4.7 Article

Parallel floral adaptations to pollination by fungus gnats within the genus Mitella (Saxifragaceae)

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 560-575

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2007.09.020

关键词

ancestral state reconstruction; Gnoriste; Heucherina; mycetophilidae; myiophily; pollination specialization; pollination syndrome; Saxifragaceae

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The widespread pattern of parallel flower evolution as an adaptation for particular pollinator agents, known as pollination syndromes, has long drawn attention from evolutionary biologists. Here, we report parallel evolution of saucer-shaped flowers and an associated unusual pollination system within the lineage Heucherina, a group of saxifragaceous genera. Field observations reveal that 18 of 28 plant species studied are pollinated almost exclusively by fungus gnats (Mycetophilidae). Among the 18 species with a fungus-gnat pollination system, 13 have characteristic saucer-shaped flowers and are pollinated mainly by several unspecialized mycetophilid genera with short mouthparts. We performed phylogenetic analyses using nucleotide sequences of external and internal transcribed spacers of nuclear ribosomal DNA and reconstructed ancestral floral morphologies with an establishment of the model of floral character evolution under a maximum-likelihood framework. Our analysis indicates that there is significant directionality in the evolutionary shifts of floral forms in the Heucherina. The inferred phylogeny further supports four origins of saucer-shaped flowers, which is shared among 14 species that are traditionally classified into the genus Mitella. In addition, our analysis indicates the extensive polyphyly of genus Mitella, as also suggested previously. The results suggest that the flower-visiting fungus gnats have caused convergent selection for the saucer-shaped flower repeatedly evolved within Heucherina. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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