It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The distribution of cytotypes in mixed-ploidy species is crucial for evaluating ecological processes involved in the establishment and evolution of polyploid taxa. Here, we use flow cytometry and chromosome counts to explore cytotype diversity and distributions within a tetraploid–octoploid contact zone. We then use niche modelling and ploidy seed screening to assess the roles of niche differentiation among cytotypes and reproductive interactions, respectively, in promoting cytotype coexistence. Two cytotypes, tetraploids and octoploids, were dominant within the contact zone. They were most often distributed parapatrically or allopatrically, resulting in high geographic isolation. Still, 16.7 % of localities comprised two or more cytotypes, including the intermediate hexaploid cytotype. Tetraploids and octoploids had high environmental niche overlap and associated with similar climatic environments, suggesting they have similar ecological requirements. Given the geographical separation and habitat similarity among cytotypes, mixed-ploidy populations may be transitional and subject to the forces of minority cytotype exclusion which lead to pure-ploidy populations. However, seed ploidy analysis suggests that strong reproductive barriers may enforce assortative mating which favours stable cytotype coexistence. High cytogenetic diversity detected in the field suggests that unreduced gamete formation and hybridization events seem frequent in the studied polyploid complex and might be involved with the recurrent polyploid formation, governing, as well, the gene flow between cytogenetic entities.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 CFE, Centre for Functional Ecology, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Calçada Martim de Freitas, Coimbra, Portugal
2 CFE, Centre for Functional Ecology, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Calçada Martim de Freitas, Coimbra, Portugal; Botanic Garden of the University of Coimbra, Calçada Martim de Freitas, Coimbra, Portugal
3 CEGOT, Departamento de Geografia e Turismo, Faculdade de Letras, Universidade de Coimbra, Largo da Porta Férrea, Coimbra, Portugal
4 Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada