Natural selection on Erysimum mediohispanicum flower shape: Insights into the evolution of zygomorphy

American Naturalist

Volumn 168, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 531-545

  Gómez, José M ^a   Perfectti, Francisco ^b   Camacho, Juan Pedro M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Erysimum mediohispanicum; Floral shape evolution; Geometric morphometrics; Natural selection; Pollination; Structural equation modeling

Indexed keywords

FLORAL TRAIT; INTRASPECIFIC VARIATION; NATURAL SELECTION; POLLINATION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ERYSIMUM; EVOLUTION; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FLOWER; GENETIC SELECTION; HISTOLOGY; INSECT; MORPHOGENESIS; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; PLANT SEED; SPAIN; SURVIVAL;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; BIOMETRY; ERYSIMUM; EVOLUTION; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FLOWERS; INSECTS; MORPHOGENESIS; PHENOTYPE; SEEDS; SELECTION (GENETICS); SELECTION, GENETIC; SPAIN; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

BRASSICACEAE; ERYSIMUM; ERYSIMUM MEDIOHISPANICUM;

EID: 33750065413     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/507048     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Abdi, H. 2003. Partial least square (PLS) regression. Pages 1-7 in M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, and T. Futing, eds. Encyclopedia of social sciences research methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
2. Adams, D. C. 1999. Methods for shape analysis of landmark data from articulated structures. Evolutionary Ecology Research 1:959-970.
3. Adams, D. C., and M. S. Rosenberg. 1998. Partial warps, phylogeny, and ontogeny: a comment on Fink and Zelditch (1995). Systematic Biology 47:168-173.
4. Adams, D. C., F. J. Rohlf, and D. E. Slice. 2004. Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the "revolution." Italian Journal of Zoology 71:5-16.
5. Arathi, H. S., and J. K. Kelly. 2004. Corolla morphology facilitates both autogamy and bumblebee pollination in Mimulus guttatus. International Journal of Plant Sciences 165:1039-1045.
6. Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
7. Bradshaw, H. D., Jr., K. G. Otto, B. E. Frewen, J. K. McKay, and D. W. Schemske. 1998. Quantitative trait loci affecting differences in floral morphology between two species of monkeyflower (Mimulus). Genetics 149:367-382.
8. Castellanos, M. C., P. Wilson, and J. D. Thomson. 2003. Pollen transfer by hummingbirds and bumblebees, and the divergence of pollination modes in Penstemon. Evolution 57:2742-2752.
9. Coen, E. S., J. M. Nugent, D. Luo, D. Bradley, P. Cubas, M. Chadwick, L. Copsey, and R. Carpenter. 1995. Evolution of floral symmetry. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 350:35-38.
10. Conner, J. K., and S. Rush. 1996. Effects of flower size and number on pollinator visitation to wild radish, Raphanus raphanistrum. Oecologia (Berlin) 105:509-516.
11. Cronk, Q. C. B., R. M. Bateman, and J. A. Hawkins. 2002. Developmental genetics and plant evolution. Taylor & Francis, London.
12. Cubas, P., E. Coen, and J. M. Martínez Zapater. 2001. Ancient asymmetries in the evolution of flowers. Current Biology 11:1050-1052.
13. Cubas, P. E., C. Vincent, and E. Coen. 1999. An epigenetic mutation responsible for natural variation in floral symmetry. Nature 401:157-161.
14. Dilcher, D. 2000. Toward a new synthesis: major evolutionary trends in the angiosperm fossil record. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 97:7030-7036.
15. Donoghue, M. J., R. Ree, and D. A. Baum. 1998. Phylogeny and the evolution of flower symmetry in Asteridae. Trends in Plant Science 3:311-317.
16. Endress, P. K. 1999. Symmetry in flowers: diversity and evolution. International Journal of Plant Science 160(suppl.):S3-S23.
17. -. 2001. Evolution of floral symmetry. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 4:86-91.
18. Galen, C. 1989. Measuring pollinator-mediated selection on morphometric floral traits: bumblebees and the alpine sky pilot, Polemonium viscosum. Evolution 43:882-890.
19. -. 2000. High and dry: drought stress, sex-allocation trade-offs, and selection on flower size in the alpine wildflower, Polemonium viscosum (Polemoniaceae). American Naturalist 156:72-83.
20. Galen, C., and J. Cuba. 2001. Down the tube: pollinators, predators, and the evolution of flower shape in the alpine skypilot, Polemonium viscosum. Evolution 55:1963-1971.
21. Giurfa, M., A. Dafni, and P. R. Neal 1999. Floral symmetry and its role in plant-pollinator systems. International Journal of Plant Science 160(suppl.):S41-S50.
22. Gómez, J. M. 2000. Measurements of phenotypic selection and response to selection in Lobularia maritima: importance of direct and indirect components of natural selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 13:689-699.
23. -. 2003. Herbivory reduces the strength of pollinator-mediated selection in the Mediterranean herb Erysimum mediohispanicum: consequences for plant specialization. American Naturalist 162:242-256.
24. -. 2005. Non-additivity effect of herbivores and pollinators on Erysimum mediohispanicum (Cruciferae) fitness. Oecologia (Berlin) 143:412-418.
25. Gross, J., B. C. Husband, and S. C. Stewart. 1998. Phenotypic selection in a natural population of Impatiens pallida Nutt. (Balsaminaceae). Journal of Evolutionary Biology 11:589-609.
26. Hall, J. C., K. J. Sytsma, and H. H. Iltis. 2002. Phylogeny of Capparaceae and Brassicaceae based on chloroplast sequence data. American Journal of Botany 89:1826-1842.
27. Herrera, C. M. 1993. Selection on floral morphology and environmental determinants of fecundity in a hawk moth-pollinated violet. Ecological Monographs 63:251-275.
28. Hileman, L. C., E. M. Kramer, and D. A. Baum. 2003. Differential regulation of symmetry genes and the evolution of floral morphologies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 100:12814-12819.
29. Ivey, C. T., P. Martínez, and R. Wyatt. 2003. Variation in pollinator effectiveness in swamp milkweed, Asclepias incarnata (Apocynaceae). American Journal of Botany 90:214-225.
30. Klingenberg, C. P., and L. J. Leamy. 2001. Quantitative genetics of geometric shape in the mouse mandible. Evolution 55:2342-2352.
31. Klingenberg, C. P., and L. R. Monteiro. 2005. Distances and directions in multidimensional shape spaces: implications for morphometric applications. Systematic Biology 54:678-688.
32. Lande, R., and S. J. Arnold. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210-1226.
33. Lockwood, C. A., W. H. Kimbel, and J. M. Lynch. 2004. Morphometrics and hominoid phylogeny: support to a chimpanzee-human clade and differentiation among great ape subspecies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 101:4356-4360.
34. Luo, D., R. Carpenter, C. Vincent, L. Copsey, and E. Coen 1995. Origin of floral asymmetry in Antirrhinum. Nature 383:794-799.
35. Maad, J. 2000. Phenotypic selection in hawkmoth-pollinated Platanthera bifolia: targets and fitness surfaces. Evolution 54:112-123.
36. Mayfield, M. M., N. M. Waser, and M. V. Price. 2001. Exploring the "most effective pollinator principle" with complex flowers: bumblebees and Ipomopsis aggregata. Annals of Botany 88:591-596.
37. Mitchell-Olds, T., I. A. Al-Shehbaz, M. A. Koch, and T. F. Sharbel. 2005. Crucifer evolution in the post-genomic era. Pages 119-136 in R. J. Henry, ed. Plant diversity and evolution, genotypic and phenotypic variation in higher plants. CAB International, London.
38. Møller, A. P. 1995. Bumblebee preference for symmetrical flowers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 92:2288-2292.
39. Møller, A. P., and G. Sorci. 1998. Insect preference for symmetrical artificial flowers. Oecologia (Berlin) 114:37-42.
40. Neal, P. R., A. Dafni, and M. Giurfa. 1998. Floral symmetry and its role in plant-pollinator systems: terminology, distribution, and hypotheses. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:345-373.
41. Olson, M. E. 2003. Ontogenetic origins of floral bilateral symmetry in Moringaceae (Brassicales). American Journal of Botany 90:49-71.
42. Pugesek, B. H. 2003a. Concepts of structural equation modeling in biological research. Pages 42-59 in B. H. Pugesek, A. Tomer, and A. von Eye, eds. Structural equation modeling: applications in ecological and evolutionary biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
43. -. 2003b. Modeling means in latent variable models of natural selection. Pages 297-311 in B. H. Pugesek, A. Tomer, and A. von Eye, eds. Structural equation modeling: applications in ecological and evolutionary biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
44. Rawling, J. O., S. G. Pantula, and D. A. Dickey. 1998. Applied regression analysis, a research tool. Springer, New York.
45. Ree, R. H., and M. J. Donoghue. 1999. Inferring rates of change in flower symmetry in Asterid angiosperms. Systematic Biology 48:633-641.
46. Reeves, P. A., and R. G. Olmstead. 1998. Evolution of novel morphological and reproductive traits in a clade containing Antirrhinum majus (Scrophulariaceae). American Journal of Botany 85:1047-1056.
47. Rodríguez, I., A. Gumbert, N. Hempel de Ibarra, J. Kunze, and M. Giurfa. 2004. Symmetry is in the eye of the "beeholder": innate preference for bilateral symmetry in flower-naïve bumblebees. Naturwissenschaften 91:374-377.
48. Rohlf, F. J. 2000. Statistical power comparisons among alternative morphometric methods. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 111:463-478.
49. -. 2003. Bias and error in estimates of mean shape in geometric morphometrics. Journal of Human Evolution 44:665-683.
50. Rohlf, F. J., and M. Corti. 2000. Use of two-block partial least-squares to study covariation in shape. Systematic Biology 49:740-753.
51. Rohlf, F. J., and D. E. Slice. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology 39:40-59.
52. Rohlf, F. J., A. Loy, and M. Corti. 1996. Morphometric analysis of Old World Talpidae (Mammalia, Insectivora) using partial-warp scores. Systematic Biology 45:344-362.
53. Roth, V. L. 1993. On three-dimensional morphometrics, and on the identification of landmark points. Pages 41-62 in L. F. Marcus, E. Bello, and A. García-Valdecasas, eds. Contributions to morphometrics. Museo de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid.
54. Rudall, P. J., and R. M. Bateman. 2003. Evolutionary change in flowers and inflorescences: evidence from naturally occurring terata. Trends in Plant Science 8:76-82.
55. -. 2004. Evolution of zygomorphy in monocot flowers: iterative patterns and developmental constraints. New Phytologist 162:25-44.
56. Sargent, R. S. 2004. Floral symmetry affects speciation rates in angiosperms. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271:603-608.
57. SAS Institute. 2003. JMP 5.1. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
58. Schemske, D. W., and H. D. Bradshaw. 1999. Pollinator preference and the evolution of floral traits in monkeyflowers (Mimulus). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 96:11910-11915.
59. Shipley, B. 2000. Cause and correlation in biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
60. Slice, D. 2001. Landmarks aligned by Procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall's shape space. Systematic Biology 50:141-149.
61. StatSoft. 2002. STATISTICA for Windows (program manual). StatSoft, Tulsa, OK.
62. Theißen, G. 2000. Evolutionary developmental genetics of floral symmetry: the revealing power of Linnaeus' monstrous flower. BioEssays 22:209-213.
63. Thompson, J. D. 2001. How do visitation patterns vary among pollinators in relation to floral display and floral design in a generalist pollination system? Oecologia (Berlin) 126:386-394.
64. Totland, O. 2001. Environment-dependent pollen limitation and selection on floral traits in an alpine species. Ecology 82:2233-2244.
65. Walker, J. A. 2000. The ability of geometric morphometric methods to estimate a known covariance matrix. Systematic Biology 49:686-696.
66. Wolf, J. B., and M. J. Wade. 2001. On the assignment of fitness to parents and offspring: whose fitness is it and when does it matter? Journal of Evolutionary Biology 14:347-356.
67. Zelditch, M. L., D. L. Swiderski, H. D. Sheets, and W. L. Fink. 2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Elsevier Academic, San Diego, CA.