4.6 Article

Uncoupled geographical variation between leaves and flowers in a south-Andean Proteaceae

期刊

ANNALS OF BOTANY
卷 102, 期 1, 页码 79-91

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcn057

关键词

Embothrium coccineum; Proteaceae; geographical variation; foliar morphology; floral morphology; uncoupling; selective forces; environmental conditions; pollinators; south Andes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims Geographical variation in foliar and floral traits and their degree of coupling can provide relevant information on the relative importance of abiotic, biotic and even neutral factors acting at geographical scales as generators of evolutionary novelty. Geographical variation was studied in leaves and flowers of Embothrium coccineum, a species that grows along abrupt environmental gradients and exhibits contrasting pollinator assemblages in the southern Andes. Methods Five foliar and eight floral morphological characters were considered from 32 populations, and their patterns of variation and covariation were analysed within and among populations, together with their relationship with environmental variables, using both univariate and multivariate methods. The relationships between foliar and floral morphological variation and geographical distance between populations were compared with Mantel permutation tests. Key Results Leaf and flower traits were clearly uncoupled within populations and weakly associated among populations. Whereas geographical variation in foliar traits was mostly related to differences in precipitation associated with geographical longitude, variation in floral traits was not. Conclusions These patterns suggest that leaves and flowers responded to different evolutionary forces, environmental (i.e. rainfall) in the case of leaves, and biotic (i.e. pollinators) or genetic drift in the case of flowers. This study supports the view that character divergence at a geographical scale can be moulded by different factors acting in an independent fashion.

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

4.6
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