BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Studies of floral scent evolution often attribute variation in floral scent to differences in pollinator behaviour, ignoring the potential for shared biochemistry between floral scent and floral colour to dictate patterns of phenotypic variation in scent production. To determine the relative effects of shared biochemistry and/or localized population-level phenomena on floral scent phenotype, floral scent composition and emission rate were examined in five wild populations of colour polymorphic Hesperis matronalis (Brassicaceae). METHODS: Floral scent was collected by in situ dynamic headspace extraction on purple and white colour morphs in each of five wild populations. Gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy of extracts allowed determination of floral scent composition and emission rate for all individuals, which were examined by non-metric multidimensional scaling and analysis of variance (ANOVA), respectively, to determine the contributions of floral colour and population membership to scent profile variation. KEY RESULTS: Despite the fact that colour morph means were very similar in some populations and quite different in other populations, colour morphs within populations did not differ from each other in terms of scent composition or emission rate. Populations differed significantly from one another in terms of both floral scent composition and emission rate. CONCLUSIONS: Shared biochemistry alone cannot explain the variation in floral scent phenotype found for H. matronalis. Such a result may suggest that the biochemical association between floral scent and floral colour is complex or dependent on genetic background. Floral scent does vary significantly with population membership; several factors, including environmental conditions, founder effects and genetics, may account for this differentiation and should be considered in future studies.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Studies of floral scent evolution often attribute variation in floral scent to differences in pollinator behaviour, ignoring the potential for shared biochemistry between floral scent and floral colour to dictate patterns of phenotypic variation in scent production. To determine the relative effects of shared biochemistry and/or localized population-level phenomena on floral scent phenotype, floral scent composition and emission rate were examined in five wild populations of colour polymorphic Hesperis matronalis (Brassicaceae). METHODS: Floral scent was collected by in situ dynamic headspace extraction on purple and white colour morphs in each of five wild populations. Gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy of extracts allowed determination of floral scent composition and emission rate for all individuals, which were examined by non-metric multidimensional scaling and analysis of variance (ANOVA), respectively, to determine the contributions of floral colour and population membership to scent profile variation. KEY RESULTS: Despite the fact that colour morph means were very similar in some populations and quite different in other populations, colour morphs within populations did not differ from each other in terms of scent composition or emission rate. Populations differed significantly from one another in terms of both floral scent composition and emission rate. CONCLUSIONS: Shared biochemistry alone cannot explain the variation in floral scent phenotype found for H. matronalis. Such a result may suggest that the biochemical association between floral scent and floral colour is complex or dependent on genetic background. Floral scent does vary significantly with population membership; several factors, including environmental conditions, founder effects and genetics, may account for this differentiation and should be considered in future studies.
Authors: Glenn P Svensson; Michael O Hickman; Stefan Bartram; Wilhelm Boland; Olle Pellmyr; Robert A Raguso Journal: Am J Bot Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.844
Authors: Theresa N Wang; Marie R Clifford; Jesús Martínez-Gómez; Jens C Johnson; Jeffrey A Riffell; Verónica S Di Stilio Journal: Ann Bot Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 4.357
Authors: Cynthia A Dick; Jason Buenrostro; Timothy Butler; Matthew L Carlson; Daniel J Kliebenstein; Justen B Whittall Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kristian Peters; Anja Worrich; Alexander Weinhold; Oliver Alka; Gerd Balcke; Claudia Birkemeyer; Helge Bruelheide; Onno W Calf; Sophie Dietz; Kai Dührkop; Emmanuel Gaquerel; Uwe Heinig; Marlen Kücklich; Mirka Macel; Caroline Müller; Yvonne Poeschl; Georg Pohnert; Christian Ristok; Victor Manuel Rodríguez; Christoph Ruttkies; Meredith Schuman; Rabea Schweiger; Nir Shahaf; Christoph Steinbeck; Maria Tortosa; Hendrik Treutler; Nico Ueberschaar; Pablo Velasco; Brigitte M Weiß; Anja Widdig; Steffen Neumann; Nicole M van Dam Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2018-05-06 Impact factor: 5.923