Skip to main content
. 2013 Nov 5;112(9):1815–1827. doi: 10.1093/aob/mct240

Table 1.

Comparison of relative production, dispersal and germination of, and role of bracts in, dispersal units a, c and f of Ceratocarpus arenarius

Life history trait Dispersal units Effect of bracts
(A) Number of dispersal units produced f > c > a –*
(B) Dispersal
 Wind
  Number of dispersal units c and f detached from plant
   Stationary plant at 1 and at 4 m s−1 wind speed f > c –*
   Rolling of whole plant for 1m and 3m f > c –*
  Ratio of the numbers of dispersal units c and f remaining on the plant
   Stationary plant at 1 m s−1 wind speed 1:8 –*
   Stationary plant at 4 m s−1 wind speed 1:5·7 –*
   Rolling of whole plant for 1m 1:7 –*
   Rolling of whole plant for 3 m 1:5·4 –*
  Fall rate a > c > f Without > with in all units
  Dispersal distance (f > c) > a With > without in all units
 Settlement onto soil surface
  Mass of water uptake a > (c > f) With > without in all units
  Dehydration time a > (c > f) With > without in all units
  Number of times mass increased after adherence to soil or sand particles a > (c > f) With > without in all units
 Animals
  Mammal f > c > a –*
  Ant f > c > a –*
(C) Germination/dormancy
 Germination
  Dispersal units after-ripened for 0–12 months f > c > a –*
  Fruits after-ripened for 0–12 months f > c > a Without > with in all units
  Experimental garden f > c > a Without > with in all units
 Retention of viability in experimental garden a > c > f With > without in all units

All differences between dispersal units are significant except where between parentheses.

*Not tested.

Dormancy inverse order of germination, i.e. a > c > f.