Harder LD, Johnson SD. 2025. Pollination efficiency and the evolution of sex allocation – diminishing returns matter. New Phytologist 246: 39–46. doi: 10.1111/nph.20389.
Since its publication, an error has been identified in Eqn 6. This has now been corrected below. The authors note that this change does not alter the subsequent derivation of the evolutionarily stable sex (ESS) allocation to male function because the characterization of individual fitness (Eqn 7) was based on Eqn 5, which included the correct version of allocation‐specific efficiency. This correction affects details of the curves in Fig. 1(b,d). However, the authors noted that the key result that the pollen export efficiency associated with the ESS allocation to male function varies negatively with the ESS allocation remains and indeed is stronger than in the original version. Thus, this correction does not alter the general conclusions of the work.
Fig. 1.
Theoretical influence of allocation dependence of pollen‐export efficiency when seed production is resource limited (a, b) and its consequences for (c) the evolutionarily stable sex (ESS) allocation to male function within a population and (d) variation among populations/species in the relation of mean efficiency to sex allocation. (a, b) Modelled effects of allocation to male function on (a) pollen export (Eqn 5) and (b) pollen‐export efficiency (Eqn 6). The five curves represent the effects of parameter d (the allocation to male function at which pollen export, E, is half of its asymptotic value, E max), which controls the curvature of the export curve. In (a), the symbols indicate the pollen export at the ESS allocation for the specific value of d. Panel (c) relates the influence of d on the ESS male allocation, â (Eqn 8). (d) Expected variation of mean export among populations with different ESS allocations. In all cases, E max = 0.1.
The authors also note that the revised Fig. 1 is based on E max = 0.1, rather than 0.2 to keep the ordinate ranges of Fig. 1(b,d) within 0 ≤ e ≤ 1. In Fig. 1(a), the authors note that this change also affected the scaling of the ordinate, but not the shapes of the illustrated curves or the ESS allocations to male function. The corrected version of Fig. 1 is also presented below.
A further correction to a statement on p. 42 of the article has also been made in line with the the adjustments to Eqn 6. Specifically, ‘e′’ has been corrected to ‘e’. The corrected paragraph is shown below. [Correction added on 20 February 2026, after first online publication: this paragraph and associated correction text have been included.]
We apologise for this error.
Corrected Fig. 1 (p. 41), Eqn 6 (p. 42) and third paragraph on p. 42:
| (Eqn 6) |
Third paragraph, p. 42
In this model, parameter d represents features of the pollination system and local pollination environment that govern the allocation dependence of pollen export in the resident population. If these features (and hence d) differ among populations, so would the ESS sex allocation, â (see Eqn 8; Fig. 1c). Because pollen‐export efficiency, e, varies with allocation to male function (Eqn 6), differences in â should cause correlated differences among populations in the associated ê. As illustrated in Fig. 1(d), this relation is negative, so plants in populations with lower mean allocation to the production of pollen and its dispersal should realise greater mean pollen‐export efficiency than those in populations that allocate relatively more to male function (and relatively less to female function), on average.
Disclaimer
The New Phytologist Foundation remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in maps and in any institutional affiliations.