| Literature DB >> 25433917 |
Chloé E L Delmas1,2,3, Pierre-Olivier Cheptou4, Nathalie Escaravage5,6, André Pornon7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Decreases in mate and/or pollinator availability would be expected to affect the selective pressure on plant mating systems. An increase in self-fertilization may evolve to compensate for the negative effects of pollination failure. However, the benefit of selfing in variable pollination environments depends on the relative fitnesses of selfed and outcrossed progeny. We investigated the potential for selfing to provide reproductive assurance over the lifetime of a long-lived perennial species and its variation between plant patches of various sizes. Patch size is likely to affect mate and pollinator availabilities, thereby affecting pollination success and the rate of selfing. We estimated fruit and seed set, reproductive assurance, self-compatibility, the multilocus patch selfing rate and lifetime inbreeding depression in natural patches of Rhododendron ferrugineum (Ericaceae), a mass-flowering species characterized by considerable patch size variation (as estimated by the total number of inflorescences).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25433917 PMCID: PMC4258271 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-014-0243-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Experimental manipulation for estimating pollination parameters: reproductive assurance (RA) and self-compatibility (SC) estimated with seed sets from four different pollination treatments ( , , and )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|
| Seed set from intact inflorescences allowed to undergo natural pollination | 0.68 | 0.46 - 0.9 |
|
|
| ||||
|
| Seed set from emasculated inflorescences allowed to undergo natural pollination | 0.49 | 0.13 - 0.79 | |
|
| ||||
|
| Proportion of seed production attributable to autogamous self-pollination (including autonomous and facilitated) | 0.27 | −0.15 - 0.86 | |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| Seed set from intact inflorescences outcrossed by hand | 0.71 | 0.40 - 1 |
|
|
| ||||
|
| Seed set from bagged intact inflorescences self-pollinated by hand | 0.5 | 0.31 - 0.80 | |
|
| ||||
|
| Early-acting ID or partial self-incompatibility effect on seed set in selfed flowers | 0.71 | 0.53 - 1 | |
|
| ||||
Patch means, ranges and Tukey-Kramer tests are presented to compare IN vs. EN (reproductive assurance) and IX vs. ISB (self-compatibility). See the Method section for model description and Additional file 1: Table S1 for raw data per patch.
Figure 1Effects of patch floral display on (A) mean seed set per patch for control flower treatment, hes; = −0.037 + 857; green circles; solid line) and emasculated flowers ( treatment, =27 patches; =0.017 +0.406; blue triangles; dashed line) and (B) mean reproductive assurance per patch ( =27 patches; RA =1 - emasculated/control; = −0.035 + 0.304x - 0.348). See Table 1 for methods and statistical comparisons of treatments and Additional file 1: Table S1 for seed sets and pollination parameters per patch.
Mating system estimates (multilocus patch selfing rate, ), Wright’s fixation index ( ) and lifetime inbreeding depression (ID) for 28 patches from the Pyrenees (France) surveyed in 2009
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Patch 1 | 2 | 0.54 | 0.17 | 13 | 0.10 | −0.03/0.16 | 0.81 | 0.44/1.18 c |
| Patch 2 | 3 | 0.73 | 0.16 | 3 | - | - | - | - |
| Patch 3 | 3 | 0.52 | 0.22 | 4 | −0.15 | −0.58/0.10 | 1.24 | −4.81/7.29 |
| Patch 4 | 3 | 0.84 | 0.07 | 17 | 0.05 | −0.09/0.13 | 0.98 | −0.13/2.09 c |
| Patch 5 | 3 | 0.54 | 0.12 | 3 | - | - | - | - |
| Patch 6 | 2 | 0.66 | 0.30 | 2 | - | - | - | - |
| Patch 7 | 4 | 0.70 | 0.05 | 16 | 0.05 | −0.11/0.149 | 0.95 | 0.46/1.45 c |
| Patch 8 | 3 | 0.21 a | 0.29 | 3 | - | - | - | - |
| Patch 9 | 5 | 0.38 | 0.13 | 35 | −0.01 | −0.12/0.08 | 1.03 | 0.75/1.31 |
| Patch 10 | 4 | 0.34 | 0.24 | 20 | 0.07 | −0.06/0.17 | 0.70 | 0.35/1.05 |
| Patch 11 | 4 | 0.52 | 0.22 | 20 | −0.02 | −0.15/0.07 | 1.03 | −0.3/2.36 |
| Patch 12 | 4 | 0.55 | 0.09 | 20 | −0.01 | −0.17/0.10 | 1.01 | 0.07/1.96 |
| Patch 13 | 4 | 0.24 a | 0.26 | 20 | 0.04 | −0.08/0.10 | 0.70 | −0.01/1.42 |
| Patch 14 | 5 | 0.53 | 0.10 | 55 | 0.05 | −0.04/0.11 | 0.91 | 0.58/1.25 |
| Patch 15 | 4 | 0.24 | 0.16 | 20 | 0.00 | −0.13/0.08 | 0.97 | 0.09/1.85 |
| Patch 16 | 4 | 0.24 | 0.21 | 20 | 0.22 b | 0.05/0.33 | −0.43 | −0.48/0.39 d |
| Patch 17 | 3 | 0.73 | 0.43 | 20 | 0.10 b | −0.05/0.19 | 0.92 | 0.18/1.66 |
| Patch 18 | 4 | 0.62 | 0.10 | 20 | 0.06 | −0.09/0.16 | 0.92 | 0.2/1.64 c |
| Patch 19 | 4 | 0.34 | 0.19 | 19 | 0.02 | −0.14/0.11 | 0.94 | −0.19/2.07 |
| Patch 20 | 6 | 0.65 | 0.09 | 20 | 0.09 b | −0.06/0.18 | 0.90 | 0.88/0.92 |
| Patch 21 | 5 | 0.69 | 0.14 | 19 | −0.02 | −0.16/0.04 | 1.03 | −0.69/2.73 |
| Patch 22 | 4 | 0.74 | 0.07 | 19 | 0.01 | −0.12/0.07 | 1.00 | 0.37/1.62 |
| Patch 23 | 4 | 0.66 | 0.17 | 20 | 0.07 | −0.06/0.15 | 0.92 | 0.48/1.35 |
| Patch 24 | 4 | 0.27 | 0.13 | 20 | −0.04 | −0.17/0.02 | 1.21 | 0.01/2.41 |
| Patch 25 | 4 | 0.32 | 0.25 | 30 | 0.03 | −0.09/0.10 | 0.89 | 0.13/1.64 |
| Patch 26 | 3 | 0.34 | 0.14 | 14 | 0.06 | −0.12/0.15 | 0.75 | −0.03/1.53 |
| Patch 27 | 4 | 0.25 | 0.19 | 16 | −0.03 | −0.14/0.01 | 1.17 | 0.08/2.26 |
| Patch 28 | 4 | 0.27 | 0.18 | 14 | −0.02 | −0.16/0.05 | 1.09 | −0.14/2.32 |
Sample sizes (N f: number of families, N i: number individuals), means and standard errors (SE) or 95% confidence intervals (CI) are presented. Patches are classified from the smallest (Patch 1) to the largest patch floral display (Patch 28). Four patches had a small number of individuals (N i), resulting in an irregular bootstrap distribution of F estimates. The estimates of F and ID for these four patches are, therefore, not presented (-). See the Method section for lifetime inbreeding depression calculation.
Abbreviations: t m: multilocus patch outcrossing rates, s m: multilocus patch selfing rates (sm =1 - tm); Nf: number of families; SE: Standard errors; Ni: number of individuals; CI: confidence interval; ID: inbreeding depression; a: patch selfing rate not significantly different from 0 based on 95% confidence intervals. b: F significantly higher than zero (more homozygotes than expected at Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium) based on 95% confidence limits. c: bootstrap distribution of ID values significantly different from 1. d: bootstrap distribution of ID values significantly lower than 0. All other patches had ID values significantly higher than 1.
Figure 2The relationship between estimated levels of self-fertilization in progeny ( =1 − ) and the inbreeding coefficient ( ) of adult individuals in heathland patches. N =24 patches (estimates of F for four patches are not presented because bootstrap distributions were irregular due to the small number of individuals per patch; see Table 2). The solid line shows the expected relationship between s and F in patches at equilibrium (Fe) with no ID (ID =1 − [fitness of selfed progeny/fitness of outcrossed progeny] =0). In the case of ID, data points are below this solid line.
Figure 3Flower and patch structure of . (A) Inflorescence bud. (B) Inflorescence before blooming. (C) Bright red nectariferous tubular flowers with poricidal anther dehiscence. (D) Inflorescence in bloom. (E) Massive floral display. (F) One individual shrub. (G) and (H) are small patches. (I) is a large closed patch.