Spatial–temporal patterns of flowering asynchrony and pollinator fidelity in hybridizing species of Narcissus
Speciation requires the evolution of reproductive barriers to achieve isolation between species. In this paper, we examine the role of two major pre-zygotic barriers in reducing the chance of F1 hybrid formation between two pairs of Narcissus species. Field experiments were performed over 5 years in eight natural populations to determine whether flowering phenology and pollinator fidelity could act as reproductive isolation barriers in Narcissus. Our results show that reproductive isolation due to flowering phenology is highly variable and asymmetric. In some populations, pollinator fidelity was so strong that the quantification of reproductive isolation was complete and a strong negative correlation was found between the strength of this barrier and the abundance of hybrids. Nevertheless, the degree of pollinator fidelity was quite variable among populations indicating that reproductive isolation varies geographically but very consistent across years indicating that plant-pollinator interactions are well established. In fact, the finding that hybrid formation between these species occurs only in sites where pollinator fidelity is incomplete suggests that hybrid formation also varies geographically and that divergent evolutionary outcomes may occur in different sympatric populations of Narcissus.
KeywordsFlowering asynchrony Pollinator fidelity Pre-zygotic barriers Spatial–temporal patterns Natural hybridization
The authors thank D. Draper, E. Salvado, S. Albano, H. Silva, J. Soler, E. Laguna, P. Pérez, J. Pérez, M.J. Albert for field support, R.G. Albaladejo, M. Alarcón, J. Aldasoro, A. González, J. M. Iriondo, two anonymous referees and M. Vallejo-Marín, Evol. Ecol. Associate Editor, for their useful comments on a previous version of the manuscript, D. Gilson for linguistic assistance. This work has been supported by a PhD-fellowship to I.M. from FCT, Ministério da Ciência e do Ensino Superior, Portugal (SFRH/BD/19053/2004) and a FPVI European-funded Integrated Infrastructure Initiative “SYNTHESYS“(ES-TAF 023-2004).
- Chari J, Wilson P (2001) Factors limiting hybridization between Penstemon spectabilis and Penstemon centranthifolius. Can J Bot 79:1439–1448Google Scholar
- Dobzhansky T (1937) Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Fenster CB, Dudash MR (2001) Spatiotemporal variation in the role of hummingbirds as pollinators of Silene virginica (Caryophyllaceae). Ecology 82:844–851Google Scholar
- Fernandes A (1968) Keys to the identification of native and naturalized taxa of the genus Narcissus L. Daffodil Tulip Year Book 59:37–66Google Scholar
- Hanks GR (2002) Narcissus and daffodil: the genus Narcissus. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Herrera CM, Castellanos MC, Medrano M (2006) Geographical context of floral evolution: towards an improved research programme in floral diversification. In: Harder DH, Barrett SCH (eds) Ecology and evolution of flowers. New York, Oxford, pp 278–294Google Scholar
- Mayr E (1942) Systematics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Meléndez-Ackerman EJ, Campbell DR, Waser NN (1997) Hummingbird behavior and mechanisms of selection on flower color in Ipomopsis. Ecology 78:2532–2541Google Scholar
- Schwarz D, McPheron BA (2007) When ecological isolation breaks down: sexual isolation is an incomplete barrier to hybridization between Rhagoletis species. Evol Ecol Res 9:829–841Google Scholar
- Shmida A, Dafni A (1989) Blooming strategies, flower size and advertisement in the “Lily Group” geophytes of Israel. Herbertia 45:111–123Google Scholar
- Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar