4.3 Article

No evidence of intrinsic reproductive isolation between two reciprocally non-monophyletic, ecologically differentiated mountain plants at an early stage of speciation

Journal

EVOLUTIONARY ECOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 6, Pages 1031-1042

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10682-016-9867-y

Keywords

Controlled cross-pollinations; Ecological speciation; Ecotypes; Heliosperma pusillum; Homoploid non-hybrid speciation; Incomplete reproductive isolation; Speciation continuum

Funding

  1. Austrian Climate Research Program (ACRP) [KR12AC5K01286]
  2. Tiroler Wissenschaftsfond [UNI-0404/1605]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Adaptation to dissimilar habitats can trigger phenotypic and genetic differences between populations, which may, in the absence of gene flow, ultimately lead to ecological speciation. Reproductive isolation of diverging populations is a critical step at the onset of speciation. An excellent example for exploring the extent of reproductive isolation at early stages of speciation is provided by Heliosperma pusillum and H. veselskyi (Caryophyllaceae), two reciprocally non-monophyletic, ecologically differentiated species from the Alps. Interspecific gene flow-as revealed by recent genetic studies-is rare even between geographically close populations. Cross pollinations and fitness experiments revealed no evidence of intrinsic reproductive barriers, since fitness parameters measured under uniform conditions were not lower in inter- than in intraspecific crosses. Further, morphometric analyses of the offspring clearly showed that the differentiation of parental species is heritable. As parental phenotypes are likely adaptive, the intermediate morphology of hybrids may lead to reduced hybrid fitness in parental habitats. Altogether, H. pusillum and H. veselskyi provide an increasingly well characterised model system offering exciting insights into early stages of ecological speciation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available