The evolution of postpollination reproductive isolation in Costus
- 727 Downloads
Reproductive isolation is critical to the diversification of species. Postpollination barriers may be important in limiting gene flow between closely related species, but they are relatively cryptic and their evolution is poorly understood. Here, we review the role of postpollination reproductive isolation in plants, including the various stages at which it operates and the hypotheses for how it may evolve. We then review empirical studies in the plant genus Costus, evaluating documented postpollination barriers in light of these hypotheses. We summarize isolation due to parental style length differences and present evidence supporting the hypothesis that the differences are in part a by-product of selection on floral morphology. Additionally, we show that reduced pollen adhesion, germination, and tube growth contribute to reproductive isolation between two closely related sympatric species of Costus. Geographic variation in the strength of these crossing barriers supports the hypothesis that they evolved under reinforcement, or direct natural selection to strengthen isolation.
KeywordsPostpollination Reproductive isolation Costus Reinforcement
“The simplest and best known case of prepotent action in pollen… is that of a plant’s own pollen over that from a distinct species.” – Charles Darwin 1876 p. 391
A highly coordinated set of mechanisms determine successful fertilization. In plants, these mechanisms include pollen adhesion, hydration, tube elongation, and tube navigation of the pollen tube to the ovule (reviewed in Swanson et al. 2004). Multiple genes, in both the pollen and pistil affect the success of these stages. These molecular mechanisms can evolve to be species specific (Zinkl et al. 1999) and thus can contribute to reproductive isolation between lineages and play an important role in speciation. Pollen–pistil interactions therefore have evolutionary implications for the maintenance and diversification of species (Williams 2008).
Reproductive isolation is a key component of speciation, and it is a central goal of evolutionary biology to understand the types of isolating mechanisms functioning in nature and the processes by which they evolve. When species are geographically isolated, evolutionary divergence should lead to reproductive isolation over time (Mayr 1947), but the identity and strength of reproductive barriers varies (Coyne and Orr 1989, 1997). Reproductive barriers function at different stages. Premating barriers include spatial, temporal, behavioral, and mechanical barriers, whereas postmating barriers, or postpollination barriers in plants, include interactions between sperm or pollen and the female reproductive tract (Mayr 1963; Grant 1981). Throughout this paper, we use the terms postmating and postpollination to refer to barriers that occur prior to fertilization. Finally, there are postzygotic barriers to gene flow that include zygote abortion, hybrid inviability, infertility, and reduced competitive ability (Dobzhansky 1937; Schluter 2000). Much speciation research has focused on understanding the evolution of postzygotic hybrid inviability and infertility, or alternatively, the evolution of striking premating barriers such as divergent mating signals in male animals or pollination syndromes in plants (Coyne and Orr 2004). In contrast, postmating barriers may be relatively cryptic and underappreciated as significant factors in speciation.
In plants, numerous postpollination reproductive barriers have been described that result in varying degrees of reproductive isolation (reviewed in Grant 1981; Howard 1999). Darwin was one of the first to describe these barriers. He conducted experiments in which he pollinated plants with heterospecific pollen and quantified fertilization success. In many instances, he found that heterospecific pollen set fewer seed than conspecific pollen, and that heterospecific pollen was even less successful when mixed pollen loads were applied to the stigma (Darwin 1876). More recently, postmating isolation through conspecific sperm or pollen precedence has been found to contribute to overall reproductive isolation in both animal and plant systems, including ladybirds in northern Japan (Nakano 1985), grasshoppers in the Pyrenees (Bella et al. 1992), irises in Louisiana (Carney et al. 1996), and sunflowers in the central United States (Rieseberg et al. 1995).
Conspecific pollen precedence in mixed pollinations can result from greater pollen adherence to the stigma, greater germination rates, or faster pollen tube growth rates of conspecific pollen (reviewed in Howard 1999). The growth rate of heterospecific pollen tubes may be hindered by the foreign pistil or may be inherently slower, causing them to reach the ovary only after the faster growing conspecific pollen has already achieved fertilization. In the Louisiana irises, conspecific pollen precedence has been attributed to faster pollen tube growth rates; however, if heterospecific pollen is given a head start to overcome the slow pollen tube growth rate, fertilization success increases (Arnold et al. 1993; Carney et al. 1996). The lack of hybrid formation in artificial crosses of Hibiscus can be explained in large part by differences in pollen tube growth rate (Klips 1999).
Pollen attrition, defined as the cessation of tube growth prior to reaching the ovule, can also function to isolate taxa (Perez and Moore 1985; Lee et al. 2008) and has been most frequently documented in crosses where there is a mismatch in parental style length. Pollen from long-styled plants can often pollinate a shorter-styled plant, yet pollen from short-styled plants often lacks the ability to grow the required distance on a long-styled plant. Attrition has been shown to be a significant cause of reduced artificial hybridization success in Prunus (Perez and Moore 1985), Rhododendron (Williams and Rouse 1988), and Nicotiana (Lee et al. 2008). Yet these examples do not address the importance of pollen attrition as an isolating mechanism in natural populations.
Generalized predictions about the relative importance of postpollination barriers are difficult to make. If premating barriers are weak and pollen transfer regularly occurs between closely related species, postpollination barriers may be critical in preventing hybridization and allowing coexistence. For example, Wolf et al. (2001) found asymmetrical pollen transfer based on pollen placement on the shared hummingbird pollinator in the Ipomopsis aggregata species complex. In this case, birds move pollen from I. arizonica to the stigma of I. aggregata, but the pollen performs poorly and has low fertilization success. Artificial pollinations in the opposite direction show that I. aggregata pollen performs well on I. arizonica, but this transfer is rare in nature (Wolf et al. 2001). Scopece et al. (2007) tested the relative importance of postpollination and postzygotic barriers using two different categories of deceptive orchids, those with highly specific pollination systems and those with more generalized pollination systems. They hypothesized that orchids with generalized pollination are more likely to experience pollen transfer in nature and should therefore have stronger postpollination barriers than orchids with specialized pollination systems for which heterospecific pollen transfer is less likely. While this pattern was supported by their analysis, there was no assessment made of actual pollen transfer, and the clades of generalists and specialists were of vastly different ages, making comparisons tenuous (Sobel and Randle 2009).
Understanding the ways in which postpollination reproductive isolation evolves is critical in understanding the contribution of this mode of isolation to speciation in nature. There are three major hypotheses for the evolution of postpollination isolation. Postpollination reproductive isolation can evolve as (1) an incidental consequence of divergence in other traits such as floral morphology, adaptations to environmental conditions, or pathogen defense, (2) an incidental consequence of evolution of the mate recognition system within populations, or (3) the result of reinforcement. Here, we briefly review these hypotheses and discuss how they might be distinguished from one another.
Postpollination reproductive isolation may evolve as a consequence, through pleiotropy or linkage, of selection on other morphological or physiological traits. For example, selection for traits associated with pollinators may actively drive divergence between the pistils of different populations. Grant (1966) proposed that postpollination isolation has evolved between coastal and desert races of Gilia ochroleuca as a by-product of adaptation for insect pollination and autogamy, resulting in style length divergence. Traits that diverge as the result of character displacement may result in a similar pattern. While there is currently little evidence to suggest that defenses against pathogens have contributed to reproductive isolation in plants, pathogen defense has been implicated in the hostility of the female reproductive tract in birds (Sheldon 1993). If the evolution of gametes and the female reproductive tract is being driven by pathogen defense, extensive intraspecific variation in defense proteins is expected (Figueroa et al. 1988). Searcy and MacNair (1990) have shown that edaphic adaptation can affect the pistil in such a way as to prevent hybridization. They demonstrated that Mimulus guttatus grown under high copper concentrations have inhospitable pistils that prevent the germination of pollen from copper-sensitive populations but not from copper-tolerant populations.
Postpollination isolation may also evolve as the result of intraspecific evolution of pollen–pistil recognition. Differences in the pollen and pistil can result from sexual conflict, sexual selection, or facilitative interactions between the male gametophyte and pistil. Sexual conflict arises when a beneficial trait evolves in one sex that has a harmful effect on the other (Linder and Rice 2005). Each sex evolves counter adaptations over time and a coevolutionary arms race ensues between the sexes resulting in rapid divergence between lineages (Gavrilets 2000; Swanson and Vacquier 2002a, b). As an example of sexual conflict, manipulative pollen traits can change the timing of stigma receptivity in Collinsia heterophylla, which ultimately resulted in lower seed set (Lankinen and Kiboi 2007). Indications of strong positive selection on reproductive proteins in both plants and animals suggest that sexual conflict and sexual selection may be driving rapid divergence and species specificity in postmating mechanisms, yet direct tests of these hypotheses remain difficult (Clark et al. 2006). Isolation can occur whenever populations adapt to local pollen–pistil conditions regardless of whether they are antagonistic or facilitative. These three processes may lead to rapid evolution within a lineage and, incidentally, isolation between lineages.
Finally, there may be direct natural selection for postpollination reproductive barriers if pollen transfer results in the production of less fit hybrids, a process known as reinforcement (Dobzhansky 1940; Grant 1965). Under reinforcement, selection favors those individuals that do not waste gametes on inferior hybrid offspring. Reinforcement remains a highly controversial concept in evolutionary biology (Coyne and Orr 2004) because of the theoretical difficulty of evolving isolation in the face of gene flow and the paucity of strong empirical examples (reviewed in Butlin 1987; Noor 1999; Servedio and Noor 2003). As a precondition for reinforcement to act on postpollination barriers, taxa must be sympatric, pollen transfer must occur, and hybrids must have reduced fitness. If reinforcement is responsible for the evolution of postpollination barriers, one should observe a difference in barrier strength between sympatric and allopatric populations of a species pair.
These three hypotheses are not mutually exclusive of one another and may function in concert to produce significant isolation in nature. It is possible to imagine a situation in which selection pressures act on floral morphology, soil relations, male–female interactions, and hybrid fitness, all of which may contribute to the evolution of postpollination isolation. While many studies have documented postpollination isolation in natural systems, little work has been done to identify or distinguish between the underlying evolutionary causes of these barriers.
The neotropical genus Costus presents a unique study system for identifying the causes and consequences of postpollination barriers between closely related taxa. There are multiple cases of floral adaptation to different pollinators in the genus, allowing us to address the hypothesis that postpollination reproductive barriers may evolve as an incidental consequence of selection on morphological or physiological traits. We test for correlations between changes in floral morphology and changes in style length, which have been found to contribute to isolation between taxa, while controlling for phylogenetic relatedness. Additionally, for one species pair that experiences pollen transfer in nature, we review crossing results from multiple geographically dispersed populations in order to evaluate the importance of reinforcement in driving the evolution of postpollination barriers (Maas 1972, 1977). We therefore use Costus to explore the following questions: Does adaptation to different pollinator assemblages confer postpollination isolation as a by-product of selection? What form do postpollination barriers take between closely related species in nature? Do postpollination barriers show evidence of reinforcement?
The study system
Costus is a genus of herbaceous understory monocots that represents a recent radiation in Central and South America (>50 species in ~5 million years; Kay et al. 2005). Through monographic work (Maas 1972, 1977) and field studies (Schemske 1981; Kay and Schemske 2003; Kay 2006), we have a good understanding of whether pollen transfer is possible or actively occurring between pairs of species in nature. Each species is specialized for pollination by either hummingbirds or orchid bees, and these differences serve as effective premating barriers for sympatric species (Kay and Schemske 2003). Flowers of bee-pollinated Costus have a large, pale labellar tube with a distinct white or yellow limb, the lateral lobes of which are often striped with red or purple. Hummingbird-pollinated species have flowers with a narrow, tubular, and often short labellum without an attached limb, and the labellum and floral bracts are yellow, orange, or red. We use repeated evolutionary shifts between these floral syndromes to explore the role of floral adaptation to pollen–pistil mismatch in interspecific crosses.
In addition to exploring the contribution of pollination-syndrome shifts to the evolution of postpollination barriers, we evaluate the hypothesis of reinforcement between two closely related species, C. pulverulentus and C. scaber, which are sympatric throughout much of Central and northwestern South America. These species share their primary pollinator (Phaethornis longirostris) and experience some pollen transfer, but hybrids are rarely found in nature (Kay 2006).
Postpollination barriers as a by-product of selection
What drives the evolution of style length? One possibility is that transitions to new pollinators involve adaptive changes in floral length. These changes could then contribute to postpollination isolation through parental style length mismatch. Across the genus, there have been numerous transitions to bird pollination from bee-pollinated ancestors (Kay et al. 2005). The orchid bees that visit Costus flowers typically land on the limb of the labellum and crawl inside a large floral chamber, whereas the hummingbirds hover in front of the flower and insert their bills into a narrow floral tube (Kay and Schemske 2003). We therefore asked whether these transitions from bee to bird pollination are associated with consistent shortening in flower length.
We first estimated phylogenetic relationships in the genus using DNA sequence data (ITS and ETS), and then reconstructed the history of both pollination syndromes and floral length measures. To estimate the phylogeny, we used the data from Kay et al. (2005) and added six taxa that became available subsequently (GenBank accession numbers AY972877–AY973004, AY994750, AY994752, AY994730, AY994731, AY994746, GQ294458–GQ294467). All methods for sequencing and phylogeny estimation were as detailed in Kay et al. (2005), except here we used MrBayes v3.1.2 (Huelsenbeck and Ronquist 2001). We searched for 10 million generations, sampled results every 10,000 generations, and discarded 25% as burn-in. Pollination-syndrome classifications, and corolla length were taken from Maas (1972, 1977) or when possible, were measured on live plants in the greenhouse. Although style length was not recorded in monographic descriptions, measures of corolla length are strongly correlated with style length for the plants measured in the greenhouse (N = 14 species, R2 = 0.66, P < 0.001).
Postpollination barriers as the result of reinforcement
In certain situations, postpollination reproductive barriers play an important role in isolating taxa. Known mechanisms of postpollination isolation include lower adhesion and germination rates, slower pollen tube growth rates, and pollen tube attrition. While many studies have documented these mechanisms operating in experimental crosses, few have documented the role they play in nature when other reproductive barriers may be functioning at different stages. Even fewer studies, especially in plant systems, have attempted to address the evolutionary origins of postmating isolating mechanisms.
Using the genus Costus, we have documented numerous postpollination barriers that result in low interspecific seed set. In 26 crosses of known style length, there is a marked decrease in seed set when paternal style length is shorter than maternal style length, suggesting pollen tube attrition. A detailed examination of crosses between C. pulverulentus and C. scaber reveals that other postpollination barriers are functioning. In this case, the disadvantage of heterospecific pollen is due to differences in adhesion, germination rates, and slower pollen tube growth rate, all of which contribute to the lack of hybrids observed in nature. Alternatively, when we hand-pollinate C. pulverulentus with C. scaber pollen, a transfer that does not happen in nature, we find no difference in adhesion or germination success, but pollen tube attrition occurs in the longer style of C. pulverulentus. This study contributes to a body of evidence indicating that postpollination barriers may be important in inhibiting hybridization between taxa experiencing pollen transfer in nature.
Using this knowledge of postpollination barriers, we have attempted to address two of the three hypotheses for how they might evolve. We find evidence throughout the genus that postpollination barriers may arise as an incidental consequence of adaptive changes in floral morphology, an idea originally proposed by Grant (1966). Grant (1965) also proposed that postpollination barriers in plants might evolve as the result of reinforcement, or direct natural selection for reproductive isolation. Within the leafy-stemmed gilias, Grant found strong incompatibility barriers between sympatric taxa, whereas allopatric taxa crossed easily. However, Grant lacked information on phylogenetic relatedness and the prevalence of interspecific pollen transfer in nature. In contrast, with Costus we are able to show that strong postpollination barriers function between closely related species in the face of substantial sympatric pollen transfer by shared pollinators. With crosses from across a geographic range, we find evidence that reinforcement has led to the evolution of postpollination barriers between locally sympatric populations of C. pulverulentus and C. scaber, and we are able to detail the mechanisms responsible for isolation. The results summarized here suggest that reinforcement may indeed play an important role in causing postpollination barriers.
As postpollination barriers are studied in more plant taxa, we likely will find more cases in which they are critical in the isolation and coexistence of species. This area of research is exciting because it reveals a whole suite of traits in both male and female plant structures that can function to isolate species in the face of pollen transfer. Currently, with so few well-documented examples of postpollination isolation in nature, it is difficult to make predictions regarding when postpollination barriers are likely to function and how they may arise. In order to increase our understanding of postpollination reproductive isolation, we must continue to characterize the mechanisms conferring isolation. Molecular biologists are quickly elucidating the molecular mechanisms responsible for species-specific fertilization (Howard 1999; reviewed in Swanson et al. 2004) allowing a greater understanding of the genetic basis of these barriers. When we fuse our understanding of the molecular mechanisms with the evolutionary implications of reduced gene flow, we will have a greater understanding of how species are formed and maintained.
We thank D. Schemske, R. Olmstead, and P. Reeves for their contributions to the work reviewed here, and J. Bahr, M. Prince, A. Louthan, and M. Grabiel for helpful comments on the manuscript. Our studies of Costus have been funded by grants and fellowships from the Organization for Tropical Studies, the National Science Foundation, and the Garden Club of America.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
- Arnold ML, Hamrick JL, Bennett BD (1993) Interspecific pollen competition and reproductive isolation in Iris. J Hered 84:13Google Scholar
- Bella JL, Butlin RK, Ferris C, Hewitt GM (1992) Asymmetrical homogamy and unequal sex ratio from reciprocal mating-order crosses between Chorthippus parallelus subspecies. Heredity 68:345–352Google Scholar
- Carney SE, Hodges SA, Arnold ML (1996) Effects of differential pollen-tube growth on hybridization in the Louisiana irises. Evol Int J org Evol 50:1871–1878Google Scholar
- Coyne JA, Orr HA (1989) Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evol Int J org Evol 43:362–381Google Scholar
- Coyne JA, Orr HA (1997) “Patterns of speciation in Drosophila” revisited. Evol Int J org Evol 51:295–303Google Scholar
- Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
- Darwin C (1876) The effects of cross and self fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Dobzhansky T (1937) Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
- Grant V (1981) Plant speciation. Columbia University Press, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
- Kay KM (2006) Reproductive isolation between two closely related hummingbird pollinated neotropical gingers. Evol Int J org Evol 60:538–552Google Scholar
- Kay KM, Schemske DW (2003) Pollinator assemblages and visitation rates for 11 species of neotropical Costus (Costaceae). Biotropica 35:198–207Google Scholar
- Kay KM, Schemske DW (2008) Nature selection reinforces speciation in a radiation of neotropical rainforest plants. Evol Int J org Evol 62:2628–2642Google Scholar
- Maas PJM (1972) Costoideae (Zingiberaceae). Flora Neotropica. Monograph No. 8. Hafner, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
- Maas PJM (1977) Renealmia (Zingiberaceae-Zingiberoideae), Costoideae (Additions)(Zingiberaceae). Flora Neotropica. Monograph No. 18. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
- Maddison WP, Maddison DR (2009) Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 2.6 http://mesquiteproject.org
- Mayr E (1947) Ecological factors in speciation. Evol Int J org Evol 1:263–288Google Scholar
- Mayr E (1963) Animal species and evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
- Nakano S (1985) Effect of interspecific mating on female fitness in two closely related ladybirds (Henosepilachna). Kontyu 53:112–119Google Scholar
- Perez S, Moore JN (1985) Prezygotic endogenous barriers to interspecific hybridization in Prunus. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 100:267–273Google Scholar
- Rieseberg LH, Desrochers AM, Youn SJ (1995) Interspecific pollen competition as a reproductive barrier between sympatric species of Helianthus (Asteraceae). Am J Bot 51:5–519Google Scholar
- Schluter D (2000) The ecology of adaptive radiation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Scopece G, Musacchio A, Widmer A, Cozzolino S (2007) Patterns of reproductive isolation in mediterranean deceptive orchids. Evol Int J org Evol 61:2623–2642Google Scholar
- Searcy KB, Macnair MR (1990) Differential seed production in Mimulus guttatus in response to increasing concentrations of copper in the pistil by pollen from copper tolerant and sensitive sources. Evol Int J org Evol 44:1424–1435Google Scholar
- Sheldon BC (1993) Sexually transmitted disease in birds: occurrence and evolutionary significance. Pharm Unserer Zeit 339:491–497Google Scholar
- Sobel JM, Randle AM (2009) Comparative approaches to the evolution of reproductive isolation: a comment on Scopece et al. 2007. Evol Int J org Evol 63:2201–2204Google Scholar