Skip to main content

Table 2 Selection gradients for floral traits and comparison between sexual morphs in Salvia pratensis

From: Sex-differential reproduction success and selection on floral traits in gynodioecious Salvia pratensis

Explanatory variables included in the complete model a

Hermaphrodite

Female

Comparison between morphs c

Selection gradients (±se)

P value

Selection gradients (±se)

P value

Interaction coefficient (±se)

P value

Directional selection

 Corolla

−0.10 ± 0.11

0.387

0.68 ± 0.35

0.091

−2.42 ± 1.32

0.08

 R-platform

− 0.18 ± 0.10

0.09

− 0.23 ± 0.30

0.452

−0.36 ± 0.52

0.494

 Style exsertion

0.00 ± 0.11

0.991

0.52 ± 0.20

0.034

−0.67 ± 0.53

0.219

 Style height

0.17 ± 0.11

0.137

−0.88 ± 0.43

0.075

1.21 ± 1.14

0.299

 Flower number

−0.01 ± 0.11

0.952

− 0.21 ± 0.22

0.365

− 0.07 ± 0.41

0.857

Nonlinear selection b

Corolla ^ 2

0.58 ± 0.23

0.022

2.17 ± 0.96

0.053

−3.09 ± 1.31

0.027

 R-platform ^ 2

−0.04 ± 0.09

0.691

0.39 ± 0.39

0.355

− 0.36 ± 0.27

0.199

 Style exsertion ^ 2

0.63 ± 0.2

0.006

0.22 ± 0.29

0.46

0.12 ± 0.25

0.65

 Style height ^ 2

0.92 ± 0.22

0.0004

4.43 ± 1.13

0.004

−3.23 ± 0.76

0.0003

 Flower no. ^ 2

−0.16 ± 0.15

0.292

0 ± 0.61

0.998

− 0.03 ± 0.27

0.922

Correlational selection

 Corolla × r-platform

−0.16 ± 0.12

0.194

− 1.00 ± 0.39

0.033

2.19 ± 0.78

0.01

 Corolla × style exsertion

0.77 ± 0.21

0.001

0.18 ± 0.39

0.667

0.69 ± 0.83

0.415

 Corolla × style height

−0.92 ± 0.24

0.001

−2.88 ± 1.05

0.025

5.55 ± 2.01

0.011

 Corolla × flower no

− 0.45 ± 0.11

0.0006

−1.06 ± 0.44

0.042

1.51 ± 0.72

0.047

 R-platform × style exsertion

− 0.46 ± 0.13

0.0029

−0.44 ± 0.37

0.271

0.36 ± 0.50

0.479

 R-platform × style height

0.52 ± 0.22

0.0289

1.96 ± 0.58

0.01

−2.73 ± 0.85

0.004

 R-platform × flower no

0.09 ± 0.10

0.3839

0.87 ± 0.29

0.017

−0.82 ± 0.35

0.03

 Style exsertion × style height

−0.16 ± 0.16

0.339

− 0.74 ± 0.32

0.049

0.89 ± 0.48

0.077

 Style exsertion × flower no.

− 0.44 ± 0.14

0.004

0.63 ± 0.23

0.026

− 1.05 ± 0.33

0.004

 Style height × flower no.

0.22 ± 0.10 (N)

0.04

1.69 ± 0.68

0.038

− 1.85 ± 0.64

0.009

  1. a The terms related to stalk diameter in the model were not presented. b Each value of nonlinear selection gradients was the double of coefficient for each squared term. c Difference in selection gradients between two sexual morphs was examined with ANCOVA, indicated by significant coefficient of interaction between each term and flower type. All values in bold indicated the significance of statistics. “N” in brackets after selection gradient indicated that no distinct selection was reflected by the added-variable plot, although the selection gradient was significant statistically.