Pollen-tube growth rates in Collinsia heterophylla (Plantaginaceae): One-donor crosses reveal heritability but no effect on sporophytic-offspring fitness

Annals of Botany

Volumn 103, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 941-950

  Lankinen, Sa ^a,b   Maad, Johanne ^a,c   Armbruster, W Scott ^a,d,e  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Collinsia heterophylla; Evolvability; Female fitness; Good genes; Heritability; Male fitness; Mixed mating system; Plantaginaceae; Pollen competition; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; FITNESS; GOOD GENES HYPOTHESIS; GROWTH RATE; HERB; HERITABILITY; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; PATERNITY; POLLEN; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; SPOROPHYTE;

ARTICLE; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; PHYSIOLOGY; PLANTAGO; POLLEN;

PLANTAGO; POLLEN;

COLLINSIA; COLLINSIA HETEROPHYLLA; PLANTAGINACEAE;

EID: 64949124675     PISSN: 03057364     EISSN: 10958290     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcp014     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Aizen MA, Searcy KB, Mulcahy DL. 1990. Among-flower and within-flower comparisons of pollen-tube growth following self-pollinations and cross-pollinations in Dianthus chinensis (Caryophyllaceae). American Journal of Botany 77: 671-676.
2. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Armbruster WS, Rogers DG. 2004. Does pollen competition reduce the cost of inbreeding? American Journal of Botany 91: 1939-1943.
4. Armbruster WS, Mulder CPH, Baldwin BG, Kalisz S, Wessa B, Nute H. 2002. Comparative analysis of late floral development and mating-system evolution in tribe Collinsiae (Scrophulariaceae s.l.). American Journal of Botany 89: 37-49.
5. Aronen T, Nikkanen T, Harju A, Tiimonen H, Häggman H. 2002. Pollen competition and seed-siring success in Picea abies. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 104: 638-642.
6. Bell G. 1985. On the function of flowers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 224: 223-265.
7. Bernasconi G, Paschke M, Schmid B. 2003. Diversity effects in reproductive biology. Oikos 102: 217-220.
8. Bernasconi G, Ashman T-L, Birkhead TR, et al. 2004. Evolutionary ecology of the pre-zygotic stage. Science 303: 971-974.
9. Bertin RI. 1990. Effects of pollination intensity in Campsis radicans. American Journal of Botany 77: 178-187.
10. Bertin RI, Sullivan M. 1988. Pollen interference and cryptic self-fertility in Campsis radicans. American Journal of Botany 75: 1140-1147.
11. Campbell DR. 1989. Measurements of selection in a hermaphroditic plant: variation in male and female pollination success. Evolution 43: 318-334.
12. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B. 1992. The effects of selection in the gametophyte stage on mutational load. Evolution 46: 703-720.
13. Charlesworth D, Mayer SS. 1995. Genetic variability of plant characters in the partial inbreeder Collinsia heterophylla (Scrophulariaceae). American Journal of Botany 82: 112-120.
14. Charlesworth D, Schemske DW, Sork VL. 1987. The evolution of plant reproductive characters; sexual versus natural selection. In: Bradbury JW, Andersson MB eds, Sexual selection: testing the alternatives. New York, NY: Wiley, 317-335.
15. Cruzan MB. 1990. Pollen-pollen and pollen-style interactions during pollen tube growth in Erythronium grandiflorum (Liliaceae). American Journal of Botany 77: 116-122.
16. Cruzan MB. 1993. Analysis of pollen-style interactions in Petunia hybrida -the determination of variance in male reproductive success. Sexual Plant Reproduction 6: 275-281.
17. Davis SL. 2004. Natural levels of pollination intensity and effects of pollen loads on offspring quality in females of Thalictrum pubescens (Ranunculaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 244: 45-54.
18. Delph LF, Ashman T-L. 2006. Trait selection in flowering plants: how does sexual selection contribute? Integrative and Comparative Biology 46: 465-472.
19. Delph LF, Weinig C, Sullivan K. 1998. Why fast-growing pollen tubes give rise to vigorous progeny: the test of a new mechanism. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 265: 935-939.
20. Falconer DS, MacKay TFC. 1996. Introduction to quantiative genetics. Harlow: Longman.
21. Fenster CB, Sork VL. 1988. Effect of crossing distance and male parent on in vivo pollen tube growth in Chamaecrista fasciculata. American Journal of Botany 75: 1898-1903.
22. Fisher RA. 1958. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
23. Galen C, Shykoff JA, Plowright RC. 1986. Consequences of stigma receptivity schedules for sexual selection in flowering plants. American Nauralist 127: 462-476.
24. Hansen TF, Pelabon C, Armbruster WS, Carlson ML. 2003. Evolvability and genetic constraint in Dalechampia blossoms: components of variance and measures of evolvability. Journal of Evoutionary Biology 16: 754-766.
25. Havens K. 1994. Clonal repeatability of in vitro pollen tube growth rates in Oenothera organensis (Onagraceae). American Journal of Botany 81: 161-165.
26. Herrero H, Hormaza JI. 1996. Pistil strategies controlling pollen tube growth. Sexual Plant Reproduction 9: 343-347.
27. Hoekstra FA, Bruinsma J. 1975. Respiration and vitality of binucleate and trinucleate pollen. Physiologia Plantarum 34: 221-225.
28. Hormaza JI, Herrero M. 1994. Gametophytic competition and selection. In: Williams EG, Clarke AE, Knox RB eds. Genetic control of self-incompatibility and reproductive development in flowering plants. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 372-400.
29. Houle D. 1992. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130: 195-204.
30. Johannsson MH, Stephenson AG. 1997. Effects of pollination intensity on the vigor of the sporophytic and gametophytic generation of Curcubita texana. Sexual Plant Reproduction 10: 236-240.
31. Johnston MO. 1993. Tests of two hypotheses concerning pollen competition in a self-compatible, long-styled species (Lobelia cardinalis: Lobeliaceae). American Journal of Botany 80: 1400-1406.
32. Jolivet C, Bernasconi G. 2007. Within/between population crosses reveal genetic basis for siring success in Silene latifolia (Caryophyllaceae). Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20: 1361-1374.
33. Kalisz S, Vogler D, Fails B, et al. 1999. The mechanism of delayed selfing in Collinsia verna (Scrophulariaceae). American Journal of Botany 86: 1239-1247.
34. Kalla SE, Ashman T-L. 2002. The effects of pollen competition on progeny vigor in Fragaria virginiana (Rosaceae) depend on progeny growth environment. International Journal of Plant Sciences 163: 335-340.
35. Kokko H. 2001. Fisherian and 'good genes' benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecology Letters 4: 322-326.
36. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 270: 653-664.
37. Kron P, Husband BC. 2006. The effects of pollen diversity on plant reproduction: insights from apple. Sexual Plant Reproduction 19: 125-131.
38. Kruszewski LJ, Galloway LF. 2006. Explaining outcrossing rate in Campanulastrum americanum (Campanulaceae): geitonogamy and cryptic self-incompatibility. International Journal of Plant Sciences 167: 455-461.
39. Lamborn E, Cresswell JE, Macnair MR. 2005. The potential for adaptive evolution of pollen grain size in Mimulus guttatus. New Phytologist 167: 289-296.
40. Lankinen Å, Armbruster WS. 2007. Pollen competition reduces inbreeding depression in Collinsia heterophylla (Plantaginaceae). Journal of Evoutionary Biology 20: 737-749.
41. Lankinen Å, Kiboi S. 2007. Pollen-donor identity affects timing of stigma receptivity in Collinsia heterophylla (Plantaginaceae): a sexual conflict during pollen competition? American Naturalist 170: 854-863.
42. Lankinen Å, Armbruster WS, Antonsen L. 2007. Delayed stigma receptivity in Collinsia heterophylla (Plantaginaceae): genetic variation and adaptive significance in relation to pollen competition, delayed self-pollination, and mating-system evolution. American Journal of Botany 94: 1183-1192.
43. Lyons EE, Waser NM, Price MV, Antonovics J, Motten AF. 1989. Sources of variation in plant reproductive success and implications for concepts of sexual selection. American Naturalist 134: 409-433.
44. Maad J, Alexandersson R. 2004. Variable selection in Platanthera bifolia (Orchidaceae): phenotypic selection differed between sex functions in a drought year. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17: 642-650.
45. Maad J, Nilsson LA. 2004. On the mechanism of floral shifts in speciation: gained pollination efficiency from tongue- to eye-attachment of pollinia in Platanthera (Orchidaceae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 83: 481-495.
46. Marshall DL. 1998. Pollen donor performance can be consistent across maternal plants in wild radish (Raphanus sativus, Brassicaceae): a necessary condition for the action of sexual selection. American Journal of Botany 85: 1389-1397.
47. Marshall DL, Reynolds J, Abrahamson NJ, et al. 2007. Do differences in plant and flower age change mating patterns and alter offspring fitness in Raphanus sativus (Brassicaceae)? American Journal of Botany 94: 409-418.
48. Mulcahy DL. 1971. A correlation between gametophytic characters in Zea mays L. Science 171: 1155-1156.
49. Mulcahy DL. 1979. The rise of the angiosperms: a genecological factor. Science 206: 20-23.
50. Mulcahy DL, Mulcahy GB. 1975. The influence of gametophytic competition on sporophytic fitness in Diantus chinensis. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 46: 277-280.
51. Mulcahy DL, Mulcahy GB, Searcy KB. 1992. Evolutionary genetics of pollen competition. In: Wyatt R ed. Ecology and evolution of plant reproduction. New York: Chapman and Hall, 25-36.
52. Mulcahy DL, Sari-Gorla M, Bergamini Mulcahy GB. 1996. Pollen selection - past, present and future. Sexual Plant Reproduction 9: 353-356.
53. Neese EC. 1993. Collinsia. In: Hickman JC ed. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1024-1027.
54. Nemeth MB, Smith-Huerta NL. 2002. Effects of pollen load composition and deposition pattern on pollen performance in Clarkia unguiculata (Onagraceae). International Journal of Plant Sciences 163: 795-802.
55. Newsom VM. 1929. A revision of the genus Collinsia. Botanical Gazette 87: 260-231.
56. Ottaviano E, Sari-Gorla M, Villa M. 1988. Pollen competitive ability in maize: within population variability and response to selection. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 76: 601-608.
57. Paschke M, Abs C, Schmid B. 2002. Effects of population size and pollen diversity on reproductive success and offspring size in the narrow endemic Cochlearia bavarica (Brassicaceae). American Journal of Botany 89: 1250-1259.
58. Pasonen HL, Pulkkinen P, Käpylä M. 2001. Do pollen donors with fastestgrowing pollen tubes sire the best offspring in an anemophilous tree, Betula pendula (Betulaceae)? American Journal of Botany 88: 854-860.
59. Quesada M, Winsor JA, Stephenson AG. 1993. Effects of pollen competition on progeny performance in a heterozygous cucurbit. American Naturalist 142: 694-706.
60. Quesada M, Fuchs EJ, Lobo JA. 2001. Pollen load size, reproductive success, and progeny kinship of naturally pollinated flowers of the tropical dry forest tree Pachira quinata (Bombacaceae). American Journal of Botany 88: 2113-2118.
61. Richards AJ. 1997. Plant breeding systems. London: Chapman and Hall.
62. Roach DA, Wulff RD. 1987. Maternal effects in plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18: 209-235.
63. Sarkissian TS, Harder LD. 2001. Direct and indirect responses to selection on pollen size in Brassica rapa L. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 14: 456-468.
64. Schlichting CD, Stephenson AG, Small LE. 1990. Pollen loads and progeny vigor in Cucurbita pepo: the next generation. Evolution 44: 1358-1372.
65. Schrock GF, Palser BF. 1967. Floral development, anatomy, and embryology of Collinsia heterophylla with some notes on ten other species of Collinsia and on Tonella tenella. Botanical Gazette 128: 83-104.
66. Skogsmyr I, Lankinen Å. 1999. Selection on pollen competitive ability in relation to stochastic factors influencing pollen deposition. Evolutionary Ecology Research 1: 971-985.
67. Skogsmyr I, Lankinen Å. 2000. Potential selection for female choice in Viola tricolor. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2: 965-979.
68. Skogsmyr I, Lankinen Å. 2002. Sexual selection: an evolutionary force in plants? Biological Review 77: 537-562.
69. Snow AA. 1994. Postpollination selection and male fitness in plants. American Naturalist 144 (suppl.): 69-83.
70. Snow AA, Mazer SJ. 1988. Gametophytic selection in Raphanus raphanistrum: a test for heritable variation in pollen competitive ability. Evolution 42: 1065-1075.
71. Snow AA, Spira TP. 1991. Pollen vigour and the potential for sexual selection in plants. Nature 352: 796-797.
72. Snow AA, Spira TP. 1996. Pollen-tube competition and male fitness in Hibiscus moescheutos. Evolution 50: 1866-1870.
73. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1995. Biometry, 3rd edn. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Co.
74. SPSS. 2004.. SPSS for Windows, release 13.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
75. Walsh NE, Charlesworth D. 1992. Evolutionary interpretations of differences in pollen tube growth rates. Quarterly Review of Biology 67: 19-37.
76. Weil J, Allard RW. 1964. The mating system and genetic variability in natural populations of Collinsia heterophylla. Evolution 18: 515-525.
77. Willson MF. 1979. Sexual selection in plants. American Naturalist 133: 777-790.
78. Winsor JA, Davis LE, Stephenson AG. 1987. The relationship between pollen load and fruit maturation and the effect of pollen load on offspring vigor in Cucurbita pepo. American Naturalist 129: 643-656.
79. Zahavi A. 1975. Mate selection - a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53: 205-214.