Do floral and ecogeographic isolation allow the co‐occurrence of two ecotypes of Anacamptis papilionacea (Orchidaceae)?
Abstract Ecotypes are relatively frequent in flowering plants and considered central in ecological speciation as local adaptation can promote the insurgence of reproductive isolation. Without geographic isolation, gene flow usually homogenizes the allopatrically generated phenotypic and ecological d...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2021-08-01
|
| Series: | Ecology and Evolution |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7432 |
| _version_ | 1818692099232497664 |
|---|---|
| author | Salvatore Cozzolino Giovanni Scopece Michele Lussu Pierluigi Cortis Florian P. Schiestl |
| author_facet | Salvatore Cozzolino Giovanni Scopece Michele Lussu Pierluigi Cortis Florian P. Schiestl |
| author_sort | Salvatore Cozzolino |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Ecotypes are relatively frequent in flowering plants and considered central in ecological speciation as local adaptation can promote the insurgence of reproductive isolation. Without geographic isolation, gene flow usually homogenizes the allopatrically generated phenotypic and ecological divergences, unless other forms of reproductive isolation keep them separated. Here, we investigated two orchid ecotypes with marked phenotypic floral divergence that coexist in contact zones. We found that the two ecotypes show different ecological habitat preferences with one being more climatically restricted than the other. The ecotypes remain clearly morphologically differentiated both in allopatry and in sympatry and differed in diverse floral traits. Despite only slightly different flowering times, the two ecotypes achieved floral isolation thanks to different pollination strategies. We found that both ecotypes attract a wide range of insects, but the ratio of male/female attracted by the two ecotypes was significantly different, with one ecotype mainly attracts male pollinators, while the other mainly attracts female pollinators. As a potential consequence, the two ecotypes show different pollen transfer efficiency. Experimental plots with pollen staining showed a higher proportion of intra‐ than interecotype movements confirming floral isolation between ecotypes in sympatry while crossing experiments excluded evident postmating barriers. Even if not completely halting the interecotypes pollen flow in sympatry, such incipient switch in pollination strategy between ecotypes may represent a first step on the path toward evolution of sexual mimicry in Orchidinae. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-17T12:52:24Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-81d9e0d199814dadbaff0bf6d34e9dcc |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2045-7758 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-17T12:52:24Z |
| publishDate | 2021-08-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ecology and Evolution |
| spelling | doaj.art-81d9e0d199814dadbaff0bf6d34e9dcc2022-12-21T21:47:35ZengWileyEcology and Evolution2045-77582021-08-0111159917993110.1002/ece3.7432Do floral and ecogeographic isolation allow the co‐occurrence of two ecotypes of Anacamptis papilionacea (Orchidaceae)?Salvatore Cozzolino0Giovanni Scopece1Michele Lussu2Pierluigi Cortis3Florian P. Schiestl4Department of Biology University Federico II of Naples Napoli ItalyDepartment of Biology University Federico II of Naples Napoli ItalyDepartment of Life and Environmental Sciences University of Cagliari Cagliari ItalyDepartment of Life and Environmental Sciences University of Cagliari Cagliari ItalyDepartment of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany and Botanical Gardens University of Zurich Zurich SwitzerlandAbstract Ecotypes are relatively frequent in flowering plants and considered central in ecological speciation as local adaptation can promote the insurgence of reproductive isolation. Without geographic isolation, gene flow usually homogenizes the allopatrically generated phenotypic and ecological divergences, unless other forms of reproductive isolation keep them separated. Here, we investigated two orchid ecotypes with marked phenotypic floral divergence that coexist in contact zones. We found that the two ecotypes show different ecological habitat preferences with one being more climatically restricted than the other. The ecotypes remain clearly morphologically differentiated both in allopatry and in sympatry and differed in diverse floral traits. Despite only slightly different flowering times, the two ecotypes achieved floral isolation thanks to different pollination strategies. We found that both ecotypes attract a wide range of insects, but the ratio of male/female attracted by the two ecotypes was significantly different, with one ecotype mainly attracts male pollinators, while the other mainly attracts female pollinators. As a potential consequence, the two ecotypes show different pollen transfer efficiency. Experimental plots with pollen staining showed a higher proportion of intra‐ than interecotype movements confirming floral isolation between ecotypes in sympatry while crossing experiments excluded evident postmating barriers. Even if not completely halting the interecotypes pollen flow in sympatry, such incipient switch in pollination strategy between ecotypes may represent a first step on the path toward evolution of sexual mimicry in Orchidinae.https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7432deceptive pollinationecogeographic isolationfloral isolationfloral traitsfood deceptionorchids |
| spellingShingle | Salvatore Cozzolino Giovanni Scopece Michele Lussu Pierluigi Cortis Florian P. Schiestl Do floral and ecogeographic isolation allow the co‐occurrence of two ecotypes of Anacamptis papilionacea (Orchidaceae)? Ecology and Evolution deceptive pollination ecogeographic isolation floral isolation floral traits food deception orchids |
| title | Do floral and ecogeographic isolation allow the co‐occurrence of two ecotypes of Anacamptis papilionacea (Orchidaceae)? |
| title_full | Do floral and ecogeographic isolation allow the co‐occurrence of two ecotypes of Anacamptis papilionacea (Orchidaceae)? |
| title_fullStr | Do floral and ecogeographic isolation allow the co‐occurrence of two ecotypes of Anacamptis papilionacea (Orchidaceae)? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Do floral and ecogeographic isolation allow the co‐occurrence of two ecotypes of Anacamptis papilionacea (Orchidaceae)? |
| title_short | Do floral and ecogeographic isolation allow the co‐occurrence of two ecotypes of Anacamptis papilionacea (Orchidaceae)? |
| title_sort | do floral and ecogeographic isolation allow the co occurrence of two ecotypes of anacamptis papilionacea orchidaceae |
| topic | deceptive pollination ecogeographic isolation floral isolation floral traits food deception orchids |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7432 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT salvatorecozzolino dofloralandecogeographicisolationallowthecooccurrenceoftwoecotypesofanacamptispapilionaceaorchidaceae AT giovanniscopece dofloralandecogeographicisolationallowthecooccurrenceoftwoecotypesofanacamptispapilionaceaorchidaceae AT michelelussu dofloralandecogeographicisolationallowthecooccurrenceoftwoecotypesofanacamptispapilionaceaorchidaceae AT pierluigicortis dofloralandecogeographicisolationallowthecooccurrenceoftwoecotypesofanacamptispapilionaceaorchidaceae AT florianpschiestl dofloralandecogeographicisolationallowthecooccurrenceoftwoecotypesofanacamptispapilionaceaorchidaceae |