ArticleEcology and evolution2021
Do floral and ecogeographic isolation allow the co-occurrence of two ecotypes of
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic analysis of some Astereae (Asteraceae) species by Integrating pollen morphology and molecular evidence.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Synthesis and Scope of the Role of Postmating Prezygotic Isolation in Speciation.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2024Review
- The past, present, and future of ecogeographic isolation between closely relatedEcology and evolution · 2023Article
- The effect of global warming on the Australian endemic orchid Cryptostylis leptochila and its pollinator.PloS one · 2023Article
- Contrasting patterns of genetic and phenotypic divergence of two sympatric congeners,Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Do floral and ecogeographic isolation allow the co-occurrence of two ecotypes ofEcology and evolution · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ecotypes are relatively frequent in flowering plants and considered central in ecological speciation as local adaptation can promote the insurgence of reproductive isolation. Without geographic isolation, gene flow usually homogenizes the allopatrically generated phenotypic and ecological divergences, unless other forms of reproductive isolation keep them separated. Here, we investigated two orchid ecotypes with marked phenotypic floral divergence that coexist in contact zones. We found that the two ecotypes show different ecological habitat preferences with one being more climatically restricted than the other. The ecotypes remain clearly morphologically differentiated both in allopatry and in sympatry and differed in diverse floral traits. Despite only slightly different flowering times, the two ecotypes achieved floral isolation thanks to different pollination strategies. We found that both ecotypes attract a wide range of insects, but the ratio of male/female attracted by the two ecotypes was significantly different, with one ecotype mainly attracts male pollinators, while the other mainly attracts female pollinators. As a potential consequence, the two ecotypes show different pollen transfer efficiency. Experimental plots with pollen staining showed a higher proportion of intra- than interecotype movements confirming floral isolation between ecotypes in sympatry while crossing experiments excluded evident postmating barriers. Even if not completely halting the interecotypes pollen flow in sympatry, such incipient switch in pollination strategy between ecotypes may represent a first step on the path toward evolution of sexual mimicry in Orchidinae.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.