Pollinator shifts, contingent evolution, and evolutionary constraint drive floral disparity in Salvia (Lamiaceae): Evidence from morphometrics and phylogenetic comparative methods

Ricardo Kriebel, Bryan Drew, Jesús G. González-Gallegos, Ferhat Celep, Luciann Heeg, Mohamed M. Mahdjoub, Kenneth J. Sytsma

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

41 Scopus citations

Abstract

Switches in pollinators have been argued to be key drivers of floral evolution in angiosperms. However, few studies have tested the relationship between floral shape evolution and switches in pollination in large clades. In concert with a dated phylogeny, we present a morphometric analysis of corolla, anther connective, and style shape across 44% of nearly 1000 species of Salvia (Lamiaceae) and test four hypotheses of floral evolution. We demonstrate that floral morphospace of New World (NW) Salvia is largely distinct from that of Old World (OW) Salvia and that these differences are pollinator driven; shifts in floral morphology sometimes mirror shifts in pollinators; anther connectives (key constituents of the Salvia staminal lever) and styles co-evolved from curved to linear shapes following shifts from bee to bird pollination; and morphological differences between NW and OW bee flowers are partly the legacy of constraints imposed by an earlier shift to bird pollination in the NW. The distinctive staminal lever in Salvia is a morphologically diverse structure that has evolved in concert with both the corolla and style, under different pollinator pressures, and in contingent fashion.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1335-1355
Number of pages21
JournalEvolution
Volume74
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jul 2020

Keywords

  • Bee pollination
  • bird pollination
  • floral shape
  • key innovation
  • staminal lever

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Pollinator shifts, contingent evolution, and evolutionary constraint drive floral disparity in Salvia (Lamiaceae): Evidence from morphometrics and phylogenetic comparative methods'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this