 71: 337–349.

Harder L. D., Barrett S. H. 1995. Letter: Mating cost of large floral displays in hermaphrodite plants. Nature 373: 512–515.

Harder L. D., Thomson J. D., Cruzan M. B., Unnasch R. S. 1985. Sexual reproduction and variation in floral morphology in an ephemeral lily, Erythronium americanum. Oecologia 67: 286–291. PubMed

Harper J. 1977. The population biology of plants. Academic Press, London, United Kingdom.

Harper J., White J. 1974. The demography of plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 419–463.

Herben T., Šerá B., Klimešová J. 2015. Clonal growth and sexual reproduction: Tradeoffs and environmental constraints. Oikos 124: 469–476.

Herms D., Mattson W. 1992. The dilemma of plants: To grow or defend. Quarterly Review of Biology 67: 283–335.

Holsinger K. E., Feldman M. W., Christiansen F. B. 1984. The evolution of self-fertilization in plants: A population genetic model. American Naturalist 124: 446–453.

Karron J. D., Mitchell R. J. 2012. Effects of floral display size on male and female reproductive success in Mimulus ringens. Annals of Botany 109: 563–570. PubMed PMC

Keller M., Kollmann J., Edwards P. 2000. Genetic introgression from distant provenances reduces fitness in local weed populations. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 647–659.

Klinkhamer P. G., De Jong T. J. 1990. Effects of plant size, plant density and sex differential nectar reward on pollinator visitation in the protandrous Echium vulgare (Boraginaceae). Oikos 57: 399–405.

Klinkhamer P. G. L., de Jong T. J., de Bruyn G. J. 1989. Plant size and pollinator visitation in Cynoglossum officinale. Oikos 54: 201–204.

Klinkhamer P. G. L., de Jong T. J., Metz H. 1997. Sex and size in cosexual plants. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 12: 260–265. PubMed

Latta R. G., Gardner K. M. 2009. Natural selection on pleiotropic quantitative trait loci affecting a life-history trade-off in Avena barbata. Evolution 63: 2153–2163. PubMed

Mauricio R., Bowers M., Bazzaz F. 1993. Pattern of leaf damage affects fitness of the annual plant Raphanus sativus (Brassicaceae). Ecology 74: 2066–2071.

May J., Killingbeck K. 1992. Effects of preventing nutrient resorption on plant fitness and foliar nutrient dynamics. Ecology 73: 1868–1878.

Meagher T. R. 1986. Analysis of paternity within a natural population of Chamaelirium luteum 1. Identification of most-likely male parents. American Naturalist 128: 199–215.

Mencuccini M., Grace J. 1996. Developmental patterns of above-ground hydraulic conductance in a Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) age sequence. Plant, Cell & Environment 19: 939–948.

Méndez M., Obeso J. 1993. Size-dependent reproductive and vegetative allocation in Arum italicum (Araceae). Canadian Journal of Botany 71: 309–314.

Mojica J. P., Kelly J. K. 2010. Viability selection prior to trait expression is an essential component of natural selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society. Series B Biological Sciences 277: 2945–2950. PubMed PMC

Nicolè F., Brzosko E., Till-Bottraud I. 2005. Population viability analysis of Cypripedium calceolus in a protected area: Longevity, stability and persistence. Journal of Ecology 93: 716–726.

Obeso J. 2002. The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytologist 155: 321–348. PubMed

Parker P. G., Snow A. A., Schug M. D., Booton G. C., Fuerst P. A. 1998. What molecules can tell us about populations: Choosing and using a molecular marker. Ecology 79: 361–382.

Parsons D. J. 1994. Objects or ecosystems? Giant sequoia management in national parks. In P. S. Aune [technical coordinator], Proceedings of the symposium on the Giant Sequioas: Their place in the ecosystem and society, 109–115. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-151. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Berkeley, California, USA.

Peet R., Christensen N. 1987. Competition and tree death. Bioscience 37: 586–595.

Pino J., Sans F. X., Masalles R. M. 2002. Size-dependent reproductive pattern and short-term reproductive cost in Rumex obtusifolius L. Acta Oecologica 23: 321–328.

Ryan M. G., Yoder B. J. 1997. Hydraulic limits to tree height and tree growth: What keeps trees from growing beyond a certain height? Bioscience 47: 235–242.

Sakai A., Sakai S. 2003. Size-dependent ESS sex allocation in wind-pollinated cosexual plants: Fecundity vs. stature effects. Journal of Theoretical Biology 222: 283–295. PubMed

Sakai A. K., Weller S. G., Chen M. L., Chou S. Y., Tasanont C. 1997. Evolution of gynodioecy and maintenance of females: The role of inbreeding depression, outcrossing rates, and resource allocation in Schiedea adamantis (Caryophyllaceae). Evolution 51: 724–736. PubMed

Santos-del-Blanco L., Bonser S. P., Valladares F., Chambel M. R., Climent J. 2013. Plasticity in reproduction and growth among 52 range-wide populations of a Mediterranean conifer: Adaptive responses to environmental stress. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 26: 1912–1924. PubMed

Schmid B., Weiner J. 1993. Plastic relationships between reproductive and vegetative mass in Solidago altissima. Evolution 47: 61–74. PubMed

Schmid B., Bazzaz F. A., Weiner J. 1995. Size dependency of sexual reproduction and of clonal growth in two perennial plants. Canadian Journal of Botany 73: 1831–1837.

Silvertown J. 2008. The evolutionary maintenance of sexual reproduction: Evidence from the ecological distribution of asexual reproduction in clonal plants. International Journal of Plant Sciences 169: 157–168.

Sletvold N. 2002. Effects of plant size on reproductive output and offspring performance in the facultative biennial Digitalis purpurea. Journal of Ecology 90: 958–966.

Smouse P. E., Meagher T. R. 1994. Genetic analysis of male reproductive contributions in Chamaelirium luteum (L.) Gray (Liliaceae). Genetics 136: 313–322. PubMed PMC

Smouse P. E., Meagher T. R., Kobak C. J. 1999. Parentage analysis in Chamaelirium luteum (L.) Gray (Liliaceae): Why do some males have higher reproductive contributions? Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12: 1069–1077.

Stevens L., Goodnight C. J., Kalisz S. 1995. Multilevel selection in natural populations of Impatiens capensis. American Naturalist 145: 513–526.

Sugiyama S., Bazzaz F. A. 1998. Size dependence of reproductive allocation: The influence of resource availability, competition and genetic identity. Functional Ecology 12: 280–288.

Tracey A. J., Aarssen L. W. 2014. Revising traditional theory on the link between plant body size and fitness under competition: Evidence from old-field vegetation. Ecology and Evolution 4: 959–967. PubMed PMC

Wang T., Zhou D., Wang P., Zhang H. 2006. Size-dependent reproductive effort in Amaranthus retroflexus: The influence of planting density and sowing date. Canadian Journal of Botany 84: 485–492.

Watson M. A. 2008. Resource storage and the expression of clonal plant life histories: Forum entry for clone SI. Evolutionary Ecology 22: 471–475.

Weiner J. 2004. Allocation, plasticity and allometry in plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 6: 207–215.

Weiner J., Thomas S. C. 2001. The nature of tree growth and the “age-related decline in forest productivity.” Oikos 94: 374–376.

Weiner J., Campbell L. G., Pino J., Echarte L. 2009a. The allometry of reproduction within plant populations. Journal of Ecology 97: 1220–1233.

Weiner J., Rosenmeier L., Massoni E. S., Vera J. N., Plaza E. H., Sebastià M. T. 2009b. Is reproductive allocation in Senecio vulgaris plastic? Botany 87: 475–481.

Wesselingh R. A., de Jong T. J. 1995. Bidirectional selection on threshold size for flowering in Cynoglossum officinale (hound’s-tongue). Heredity 74: 415–424.

Wesselingh R., Klinkhamer P. 1997. Threshold size for flowering in different habitats: Effects of size-dependent growth and survival. Ecology 78: 2118–2132.

Wheeler G. L., Dorman H. E., Buchanan A., Challagundla L., Wallace L. E. 2014. A review of the prevalence, utility, and caveats of using chloroplast simple sequence repeats for studies of plant biology. Applications in Plant Sciences 2: 1400059. PubMed PMC

Wilson P., Thomson J. D., Stanton M. L., Rigney L. P. 1994. Beyond floral Batemania—gender biases in selection for pollination success. American Naturalist 143: 283–296.

Yoder B. J., Ryan M. G., Waring R. H., Schoettle A. W., Kaufmann M. R. 1994. Evidence of reduced photosynthetic rates in old trees. Forest Science 40: 513–527.

Zhang S., Zhao C., Lamb E. G. 2011. Cotyledon damage affects seed number through final plant size in the annual grassland species Medicago lupulina. Annals of Botany 107: 437–442. PubMed PMC

Mycorrhiza governs plant-plant interactions through preferential allocation of shared nutritional resources: A triple (13C, 15N and 33P) labeling study

Effect of DNA methylation, modified by 5-azaC, on ecophysiological responses of a clonal plant to changing climate

The role of plant-soil feedback in long-term species coexistence cannot be predicted from its effects on plant performance

Rhizome trait scaling relationships are modulated by growth conditions and are linked to plant fitness

Fitness consequences of hybridization in a predominantly selfing species: insights into the role of dominance and epistatic incompatibilities

Individual reproductive success in Norway spruce natural populations depends on growth rate, age and sensitivity to temperature

Naturally-primed life strategy plasticity of dimorphic Aethionema arabicum facilitates optimal habitat colonization