Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 791–805 | Cite as

Mating system and the hybridization between self-compatible Phlox cuspidata and self-incompatible Phlox drummondii

  • Lauren G. Ruane
Original Paper

Abstract

Mating system can impact the frequency of hybridization and therefore the maintenance of species diversity. I evaluate the effects of weak self-incompatibility (SI) in Phlox cuspidata and SI in Phlox drummondii on mating success within species and on hybridization dynamics between species under controlled conditions. The effects of SI on hybridization frequency were assessed by manipulating the relatedness of conspecific pollen and the relative timing of pollen deposition in mixed-donor interspecific pollinations. Selfing as opposed to outcrossing increased hybridization by 16% in P. cuspidata maternal plants and by 48% in P. drummondii maternal plants because self pollen did not compete as well against heterospecific pollen. The relative timing of conspecific versus heterospecific pollen deposition also impacted hybridization. In self-compatible P. cuspidata, the deposition of self pollen 5 h earlier than heterospecific pollen decreased hybridization by 28%. In self-incompatible P. drummondii, a 5 h delay in the deposition of compatible conspecific pollen increased hybridization by 32%. In this hybrid system, early self-pollination can decrease hybridization (but increase inbreeding) by P. cuspidata maternal plants, and SI may increase hybridization by P. drummondii maternal plants.

Keywords

Phlox hybrid system Hybridization Interspecific pollen competition Mixed-donor pollinations Self-fertilization Self-incompatibility (SI) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work benefited from the help of Kathleen Donohue, Carolyn Griffen, David Haig, Kristina Jones, Donald Levin, Naomi Pierce, Janet Sherwood, and Rich Stomberg. I am also grateful to the following friends in Bastrop: John and Barbara Allbright, Jack and Phyllis Burns, and Ronnie and Graceanna Holder. Funding was provided by an NSF Graduate Student Fellowship and the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University.

References

  1. Bateman AJ (1956) Cryptic self-incompatibility in the wallflower: Cheiranthus cheiri L. Heredity 10:257–261. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1956.22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bixby PJ, Levin DA (1996) Response to selection on autogamy in Phlox. Evolution 50:892–899. doi: 10.2307/2410860 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowman RN (1987) Cryptic self-incompatibility and the breeding system of Clarkia unguiculata (Onagraceae). Am J Bot 74:471–476. doi: 10.2307/2443826 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brennan AC, Harris SA, Hiscock SJ (2003) The population genetics of sporophytic self-incompatibility in Senecio squalidus L. (Asteraceae): avoidance of mating constraints imposed by low S-allele number. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 358:1047–1050. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2003.1300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casper BB, Sayigh LS, Lee SS (1988) Demonstration of cryptic incompatibility in distylous Amsinckia douglasiana. Evolution 42:248–253. doi: 10.2307/2409229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B (1987) Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:237–268. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.18.110187.001321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B (1990) Inbreeding depression with heterozygote advantage and its effect on selection for modifiers changing the outcrossing rate. Evolution 44:870–888. doi: 10.2307/2409552 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charlesworth D, Vekemans X, Castric V, Glémin S (2005) Plant self-incompatibility systems: a molecular evolutionary perspective. New Phytol 168:61–69. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01443.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cruzan MB, Barrett SCH (1993) Contribution of cryptic incompatibility to the mating system of Eichhornia paniculata (Pontederiaceae). Evolution 47:925–934. doi: 10.2307/2410195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Nettancourt D (1977) Incompatibility in angiosperms. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. DeMauro MM (1993) Relationship of breeding system to rarity in the lakeside daisy (Hymenoxys acaulis var glabra). Conserv Biol 7:542–550. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07030542.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Desrochers AM, Rieseberg LH (1998) Mentor effects in wild species of Helianthus (Asteraceae). Am J Bot 85:770–775. doi: 10.2307/2446411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eckert CG, Allen M (1997) Cryptic self-incompatibility in tristylous Decodon verticillatus (Lythraceae). Am J Bot 84:1391–1397. doi: 10.2307/2446137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellstrand NC, Whitkus R, Rieseberg LH (1996) Distribution of spontaneous plant hybrids. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:5090–5093. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.10.5090 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Epperson BK, Clegg MT (1987) First-pollination primacy and pollen selection in the morning glory, Ipomoea purpurea. Heredity 58:5–14. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1987.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erbe L, Turner BL (1962) A biosystematic study of the Phlox cuspidata-Phlox drummondii complex. Am Midl Nat 67:257–281. doi: 10.2307/2422708 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferguson CJ, Levin DA, Jansen RK (1999) Natural hybridization between an outcrossing and a selfing Phlox (Polemoniaceae): the maternal species of F1 hybrids. Plant Syst Evol 218:153–158. doi: 10.1007/BF01087043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fishman L, Wyatt R (1999) Pollinator-mediated competition, reproductive character displacement, and the evolution of selfing in Arenaria uniflora (Caryophyllaceae). Evolution 53:1723–1733. doi: 10.2307/2640435 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodell K, Elam DR, Nason JD, Ellstrand NC (1997) Gene flow among small populations of a self-incompatible plant: an interaction between demography and genetics. Am J Bot 84:1362–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grant V, Grant KA (1965) Flower pollination in the Phlox family. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoagland DR, Arnon DI (1938) The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. Circular 347. University of California, College of Agriculture, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  22. Jolivet C, Bernasconi G (2007) Within/between population crosses reveal genetic basis for siring success in Silene latifolia (Caryophyllaceae). J Evol Biol 20:1361–1374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones KN (1994) Nonrandom mating in Clarkia gracilis (Onagraceae): a case of cryptic self compatibility. Am J Bot 81:195–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kao TH, Tsukamoto T (2004) The molecular and genetic bases of S-RNase-based self-incompatibility. Plant Cell 16:S72–S83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kruszewski LJ, Galloway LF (2006) Explaining outcrossing rate in Campanulastrum americanum (Campanulaceae): geitonogamy and cryptic self-incompatibility. Int J Plant Sci 167:455–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lande R, Schemske DW (1985) The evolution of self-fertilization and inbreeding depression in plants I. Genetic models. Evolution 39:24–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levin DA (1967) Hybridization between annual species of Phlox: population structure. Evolution 29:37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levin DA (1970) The exploitation of pollinators by species and hybrids of Phlox. Evolution 24:367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levin DA (1975) Gametophytic selection in Phlox. In: Mulcahy DL (ed) Gamete competition in plants and animals. Elsevier, New York, 207 ppGoogle Scholar
  30. Levin DA (1976) Consequences of long-term artificial selection, inbreeding, and isolation in Phlox: I. The evolution of cross-incompatibility. Evolution 30:335–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Levin DA (1978) Genetic variation in annual Phlox: self-compatible versus self-incompatible species. Evolution 32:245–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levin DA (1985) Reproductive character displacement in Phlox. Evolution 39:1275–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levin DA (1988) The paternity pools of plants. Am Nat 132:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levin DA (1989) Proximity-dependent cross-compatibility in Phlox. Evolution 43:1114–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Levin DA (1993) S-gene polymorphism in Phlox drummondii. Heredity 71:193–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levin DA (1996) The evolutionary significance of pseudo-self-fertility. Am Nat 148:321–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levin DA, Schaal BA (1970) Corolla color as an inhibitor of interspecific hybridization in Phlox. Am Nat 104:273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin NH, Willis JH (2007) Ecological divergence associated with mating system causes nearly complete reproductive isolation between sympatric Mimulus species. Evolution 61:68–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matton DP, Nass N, Clarke AE, Newbigin E (1994) Self-incompatibility: how plants avoid illegitimate offspring. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:1992–1997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Montalvo AM (1992) Relative success of self and outcross pollen comparing mixed- and single- donor pollinations in Aquilegia caerulea. Evolution 46:1181–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nasrallah JB (2002) Recognition and rejection of self in plant reproduction. Science 296:305–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pandey KK (1979) Overcoming incompatibility and promoting genetic recombination in flowering plants. NZ J Bot 17:645–663Google Scholar
  43. Reinartz JA, Les DH (1994) Bottleneck-induced dissolution of self-incompatibility and breeding system consequences in Aster furcatus (Asteraceae). Am J Bot 81:446–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richards AJ (1997) Plant breeding systems. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruane LG, Donohue K (2007) Environmental effects on pollen–pistil compatibility between Phlox cuspidata and P. drummondii (Polemoniaceae): implications for hybridization dynamics. Am J Bot 94:219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ruane LG, Donohue K (2008) Pollen competition and environmental effects on hybridization dynamics between Phlox drummondii and Phlox cuspidata. Evol Ecol 22:229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Snow AA, Spira TP, Liu H (2000) Effects of sequential pollination on the success of “fast” and “slow” pollen donors in Hibiscus moscheutos (Malvaceae). Am J Bot 87:1656–1659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Uyenoyama MK (1988) On the evolution of genetic incompatibility systems III. Introduction of weak gametophytic self-incompatibility under partial inbreeding. Theor Popul Biol 34:47–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Uyenoyama MK (1991) One the evolution of genetic incompatibility systems VI. A three-locus modifier model for the origin of gametophytic self-incompatibility. Genetics 128:453–469PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Weller SG, Ornduff R (1977) Cryptic self-compatibility in Amsinckia grandiflora. Evolution 31:47–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Organismic and Evolutionary BiologyHarvard University HerbariaCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biology, Chemistry and Environmental ScienceChristopher Newport UniversityNewport NewsUSA

Personalised recommendations