4.5 Article

THE CONTRIBUTION OF MATING SYSTEM VARIATION TO REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION IN TWO CLOSELY RELATED CENTAURIUM SPECIES ( GENTIANACEAE) WITH A GENERALIZED FLOWER MORPHOLOGY

期刊

EVOLUTION
卷 68, 期 5, 页码 1281-1293

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/evo.12345

关键词

Flowering phenology; herkogamy; hybridization; pollen competition; pollinator fidelity; reproductive asynchrony; self-pollination

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC) [260601-MYCASOR]
  2. Flemish Fund for Scientific Research (FWO) [G.0982.13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In closely related plant species that display strong similarities in phenology and pollinator communities, differences in breeding system and associated shifts in floral traits may have important effects on the magnitude and direction of heterospecific pollen flow and hybridization. Here, we quantified the strength of several pre- and postzygotic barriers acting between the facultatively outcrossing Centaurium erythraea and the predominantly selfing C. littorale via a suite of experiments, and estimated the frequency of hybridization in the field using molecular markers. The reproductive barriers primarily responsible for preventing hybridization were essentially prezygotic and these acted asymmetrically. Due to differences in floral display, pollen production, and pollen transfer rates, heterospecific pollen flow occurred predominantly from C. erythraea to C. littorale. In C. littorale, on the other hand, close anther-stigma positioning and resulting higher capacity for autonomous selfing functioned as an efficient barrier to counterbalance the higher risk for hybrid mating. In both species the action of all reproductive barriers resulted in a small opportunity for hybrid establishment, which was confirmed by the occurrence of only approximate to 1% putative hybrids in the field. Our findings confirm that differences in breeding system affect heterospecific pollen transfer patterns and that autonomous selfing may efficiently prevent hybridization.

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