Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26078854›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2015

Separation in flowering time contributes to the maintenance of sympatric cryptic plant lineages.

Stefan G Michalski, Walter Durka

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stefan G MichalskiDepartment of Community Ecology (BZF), Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research UFZ Theodor-Lieser-Strasse 4, Halle, D-06120, Germany.
Walter DurkaDepartment of Community Ecology (BZF), Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research UFZ Theodor-Lieser-Strasse 4, Halle, D-06120, Germany.
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sympatric cryptic lineages are a challenge for the understanding of species coexistence and lineage diversification as well as for management, conservation, and utilization of plant genetic resources. In higher plants studies providing insights into the mechanisms creating and maintaining sympatric cryptic lineages are rare. Here, using microsatellites and chloroplast sequence data, morphometric analyses, and phenological observations, we ask whether sympatrically coexisting lineages in the common wetland plant Juncus effusus are ecologically differentiated and reproductively isolated. Our results show two genetically highly differentiated, homoploid lineages within J. effusus that are morphologically cryptic and have similar preference for soil moisture content. However, flowering time differed significantly between the lineages contributing to reproductive isolation and the maintenance of these lineages. Furthermore, the later flowering lineage suffered less from predispersal seed predation by a Coleophora moth species. Still, we detected viable and reproducing hybrids between both lineages and the earlier flowering lineage and J. conglomeratus, a coexisting close relative. Flowering time differentiation between the lineages can be explained by neutral divergence alone and together with a lack of postzygotic isolation mechanisms; the sympatric coexistence of these lineages is most likely the result of an allopatric origin with secondary contact.

Indexed as

Allochronic isolationchloroplast DNAcryptic specieshaplotype sharinghybridizationpredispersal seed predation

Identifiers

PMID26078854
PMCPMC4461419
OpenAlexW1531452167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.