ArticleAmerican journal of botany2022
Evolvability and constraint in the evolution of three-dimensional flower morphology.
Article in American journal of botany, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A resurrection experiment reveals reduced adaptive potential in a common agricultural weed.Evolution letters · 2026Article
- Phylogenetic Constraints and Environmental Filtering Jointly Drive Adaptive Evolution inEcology and evolution · 2026Article
- New QTLs involved in the control of stigma position in tomato.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- A functional view of flower-pollinator trait matching. A commentary on 'Mismatching explained: constricted corolla tubes in Roscoea elevate the nectar'.Annals of botany · 2023Article
- Evolvability and constraint in the evolution of three-dimensional flower morphology.American journal of botany · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
premiseFlower phenotypes evolve to attract pollinators and to ensure efficient pollen transfer to and from the bodies of pollinators or, in self-compatible bisexual flowers, between anthers and stigmas. If functionally interacting traits are genetically correlated, response to selection may be subject to genetic constraints. Genetic constraints can be assessed by quantifying standing genetic variation in (multivariate) phenotypic traits and by asking how much the available variation is reduced under specific assumptions about phenotypic selection on functionally interacting and genetically correlated traits.
methodsWe evaluated multivariate evolvability and potential genetic constraints underlying the evolution of the three-dimensional structure of Dalechampia blossoms. First, we used data from a greenhouse crossing design to estimate the G matrix for traits representing the relative positions of male and female sexual organs (anthers and stigmas) and used the G matrix to ask how genetic variation is distributed in multivariate space. To assess the evolutionary importance of genetic constraints, we related standing genetic variation across phenotypic space to evolutionary divergence of population and species in the same phenotypic directions.
resultsEvolvabilities varied substantially across phenotype space, suggesting that certain traits or trait combinations may be subject to strong genetic constraint. Traits involved functionally in flower-pollinator fit and autonomous selfing exhibited considerable independent evolutionary potential, but population and species divergence tended to occur in phenotypic directions associated with greater-than-average evolvability.
conclusionsThese results are consistent with the hypothesis that genetic constraints can hamper joint trait evolution towards optimum flower-pollinator fit and optimum self-pollination rates.
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.