Abstract

Negative reproductive interactions are likely to be strongest between close relatives and may be important in limiting local coexistence. In plants, interspecific pollen flow is common between co‐occurring close relatives and may serve as the key mechanism of reproductive interference. Agamic complexes, systems in which some populations reproduce through asexual seeds (apomixis), while others reproduce sexually, provide an opportunity to examine effects of reproductive interference in limiting coexistence. Apomictic populations experience little or no reproductive interference, because apomictic ovules cannot receive pollen from nearby sexuals. Oppositely, apomicts produce some viable pollen and can exert reproductive interference on sexuals by siring hybrids. In the Crepis agamic complex, sexuals co‐occur less often with other members of the complex, but apomicts appear to freely co‐occur with one another. We identified a mixed population and conducted a crossing experiment between sexual diploid C. atribarba and apomictic polyploid C. barbigera using pollen from sexual diploids and apomictic polyploids. Seed set was high for all treatments, and as predicted, diploid–diploid crosses produced all diploid offspring. Diploid–polyploid crosses, however, produced mainly polyploidy offspring, suggesting that non‐diploid hybrids can be formed when the two taxa meet. Furthermore, a small proportion of seeds produced in open‐pollinated flowers was also polyploid, indicating that polyploid hybrids are produced under natural conditions. Our results provide evidence for asymmetric reproductive interference, with pollen from polyploid apomicts contributing to reduce the recruitment of sexual diploids in subsequent generations. Existing models suggest that these mixed sexual–asexual populations are likely to be transient, eventually leading to eradication of sexual individuals from the population.

Highlights

  • Understanding the processes that govern the coexistence of close relatives has been a long-time goal of evolutionary biology. Darwin (1859) first proposed that closely related species should have similar traits due to a shared evolutionary history, and this ecological overlap would intensify competitive interactions and limit co-occurrence

  • Tukey’s HSD test showed that while there was no difference between Diploid x diploid treatment (DxD) and diploid x polyploid treatment (DxP) crosses (P = 0.555), open-pollinated (O) crosses had higher seed set than both DxD (P = 0.002) and DxP (P = 0.037), indicating that the experimental crosses may have been pollen limited

  • Comparison of flow cytometry estimates of DNA content of standing individuals against known ranges for diploids and polyploids of these taxa (Sears and Whitton 2016) confirmed that all but one sampled C. atribarba were diploid (2C range: 10.42 –14.53 pg; X = 13.12 Æ 0.38 pg) and that C. barbigera individuals were of high ploidy (~7x–8x; 2C range: 40.83–48.77 pg; X = 45.32 Æ 0.85 pg); a single sample identified as C. atribarba (Fig. 2A, 2C = 27.33 pg) was polyploid

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Understanding the processes that govern the coexistence of close relatives has been a long-time goal of evolutionary biology. Darwin (1859) first proposed that closely related species should have similar traits due to a shared evolutionary history, and this ecological overlap would intensify competitive interactions and limit co-occurrence. Darwin (1859) first proposed that closely related species should have similar traits due to a shared evolutionary history, and this ecological overlap would intensify competitive interactions and limit co-occurrence. This idea, termed the “competition-relatedness hypothesis” (Cahill et al 2008), or “phylogenetic limiting similarity hypothesis” (Violle et al 2011) pervades the literature on species’ co-occurrence, but other processes may prevent the coexistence of close relatives. Kuno’s (1992) model proposes that negative reproductive interactions between species can lead to exclusion much more readily than competition over shared resources.

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call