| Literature DB >> 29075469 |
Marie Voillemot1, John R Pannell1.
Abstract
High inbreeding depression is thought to be one of the major factors preventing evolutionary transitions in hermaphroditic plants from self-incompatibility (SI) and outcrossing toward self-compatibility (SC) and selfing. However, when selfing does evolve, inbreeding depression can be quickly purged, allowing the evolution of complete self-fertilization. In contrast, populations that show intermediate selfing rates (a mixed-mating system) typically show levels of inbreeding depression similar to those in outcrossing species, suggesting that selection against inbreeding might be responsible for preventing the transition toward complete self-fertilization. By implication, crosses among populations should reveal patterns of heterosis for mixed-mating populations that are similar to those expected for outcrossing populations. Using hand-pollination crosses, we compared levels of inbreeding depression and heterosis between populations of Linaria cavanillesii (Plantaginaceae), a perennial herb showing contrasting mating systems. The SI population showed high inbreeding depression, whereas the SC population displaying mixed mating showed no inbreeding depression. In contrast, we found that heterosis based on between-population crosses was similar for SI and SC populations. Our results are consistent with the rapid purging of inbreeding depression in the derived SC population, despite the persistence of mixed mating. However, the maintenance of outcrossing after a transition to SC is inconsistent with the prediction that populations that have purged their inbreeding depression should evolve toward complete selfing, suggesting that the transition to SC in L. cavanillesii has been recent. SC in L. cavanillesii thus exemplifies a situation in which the mating system is likely not at an equilibrium with inbreeding depression.Entities:
Keywords: genetic load; heterosis; mating system; outcrossing; purging; selfing
Year: 2017 PMID: 29075469 PMCID: PMC5648656 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3354
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1(a) Names and localities of the Linaria cavanillesii populations sampled in Spain (SC: self‐compatible population, SI: self‐incompatible population, SI/leaky SI: leaky self‐incompatible population). * indicates populations used for crosses to measure inbreeding depression and heterosis. (b) Pattern of isolation by distance revealed by analysis of microsatellite variation for populations of L. cavanillesii across its range, measured in terms of pairwise F ST. Each dot represents a pair of populations, with gray dots representing distances between SC population and distant populations, and black dots representing distances between SC population and nearby populations. Regression lines are shown for all pairs of populations (full line; Mantel test: p = .06) or pairs of SI populations only (dashed line; Mantel test: p = .002). Data plotted from Voillemot and Pannell (2016)
Summary of statistical results for all the traits measured for 208 plants (nested within 52 maternal families), for one self‐compatible (SC) and one self‐incompatible (SI) population and resulting from hand self‐, and cross‐fertilization within and among populations
| Traits | COV (SC) | BUI (SI) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Seed number | 3, 24.0 | 2.59 | .08 | 3, 18.0 | 4.41 | .02 |
| Seed weight | 3, 23.0 | 1.57 | .22 | 3, 18.0 | 1.08 | .38 |
| Proportion germination | 3 | 39.42 | <.001 | 3 | 15.59 | .001 |
| Days to flowering | 3, 77.0 | 0.30 | .83 | 3, 56.3 | 23.59 | <.001 |
| Flower production | 3, 80.2 | 1.14 | .34 | 3, 39.2 | 1.36 | .27 |
| Growth after nine weeks | 3, 81.5 | 6.43 | <.001 | 3, 81.2 | 5.95 | .001 |
| Flower size | 3, 122.0 | 4.75 | .004 | 3, 96.0 | 2.67 | .05 |
| Nectar quantity | 3, 100.5 | 0.60 | .61 | 3, 59.1 | 5.56 | .002 |
| Nectar quality | 3, 108.5 | 8.28 | <.001 | 3, 79.8 | 1.40 | .25 |
| Flower longevity | 3, 59.0 | 0.97 | .41 | 3, 45.9 | 3.17 | .03 |
| Pollen production | 3, 76.9 | 7.81 | <.001 | 3, 23.0 | 1.45 | .25 |
| Ovule production | 3, 45.1 | 1.75 | .17 | 3, 42.9 | 0.45 | .72 |
| Pollen/ovule ratio | 3, 23.8 | 5.70 | .004 | 3, 19.3 | 1.70 | .2 |
Number of degrees of freedom (df), F‐ratios, and p‐values are reported. * indicates traits that have been analyzed using analysis of variances. Proportion of germination was analyzed using a generalized mixed model (# represents chi‐square test instead of F‐ratios), all other traits were analyzed using random linear models, with block and family treated as random factors. For growth, flower size and nectar measurement, group, temperature, and hygrometry were added as random factors (see text for details). Significant results are highlighted in gray.
Figure 2Comparison of inbreeding depression for different phenotypic traits in one self‐compatible (SC) population and one self‐incompatible (SI) population of Linaria cavanillesii. Values plotted were calculated as the means of per‐family estimates of inbreeding depression. The cumulative fitness index combines the product of traits indicated with a #: proportion of seed germination, plant growth, number of flowers produced at the time of harvest, and average of pollen and ovule production per flower. * indicates significant results after post hoc tests (p < .05)
Figure 3Estimates of heterosis revealed by crosses between different populations of Linaria cavanillesii. The first term describing the crosses corresponds to the maternal plant and the second one to the pollen donor. (a) Heterosis revealed for crosses between geographically distant populations, where one population in the cross was SC (white; DEN ( )—COV ( )) or both populations were SI (gray; DEN ( )—BUI ( )). (b) Heterosis revealed for crosses involving the SC population with a distant SI population (white; COV ( )—BUI ( )) or a nearby SI population (gray; COV ( )—DEN ( )). Plotted values were calculated as the means of per‐family estimates of heterosis. The cumulative fitness index combines the product of traits indicated with a #: seed production, proportion of seed germination, plant growth, number of flowers produced at the time of harvest, and average of pollen and ovule production per flower. * indicates significant results after post hoc tests (p < .05)