ArticlePeerJ2025
Prepollination barriers prevent gene flow between co-occurring bat-pollinated bromeliads in a montane forest.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reproductive isolation mechanisms in flowering plants are fundamental to preserving species' evolutionary independence and to enabling the local coexistence of closely related species. These reproductive barriers are expected to contribute to maintaining local diversity of highly diverse plant guilds, such as bromeliads in neotropical ecosystems. We evaluated how strong and effective these barriers are by analyzing different mechanisms that act before and after pollination in a guild of four epiphytic bromeliads from the genus Methods: We employed several reproductive isolation indices proposed in the literature to estimate the effect of flowering phenology, floral morphology, interspecific compatibility, production, and viability of hybrid seeds as barriers to gene flow between species pairs. Results: The overall reproductive isolation between species was complete or nearly so. We found that temporal isolation due to different flowering schedules between species significantly contributed to preventing interspecific gene flow. However, flowering data from four reproductive seasons showed interannual variation in the intensity of this temporal barrier due to fluctuations in the species' blooming patterns. For species with overlapping flowering, mechanical isolation caused by differences in flower size and position of reproductive organs was significant, and such differences in flower architecture are thought to influence pollen deposition on different areas of the pollinator's body. Postpollination barriers showed varying intensity, from full to partial interspecific incompatibility. When hybrid progeny was produced, the number of seeds and their germination capacity were lower compared to progeny from intraspecific crosses. Conclusions: Overall, prepollination mechanisms (phenology and floral design) were of great importance to eliminate pollen transfer between species and, when present, postpollination barriers had a redundant effect. Our results contradict previous reports that suggested a weak effect of premating barriers among bromeliad species. Additional studies involving other pollination guilds are required to gain a better understanding of the prevalence of different reproductive isolation mechanisms in the highly diverse Bromeliaceae family.
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.