Sexually concordant selection on floral traits despite greater opportunity for selection through male fitness.
floral traits
nectar
plant-pollinator interactions
selection gradient
sex-specific selection
Journal
The New phytologist
ISSN: 1469-8137
Titre abrégé: New Phytol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9882884
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Oct 2023
29 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
11
09
2023
accepted:
16
10
2023
medline:
30
10
2023
pubmed:
30
10
2023
entrez:
30
10
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Pollinators are important drivers of floral trait evolution, yet plant populations are not always perfectly adapted to their pollinators. Such apparent maladaptation may result from conflicting selection through male and female sexual functions in hermaphrodites. We studied sex-specific mating patterns and phenotypic selection on floral traits in Aconitum gymnandrum. After genotyping 1786 offspring, we partitioned individual fitness into sex-specific selfed and outcrossed components and estimated phenotypic selection acting through each. Relative fitness increased with increasing mate number, and more so for male function. This led to greater opportunity for selection through outcrossed male fitness, though patterns of phenotypic selection on floral traits tended to be similar, and with better support for selection through female rather than male fitness components. We detected directional selection through one or more fitness component for larger flower number, larger flowers, and more negative nectar gradients within inflorescences. Our results are consistent with Bateman's principles for sex-specific mating patterns and illustrate that, despite the expected difference in opportunity for selection, patterns of variation in selection across traits can be rather similar for the male and female sexual functions. These results shed new light on the effect of sexual selection on the evolution of floral traits.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Crafoord Foundation
ID : 2021-0661
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 31370402
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 31570229
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 31870411
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 32201316
Organisme : Swedish Research Council
ID : 2021-04777
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. New Phytologist © 2023 New Phytologist Foundation.
Références
Albertsen E, Opedal ØH, Bolstad GH, Pérez-Barrales R, Hansen TF, Pélabon C, Armbruster WS. 2021. Using ecological context to interpret spatiotemporal variation in natural selection. Evolution 75: 294-309.
Anthes N, David P, Auld JR, Hoffer JNA, Jarne P, Koene JM, Kokko H, Lorenzi MC, Pelissie B, Sprenger D et al. 2010. Bateman gradients in hermaphrodites: an extended approach to quantify sexual selection. American Naturalist 176: 249-263.
Armbruster WS, Antonsen L, Pélabon C. 2005. Phenotypic selection on Dalechampia blossoms: honest signaling affects pollination success. Ecology 86: 3323-3333.
Armbruster WS, Hansen TF, Pélabon C, Perez-Barrales R, Maad J. 2009. The adaptive accuracy of flowers: measurement and microevolutionary patterns. Annals of Botany 103: 1529-1545.
Arnold SJ, Wade MJ. 1984. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 38: 709-719.
Ashman T, Knight TM, Steets JA, Amarasekare P, Burd M, Campbell DR, Dudash MR, Johnston MO, Mazer SJ, Mitchell RJ et al. 2004. Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: ecological and evolutionary causes and consequences. Ecology 85: 2408-2421.
Ashman T, Morgan MT. 2004. Explaining phenotypic selection on plant attractive characters: male function, gender balance or ecological context? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271: 553-559.
Barrett SCH. 2002. Sexual interference of the floral kind. Heredity 88: 154-159.
Bateman AJ. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in drosophila. Heredity 2: 349-368.
Bawa KS, Ingty T, Revell LJ, Shivaprakash KN. 2019. Correlated evolution of flower size and seed number in flowering plants (monocotyledons). Annals of Botany 123: 181-190.
Bell G. 1985. On the function of flowers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 224: 223-265.
Bolstad GH, Armbruster WS, Pélabon C, Pérez-Barrales R, Hansen TF. 2010. Direct selection at the blossom level on floral reward by pollinators in a natural population of Dalechampia schottii: full-disclosure honesty? New Phytologist 18: 370-384.
Brady SP, Bolnick DI, Barrett RDH, Chapman L, Crispo E, Derry AM, Eckert CG, Fraser DJ, Fussmann GF, Gonzalez A et al. 2019. Understanding maladaptation by uniting ecological and evolutionary perspectives. American Naturalist 194: 495-515.
Briscoe Runquist RD, Geber MA, Pickett-Leonard M, Moeller DA. 2017. Mating system evolution under strong pollen limitation: evidence of disruptive selection through male and female fitness in Clarkia xantiana. American Naturalist 189: 549-563.
Brodie ER, Moore AJ, Janzen FJ. 1995. Visualizing and quantifying natural selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10: 313-318.
Brunet J, Thairu MW, Henss JM, Link RI, Kluever JA. 2015. The effects of flower, floral display, and reward sizes on bumblebee foraging behavior when pollen is the reward and plants are dichogamous. International Journal of Plant Sciences 176: 811-819.
Burd M, Callahan HS. 2000. What does the male function hypothesis claim? Journal of Evolutionary Biology 13: 735-742.
Canty A, Ripley B. 2022. boot: bootstrap R (S-plus) functions. R package v.1.3-28.1. [WWWdocument] URL https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/boot/index.html [accessed 21 November 2022].
Caruso CM, Eisen KE, Martin RA, Sletvold N. 2019. A meta-analysis of the agents of selection on floral traits. Evolution 73: 4-14.
Caruso CM, Maherali H, Benscoter AM. 2012. Why are trade-offs between flower size and number infrequently detected? A test of three hypotheses. International Journal of Plant Sciences 173: 26-35.
Christopher DA, Mitchell RJ, Karron JD. 2020. Pollination intensity and paternity in flowering plants. Annals of Botany 125: 1-9.
Conner JK, Rush S. 1996. Effects of flower size and number on pollinator visitation to wild radish, Raphanus raphanistrum. Oecologia 105: 509-516.
Cox RM, Calsbeek R. 2009. Sexually antagonistic selection, sexual dimorphism, and the resolution of intralocus sexual conflict. American Naturalist 173: 176-187.
Darwin C. 1862. On the contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are fertilized by insects, and on the good effects of intercrossing. London, UK: John Murray.
Davison AC, Hinkley DV. 1997. Bootstrap methods and their applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Delph LF, Ashman TL. 2006. Trait selection in flowering plants: how does sexual selection contribute? Integrative and Comparative Biology 46: 465-472.
Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap. London, UK: Chapman and Hall.
Ellis AG, Johnson SD. 2010. Gender differences in the effects of floral spur length manipulation on fitness in a hermaphrodite orchid. International Journal of Plant Sciences 171: 1010-1019.
Engel EG, Irwin RE. 2003. Linking pollinator visitation rate and pollen receipt. American Journal of Botany 90: 1612-1618.
Fenster CB, Cheely G, Dudash MR, Reynolds RT. 2006. Nectar reward and advertisement in hummingbird-pollinated Silene virginica (caryophyllaceae). American Journal of Botany 93: 1800-1807.
Fisogni A, Cristofolini G, Rossi M, Galloni M. 2011. Pollinator directionality as a response to nectar gradient: promoting outcrossing while avoiding geitonogamy. Plant Biology 13: 848-856.
Fox J, Weisberg S. 2019. An R companion to applied regression, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
Gerber MA. 1985. The relationship of plant size to self-pollination in Mertensia ciliata. Ecology 66: 762-772.
Gong YB, Huang SQ. 2014. Interspecific variation in pollen-ovule ratio is negatively correlated with pollen transfer efficiency in a natural community. Plant Biology 16: 843-847.
Harder LD. 1990. Behavioral responses by bumble bees to variation in pollen availability. Oecologia 85: 41-47.
Harder LD, Barrett SCH. 1995. Mating cost of large floral displays in hermaphrodite plants. Nature 373: 512-515.
Harder LD, Johnson SD. 2008. Function and evolution of aggregated pollen in angiosperms. International Journal of Plant Sciences 169: 59-78.
Harder LD, Johnson SD. 2009. Darwin's beautiful contrivances: evolutionary and functional evidence for floral adaptation. New Phytologist 183: 530-545.
Harder LD, Jordan CY, Gross WE, Routley MB. 2004. Beyond floricentrism: the pollination function of inflorescences. Plant Species Biology 19: 137-148.
Heiling JM, Bronstein JL, Irwin RE. 2021. Nectar addition changes pollinator behavior but not plant reproduction in pollen-rewarding Lupinus argenteus. American Journal of Botany 108: 402-410.
Hereford J, Hansen TF, Houle D. 2004. Comparing strengths of directional selection: how strong is strong? Evolution 58: 2133-2143.
Herrera CM, Castellanos MC, Medrano M. 2006. Geographical context of floral evolution: towards an improved research programme in floral diversification. In: Harder LD, Barrett SCH, eds. The ecology and evolution of flowers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 278-294.
Hirabayashi Y, Ishii HS, Kudo G. 2006. Significance of nectar distribution for bumblebee behaviour within inflorescences, with reference to inflorescence architecture and display size. Ecoscience 13: 351-359.
Hodgins KA, Barrett SCH. 2008. Natural selection on floral traits through male and female function in wild populations of the heterostylous daffodil Narcissus triandrus. Evolution 62: 1751-1763.
Hou M, Du G, Zhao Z. 2020. Development of genomic microsatellite markers for Aconitum gymnandrum (Ranunculaceae) by next generation sequencing (NGS). Molecular Biology Reports 47: 727-729.
Hou M, Zhao ZG. 2023. Effects of floral traits on geitonogamous selfing rates and reproductive quantity and quality in a protandrous species. Journal of Plant Ecology 16: rtad011.
Huang Q, Wang W, Barrett SCH, Ren M. 2020. Plasticity in selective embryo abortion may limit the mating costs of geitonogamy in self-compatible plants: a hypothesis. American Journal of Botany 107: 390-393.
Ishii HS, Harder LD. 2006. The size of individual delphinium flowers and the opportunity for geitonogamous pollination. Functional Ecology 20: 1115-1123.
Johnson SD. 2010. The pollination niche and its role in the diversification and maintenance of the southern African flora. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365: 499-516.
Johnston MO, Bartkowska MP. 2017. Individual pollen limitation, phylogeny and selection. New Phytologist 214: 909-912.
Jones OR, Wang J. 2010. Colony: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Molecular Ecology Resources 10: 551-555.
de Jong TJ, Waser NM, Klinkhamer PG. 1993. Geitonogamy: the neglected side of selfing. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8: 321-325.
Karron JD, Mitchell RJ. 2012. Effects of floral display size on male and female reproductive success in Mimulus ringens. Annals of Botany 109: 563-570.
Karron JD, Mitchell RJ, Holmquist KG, Bell JM, Funk B. 2004. The influence of floral display size on selfing rates in Mimulus ringens. Heredity 92: 242-248.
Klinkhamer PG, de Jong TJ. 1993. Attractiveness to pollinators: a plant's dilemma. Oikos 66: 180-184.
Kudo G, Harder LD. 2005. Floral and inflorescence effects on variation in pollen removal and seed production among six legume species. Functional Ecology 19: 245-254.
Lande R, Arnold SJ. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37: 1210-1226.
Lázaro A, Totland Ø. 2014. The influence of floral symmetry, dependence on pollinators and pollination generalization on flower size variation. Annals of Botany 114: 157-165.
Liao W, Hu Y, Zhu B, Zhao X, Zeng Y, Zhang D. 2009. Female reproductive success decreases with display size in monkshood, Aconitum kusnezoffii (Ranunculaceae). Annals of Botany 104: 1405-1412.
Lu NN, Ma Y, Hou M, Zhao ZG. 2021. The function of floral traits and phenotypic selection in Aconitum gymnandrum (Ranunculaceae). Plant Biology 23: 931-938.
Maldonado M, Fornoni J, Boege K, Ishiwar RP, Santos-Gally R, Domínguez CA. 2023. The role of within plant variation in nectar production: an experimental approach. Annals of Botany 132: 95-106.
Medel R, Botto-Mahan C, Kalin-Arroyo M. 2003. Pollinator-mediated selection on the nectar guide phenotype in the Andean monkey flower, Mimulus luteus. Ecology 84: 1721-1732.
Minnaar C, Anderson B, de Jager ML, Karron JD. 2019. Plant-pollinator interactions along the pathway to paternity. Annals of Botany 123: 225-245.
Mitchell-Olds T, Shaw RG. 1987. Regression analysis of natural selection: statistical inference and biological interpretation. Evolution 41: 1149-1161.
Morgan MT. 1992. The evolution of traits influencing male and female fertility in outcrossing plants. American Naturalist 139: 1022-1051.
Morrissey MB. 2016. Meta-analysis of magnitudes, differences and variation in evolutionary parameters. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 29: 1882-1904.
Nepi M, Grasso DA, Mancuso S. 2018. Nectar in plant-insect mutualistic relationships: from food reward to partner manipulation. Frontiers in Plant Science 9: 1063.
Nilsson LA, Rabakonandrianina E, Pettersson B. 1992. Exact tracking of pollen transfer and mating in plants. Nature 360: 666-668.
Opedal ØH. 2021. A functional view reveals substantial predictability of pollinator-mediated selection. Journal of Pollination Ecology 30: 273-288.
Opedal ØH, Hildesheim LS, Armbruster WS. 2022. Evolvability and constraint in the evolution of three-dimensional flower morphology. American Journal of Botany 109: 1906-1917.
Opedal ØH, Pérez-Barrales R, Brito VLG, Muchhala N, Dellinger AS. 2023. Pollen as the link between floral phenotype and fitness. American Journal of Botany 110: e16200.
Parachnowitsch AL, Manson JS, Sletvold N. 2019. Evolutionary ecology of nectar. Annals of Botany 123: 247-261.
Pyke GH. 2016. Floral nectar: pollinator attraction or manipulation? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 31: 339-341.
Rausher MD. 1992. The measurement of selection on quantitative traits: biases due to environmental covariances between traits and fitness. Evolution 46: 616-626.
Reynolds RJ, Childers DK, Pajewski NM. 2010. The distribution and hypothesis testing of eigenvalues from the canonical analysis of the gamma matrix of quadratic and correlational selection gradients. Evolution 64: 1076-1085.
Rodríguez-Otero C, Hedrén M, Friberg M, Opedal ØH. 2023. Analysis of trait-performance-fitness relationships reveals pollinator-mediated selection on orchid pollination traits. American Journal of Botany 110: e16128.
Rymer PD, Johnson SD, Savolainen V. 2010. Pollinator behaviour and plant speciation: can assortative mating and disruptive selection maintain distinct floral morphs in sympatry? New Phytologist 188: 426-436.
Stinchcombe JR, Rutter MT, Burdick DS. 2002. Testing for environmentally induced bias in phenotypic estimates of natural selection: theory and practice. American Naturalist 160: 511-523.
Sutherland S, Delph LF. 1984. On the importance of male fitness in plants: patterns of fruit-set. Ecology 65: 1093-1104.
Teixido AL, Aizen MA. 2019. Reproductive assurance weakens pollinator-mediated selection on flower size in an annual mixed-mating species. Annals of Botany 123: 1067-1077.
Teixido AL, Valladares F. 2014. Large flowers tend to be short-lived in Mediterranean ecosystems: insights from three Cistus species. Plant Biosystems 148: 1211-1220.
Trunschke J, Sletvold N, Agren J. 2017. Interaction intensity and pollinator-mediated selection. New Phytologist 214: 1381-1389.
Van der Niet T, Peakall R, Johnson SD. 2014. Pollinator-driven ecological speciation in plants: new evidence and future perspectives. Annals of Botany 113: 199-211.
Wang J, El-Kassaby YA, Ritland K. 2012. Estimating selfing rates from reconstructed pedigrees using multilocus genotype data. Molecular Ecology 21: 100-116.
Zhao Z, Lu N, Conner JK. 2016. Adaptive pattern of nectar volume within inflorescences: bumblebee foraging behavior and pollinator-mediated natural selection. Scientific Reports 6: 34499.
Zhao ZG, Du GZ, Huang SQ. 2010. The effect of flower position on variation and covariation in floral traits in a wild hermaphrodite plant. BMC Plant Biology 10: 91.
Zhou J, Reynolds RJ, Zimmer EA, Dudash MR, Fenster CB. 2020. Variable and sexually conflicting selection on Silene stellata floral traits by a putative moth pollinator selective agent. Evolution 74: 1321-1334.