4.5 Article

Multiple paternity and sporophytic inbreeding depression in a dioicous moss species

期刊

HEREDITY
卷 103, 期 5, 页码 394-403

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2009.82

关键词

bryophytes; inbreeding; mating systems; reproductive skew; reproductive compensation; selective embryo abortion

资金

  1. NSF [DEB 0515749]
  2. SNSF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple paternity ( polyandry) frequently occurs in flowering plants and animals and is assumed to have an important function in the evolution of reproductive traits. Polyandry in bryophytes may occur among multiple sporophytes of a female gametophyte; however, its occurrence and extent is unknown. In this study we investigate the occurrence and extent of multiple paternity, spatial genetic structure, and sporophytic inbreeding depression in natural populations of a dioicous bryophyte species, Sphagnum lescurii, using microsatellite markers. Multiple paternity is prevalent among sporophytes of a female gametophyte and male genotypes exhibit significant skew in paternity. Despite significant spatial genetic structure in the population, suggesting frequent inbreeding, the number of inbred and outbred sporophytes was balanced, resulting in an average fixation coefficient and population level selfing rate of zero. In line with the prediction of sporophytic inbreeding depression sporophyte size was significantly correlated with the level of heterozygosity. Furthermore, female gametophytes preferentially supported sporophytes with higher heterozygosity. These results indicate that polyandry provides the opportunity for postfertilization selection in bryophytes having short fertilization distances and spatially structured populations facilitating inbreeding. Preferential maternal support of the more heterozygous sporophytes suggests active inbreeding avoidance that may have significant implications for mating system evolution in bryophytes. Heredity ( 2009) 103, 394-403; doi: 10.1038/hdy.2009.82; published online 22 July 2009

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据