title: Ancestral deceit and labile evolution of nectar production in the African orchid genus Disa.
abstract: An outstanding feature of the orchid family is that approximately 30-40% of the species have non-rewarding flowers and deploy various modes of deception to attract pollinators, whereas the remaining species engage in pollination mutualisms based on provision of floral rewards. Here, we explore the direction, frequency and reversibility of transitions between deceptive and rewarding pollination systems in the radiation of the large African genus Disa, and test whether these transitions had consequences for diversification. By optimizing nectar production data for 111 species on a well-resolved phylogeny, we confirmed that floral deception was the ancestral condition and that nectar production evolved at least nine times and was lost at least once. Transitions to nectar production first occurred ca 17 million years ago but did not significantly affect either speciation or extinction rates. Nectar evolved independently of a spur, which was lost and gained multiple times. These results show that nectar production can be a highly labile trait and highlight the need for further studies of the genetic architecture of nectar production and the selective factors underlying transitions between deception and mutualism.
authors.affiliation: School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa. johnsonsd@ukzn.ac.za
authors.forename: Steven D
authors.initials: SD
authors.lastname: Johnson
authors.forename: Nina
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Hobbhahn
authors.forename: Benny
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Bytebier
mesh_terms: D005075:Biological Evolution; D029595:Orchidaceae / Q000145:classification / Q000235:genetics / Q000378:metabolism*; D010802:Phylogeny; D057048:Plant Nectar / Q000378:metabolism*
chemical_list: D057048:Plant Nectar
keywords: diversification rates; floral deception; mimicry; nectary; phylogenetic signal; pollination
references.citation: Ann Bot. 2012 Jul;110(1):71-90
references.pmid: 22539542
references.citation: Am J Bot. 1998 Mar;85(3):402
references.pmid: 21684924
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Apr 22;271(1541):803-9
references.pmid: 15255098
references.citation: Syst Biol. 2003 Apr;52(2):131-58
references.pmid: 12746144
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 Sep;20(9):487-94
references.pmid: 16701425
references.citation: Evolution. 1997 Feb;51(1):45-53
references.pmid: 28568792
references.citation: New Phytol. 2009;182(2):533-540
references.pmid: 19210717
references.citation: Br Foreign Med Chir Rev. 1862 Oct;30(60):312-318
references.pmid: 30163543
references.citation: Oecologia. 2006 Feb;147(1):60-8
references.pmid: 16187105
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2013 May;28(5):307-15
references.pmid: 23480953
references.citation: Am J Bot. 1998 Dec;85(12):1657
references.pmid: 21680327
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Jul 22;268(1475):1435-41
references.pmid: 11454285
references.citation: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2006 May;81(2):219-35
references.pmid: 16677433
references.citation: Syst Biol. 2007 Oct;56(5):701-10
references.pmid: 17849325
references.citation: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2007 Apr;43(1):75-90
references.pmid: 17081772