Fluctuating selection by water level on gynoecium colour polymorphism in an aquatic plant.
OBJECTIVE
It has been proposed that variation in pollinator preferences or a fluctuating environment can act to maintain flower colour polymorphism. These two hypotheses were tested in an aquatic monocot Butomus umbellatus (Butomaceae) with a pink or white gynoecium in the field population.


METHODS
Pollinator visitation was compared in experimental arrays of equivalent flowering cymes from both colour morphs. Seed set was compared between inter- and intramorph pollination under different water levels to test the effect of fluctuating environment on seed fertility.


RESULTS
Overall, the major pollinator groups did not discriminate between colour morphs. Compared with the white morph, seed production in the pink morph under intermorph, intramorph and open pollination treatments was significantly higher when the water level was low but not when it was high. Precipitation in July was correlated with yearly seed production in the pink morph but not in the white morph.


CONCLUSIONS
The results indicated that the two colour morphs differed in their tolerance to water level. Our study on this aquatic plant provides additional evidence to support the hypothesis that flower colour polymorphism can be preserved by environmental heterogeneity.
Tang
Xiao-Xin
XX
College of Life Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China.
Huang
Shuang-Quan
SQ
D035961:Alismatales / Q000235:genetics / Q000378:metabolism / Q000502:physiology*; D003116:Color; D035264:Flowers / Q000378:metabolism* / Q000502:physiology; D054817:Pollination / Q000502:physiology*; D012639:Seeds / Q000502:physiology; D014867:Water / Q000378:metabolism
D014867:Water
Evolution. 1995 Oct;49(5):1017-1022
28564870
J Integr Plant Biol. 2008 Sep;50(9):1178-82
18924283
Evolution. 1996 Apr;50(2):957-963
28568918
Am J Bot. 1999 Nov;86(11):1576-96
10562249
Evolution. 2000 Apr;54(2):691-5
10937244
Evolution. 1981 Jul;35(4):763-774
28563131
Am J Bot. 2001 Mar;88(3):447-54
11250822
Mol Ecol. 2003 Feb;12(2):331-44
12535085
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 May 22;98(11):6253-5
11353863
Genetics. 1993 Aug;134(4):1237-47
8375658
Am J Bot. 2005 Jun;92(6):920-30
21652475
Evolution. 2001 Jul;55(7):1269-82
11525452
New Phytol. 2001 Jul;151(1):237-241
33873384
Nature. 2002 Nov 28;420(6914):407-10
12459781
J Evol Biol. 2007 Jan;20(1):122-32
17210005
Evolution. 2007 Nov;61(11):2528-43
17894812
Evolution. 1984 Jul;38(4):796-803
28555829
New Phytol. 2005 Nov;168(2):487-98
16219087
Evolution. 2008 May;62(5):1076-85
18298642
Evolution. 1981 Mar;35(2):376-390
28563376
Mol Ecol. 2003 May;12(5):1113-24
12694276
Evolution. 2001 Jul;55(7):1283-98
11525453
Am J Bot. 2001 Dec;88(12):2204-13
21669653