Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 299, Issue 2, pp 389–401 | Cite as

Stylar polymorphism, reciprocity and incompatibility systems in Nymphoides montana (Menyanthaceae) endemic to southeastern Australia

Original Article

Abstract

Heterostyly is a stylar polymorphism that has been shaped by the evolution of floral characters adapted for efficient pollen transfer. Different types of stylar polymorphism are described in which the discrete characterization of the exact polymorphic type (e.g., distyly vs. stigma-height dimorphism) requires detailed floral measurements (e.g., sex-organ reciprocity). In clonal and aquatic Nymphoides montana, although the presence of two floral morphs that contain styles of two lengths has been previously reported, no studies have quantitatively estimated the level of reciprocity and/or described the stylar condition. Morphological variations and incompatibility relationships were explored between the two morphs in three southeastern Australian populations. In this study, one population is characterized as stigma-height dimorphism (i.e., two morphs with discrete variation in stigma height but little variation in anther height), whereas the other two populations are typical distylous (i.e., two morphs for reciprocal stigma and anther height). Nymphoides montana is dimorphic in a wide range of ancillary characters, including corolla size, stigma size, shape and papillae morphology, and pollen size, number and exine sculpture. Following glasshouse pollinations, full incompatibility systems were observed in the distylous populations, whereas the stigma-height dimorphic population showed between-morph variation in the extent of incompatibility. Despite the variation in sex-organ reciprocity and incompatibility, other lines of evidence appear to assure the maintenance of the stylar polymorphism in the N. montana study populations. All populations are nearly isoplethic (i.e., both morphs in equal frequencies), which is indicative of balanced polymorphisms that appear to be maintained by legitimate pollen transfer between the morphs.

Keywords

Ancillary character Distyly Index of reciprocity Isoplethy Reproductive output Stigma-height dimorphism 

References

  1. Arceo-Gómez G, Martínez ML, Parra-Tabla V, García-Franco JG (2011) Anther and stigma morphology in mirror-image flowers of Chamaecrista chamaecristoides (Fabaceae): implications for buzz pollination. Plant Biol 13:19–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arroyo J, Barrett SCH (2000) Discovery of distyly in Narcissus (Amaryllidaceae). Am J Bot 87:748–751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arroyo J, Barrett SCH, Hidalgo R, Cole WW (2002) Evolutionary maintenance of stigma-height dimorphism in Narcissus papyraceus (Amaryllidaceae). Am J Bot 89:1242–1249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aston HI (1982) New Australian species of Nymphoides Séguier (Menyanthaceae). Muelleria 5:35–51Google Scholar
  5. Australia’s Virtual Herbarium (2007) via Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, Council of Heads of Australian Herbaria, viewed at 10 September 2007. <http://www.cpbr.gov.au/cgi-bin/avh.cgi>
  6. Baker HG (1955) Self-compatibility and establishment after ‘long-distance’ dispersal. Evolution 9:347–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrett SCH (1990) The evolution and adaptive significance of heterostyly. Trends Ecol Evol 5:144–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrett SCH (2002) The evolution of plant sexual diversity. Nat Rev Genet 3:274–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barrett SCH, Husband BC (1990) Variation in outcrossing rate in Eichhornia paniculata: the role of demographic and reproductive factors. Plant Species Biol 5:41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barrett SCH, Morgan MT, Husband BC (1989) The dissolution of a complex polymorphism: The evolution of self-fertilization in tristylous Eichhornia paniculata (Pontederiaceae). Evolution 43:1398–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barrett SCH, Lloyd DG, Arroyo J (1996) Stylar polymorphisms and the evolution of heterostyly in Narcissus (Amaryllidaceae). In: Lloyd DG, Barrett SCH (eds) Floral biology: studies on floral evolution in animal-pollinated plants. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 339–376Google Scholar
  12. Barrett SCH, Jesson LK, Baker AM (2000) The evolution and function of stylar polymorphisms in flowering plants. Ann Bot 85:253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brys R, Jacquemyn H, Hermy M (2007) Impact of mate availability, population size, and spatial aggregation of morphs on sexual reproduction in a distylous, aquatic plant. Am J Bot 94:119–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B (1979) A model for the evolution of distyly. Am Nat 114:467–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cheptou P-O, Schoen DJ (2007) Combining population genetics and demographical approaches in evolutionary studies of plant mating systems. Oikos 116:271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen JI, Litt A, Davis JI (2012) Comparative floral development in Lithospermum (Boraginaceae) and implications for the evolution and development of heterostyly. Am J Bot 99:797–805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cruzan MB, Barrett SCH (1993) Contribution of cryptic incompatibility to the mating system of Eichhornia paniculata (Pontederiaceae). Evolution 47:925–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Darwin C (1877) The different forms of flowers on plants of the same species. John Murray, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Darwin C (1878) The effects of cross and self-fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom (2nd edition). John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. de Castro CC, Araujo AC (2004) Distyly and sequential pollinators of Psychotria nuda (Rubiaceae) in the Atlantic rain forest, Brazil. Plant Syst Evol 244:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dulberger R (1992) Floral polymorphisms and their functional significance in the heterostylous syndrome. In: Barrett SCH (ed) Evolution and function of heterostyly, vol 15. Springer, Berlin, pp 41–84Google Scholar
  22. Dulberger R, Ornduff R (2000) Stigma morphology in distylous and non-heterostylous species of Villarsia (Menyanthaceae). Plant Syst Evol 225:171–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eckert CG, Barrett SCH (1995) Style morph ratios in tristylous Decodon verticillatus (Lythraceae): Selection vs. historical contingency. Ecology 76:1051–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Faivre AE, McDade LA (2001) Population-level variation in the expression of heterostyly in three species of Rubiaceae: does reciprocal placement of anthers and stigmas characterize heterostyly? Am J Bot 88:841–853PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ferrero V, Arroyo J, Vargas P, Thompson JD, Navarro L (2009) Evolutionary transitions of style polymorphisms in Lithodora (Boraginaceae). Perspect Plant Ecol 11:111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferrero V, Castro S, Sánchez J, Navarro L (2011a) Stigma–anther reciprocity, pollinators, and pollen transfer efficiency in populations of heterostylous species of Lithodora and Glandora (Boraginaceae). Plant Syst Evol 291:267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ferrero V, Chapela I, Arroyo J, Navarro L (2011b) Reciprocal style polymorphisms are not easily categorised: the case of heterostyly in Lithodora and Glandora (Boraginaceae). Plant Biol 13:7–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ferrero V, Arroyo J, Castro S, Navarro L (2012) Unusual heterostyly: style dimorphism and self-incompatibility are not tightly associated in Lithodora and Glandora (Boraginaceae). Ann Bot 109:655–665PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fisher RA (1941) The theoretical consequences of polyploid inheritance for the mid style form of Lythrum salicaria. Ann Hum Genet 11:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ganders FR (1979) The biology of heterostyly. N Z J Bot 17:607–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haddadchi A (2008) Floral variation and breeding system in distylous and homostylous species of clonal aquatic Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae). PhD dissertation, University of New England, Armidale NSW AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  32. Jacobs SWL (1992) Menyanthaceae. In: Harden GJ (ed) Flora of New South Wales, vol 3. Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney, pp 506–508Google Scholar
  33. Kearns CA, Inouye DW (1993) Techniques for pollination biologists. University Press of Colorado, NiwotGoogle Scholar
  34. Lloyd DG (1982) Selection of combined versus separate sexes in seed plants. Am Nat 120:571–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lloyd DG, Webb CJ (1986) The avoidance of interference between the presentation of pollen and stigmas in angiosperms I. Dichogamy. N Z J Bot 24:135–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lloyd DG, Webb CJ (1992a) The evolution of heterostyly. In: Barrett SCH (ed) Evolution and function of heterostyly, vol 15. Springer, Berlin, pp 151–178Google Scholar
  37. Lloyd DG, Webb CJ (1992b) The selection of heterostyly. In: Barret SCH (ed) Evolution and function of heterostyly, vol 15. Springer, Berlin, pp 179–208Google Scholar
  38. Naiki A (2012) Heterostyly and the possibility of its breakdown by polyploidization. Plant Species Biol 27:3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ornduff R (1966) The origin of dioecism from heterostyly in Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae). Evolution 20:309–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ornduff R (1986) Comparative fecundity and population composition of heterostylous and non-heterostylous species of Villarsia (Menyanthaceace) in Western Australia. Am J Bot 73:282–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ornduff R (1988) Distyly and monomorphism in Villarsia (Menyanthaceae): some evolutionary considerations. Ann Mo Bot Gard 75:761–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pailler T, Thompson J (1997) Distyly and variation in heteromorphic incompatibility in Gaertnera vaginata (Rubiaceae) endemic to La Reunion Island. Am J Bot 84:315–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pauw A (2005) Inversostyly: a new stylar polymorphism in an oil-secreting plant, Hemimeris racemosa (Scrophulariaceae). Am J Bot 92:1878–1886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pérez-Barrales R, Vargas P, Arroyo J (2006) New evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis of heterostyly: breeding systems and pollinators in Narcissus sect. Apodanthi. New Phytol 171:553–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Price MV, Waser NM (1982) Population structure, frequency-dependent selection, and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Evolution 36:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Richards AJ (1997) Plant breeding systems, vol 2, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Richards JH, Barrett SCH (1992) The development of heterostyly. In: Barrett SCH (ed) Evolution and function of heterostyly, vol 15. Springer, New York, pp 85–128Google Scholar
  48. Richards JH, Koptur S (1993) Floral variation and distyly in Guettarda scabra (Rubiaceae). Am J Bot 80:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rodrigues Faria R, Ferrero V, Navarro L, Araujo A (2012) Flexible mating system in distylous populations of Psychotria carthagenensis Jacq. (Rubiaceae) in Brazilian Cerrado. Plant Syst Evol 298:619–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sánchez JM, Ferrero V, Navarro L (2008) A new approach to the quantification of degree of reciprocity in distylous (sensu lato) plant populations. Ann Bot 102:463–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Satterthwaite FE (1946) An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics Bull 2:110–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, vol 3. W. H Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Thompson JD, Dommee B (2000) Morph-specific patterns of variation in stigma height in natural populations of distylous Jasminum fruticans. New Phytol 148:303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thompson FL, Hermanutz LA, Innes DJ (1998) The reproductive ecology of island populations of distylous Menyanthes trifoliata (Menyanthaceae). Can J Bot 76:818–828Google Scholar
  55. Tippery NP, Les DH (2011) Evidence for the hybrid origin of Nymphoides montana Aston (Menyanthaceae). Telopea 13:285–294Google Scholar
  56. Tippery NP, Les DH, Padgett DJ, Jacobs SWL (2008) Generic circumscription in Menyanthaceae: a phylogenetic evaluation. Syst Bot 33:598–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vaughton G, Ramsey M (2010) Pollinator-mediated selfing erodes the flexibility of the best-of-both-worlds mating strategy in Bulbine vagans. Funct Ecol 24:374–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BotanyUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia
  2. 2.Ecosystem ManagementUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia

Personalised recommendations