View in EDS

Insect pollination for most of angiosperm evolutionary history.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Insect pollination for most of angiosperm evolutionary history.
Authors: Stephens, Ruby E.1,2 (AUTHOR) stephenseruby@gmail.com, Gallagher, Rachael V.1,3 (AUTHOR), Dun, Lily2,4 (AUTHOR), Cornwell, Will4 (AUTHOR), Sauquet, Hervé2,4 (AUTHOR)
Source: New Phytologist. Oct2023, Vol. 240 Issue 2, p880-891. 12p.
Subjects: Pollination by insects, Leaf area index, Insect pollinators, Pollination, Angiosperms
Abstract: Summary: Most contemporary angiosperms (flowering plants) are insect pollinated, but pollination by wind, water or vertebrates occurs in many lineages. Though evidence suggests insect pollination may be ancestral in angiosperms, this is yet to be assessed across the full phylogeny. Here, we reconstruct the ancestral pollination mode of angiosperms and quantify the timing and environmental associations of pollination shifts.We use a robust, dated phylogeny and species‐level sampling across all angiosperm families to model the evolution of pollination modes. Data on the pollination system or syndrome of 1160 species were collated from the primary literature.Angiosperms were ancestrally insect pollinated, and insects have pollinated angiosperms for c. 86% of angiosperm evolutionary history. Wind pollination evolved at least 42 times, with few reversals to animal pollination. Transitions between insect and vertebrate pollination were more frequent: vertebrate pollination evolved at least 39 times from an insect‐pollinated ancestor with at least 26 reversals. The probability of wind pollination increases with habitat openness (measured by Leaf Area Index) and distance from the equator.Our reconstruction gives a clear overview of pollination macroevolution across angiosperms, highlighting the long history of interactions between insect pollinators and angiosperms still vital to biodiversity today. See also the Commentary on this article by Renner, 240: 464–465. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of New Phytologist is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:Summary: Most contemporary angiosperms (flowering plants) are insect pollinated, but pollination by wind, water or vertebrates occurs in many lineages. Though evidence suggests insect pollination may be ancestral in angiosperms, this is yet to be assessed across the full phylogeny. Here, we reconstruct the ancestral pollination mode of angiosperms and quantify the timing and environmental associations of pollination shifts.We use a robust, dated phylogeny and species‐level sampling across all angiosperm families to model the evolution of pollination modes. Data on the pollination system or syndrome of 1160 species were collated from the primary literature.Angiosperms were ancestrally insect pollinated, and insects have pollinated angiosperms for c. 86% of angiosperm evolutionary history. Wind pollination evolved at least 42 times, with few reversals to animal pollination. Transitions between insect and vertebrate pollination were more frequent: vertebrate pollination evolved at least 39 times from an insect‐pollinated ancestor with at least 26 reversals. The probability of wind pollination increases with habitat openness (measured by Leaf Area Index) and distance from the equator.Our reconstruction gives a clear overview of pollination macroevolution across angiosperms, highlighting the long history of interactions between insect pollinators and angiosperms still vital to biodiversity today. See also the Commentary on this article by Renner, 240: 464–465. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:0028646X
DOI:10.1111/nph.18993