The dynamic mosaic phenotypes of flowering plants

Abstract

Ecological interaction and adaptation both depend on phenotypic characteristics. In contrast with the common conception of the 'adult' phenotype, plant bodies develop continuously during their lives. Furthermore, the different units (metamers) that comprise plant bodies are not identical copies, but vary extensively within individuals. These characteristics foster recognition of plant phenotypes as dynamic mosaics. We elaborate this conception based largely on a wide-ranging review of developmental, ecological and evolutionary studies of plant reproduction, and identify its utility in the analysis of plant form, function and diversification. An expanded phenotypic conception is warranted because dynamic mosaic features affect plant performance and evolve. Evidence demonstrates that dynamic mosaic phenotypes enable functional ontogeny, division of labour, resource and mating efficiency. In addition, dynamic mosaic features differ between individuals and experience phenotypic selection. Investigation of the characteristics and roles of dynamic and mosaic features of plant phenotypes benefits from considering within-individual variation as a functionvalued trait that can be analysed with functional data methods. Phenotypic dynamics and within-individual variation arise despite an individual's genetic uniformity, and develop largely by heterogeneous gene expression and associated hormonal control. These characteristics can be heritable, so that dynamic mosaic phenotypes can evolve and diversify by natural selection.

The role of ontogenetic allometry and nonallometric flower shape variation in species‐level adaptive diversification – Calceolaria polyrhiza (Calceolariaceae) as a case study

“…caeruleus manipulate the flower to access reward (Figure 2b,c), pollination by each of these species would benefit neither from the combination “long OD—large instep” nor from the combination “short OD—small instep.” For this reason, variation in flower size may have not enabled adaptation to different pollinator species. Last but not least, as we argued for the CAC, the selection on flower longevity or on other aspects of flower phenology can also affect corolla size (Harder et al, 2019), thereby diluting the imprints of pollinator selection.…”

“…For this reason, variation in flower size may have not enabled adaptation to different pollinator species. Last but not least, as we argued for the CAC, the selection on flower longevity or on other aspects of flower phenology can also affect corolla size (Harder et al, 2019), thereby diluting the imprints of pollinator selection. Interestingly, the CAC reflects a developmental aspect that appears to be highly conserved not only within C. polyrhiza but also across the Calceolaria genus.…”

“…An alternative interpretation departs from considering flower morphology as optimized for efficient pollination. Imprints of pollinator selection on the CAC may be weak because variation in the allometric slope and other growth parameters are highly influenced by environmental factors other than pollinators, for example, selection on flower longevity (Harder et al, 2019).…”

The ecology, evolution, and genetics of plant reproductive systems

“…Harder et al . (, in this issue pp. 1021–1034) take a novel perspective by embracing the within‐plant phenotypic variation often observed for plant reproductive characteristics and considering the potential ecological and evolutionary consequences of such variation.…”

Lifetime genealogical divergence within plants leads to epigenetic mosaicism in the long-lived shrubLavandula latifolia(Lamiaceae)

“…These include optimizing the exploitation of limiting resources such as light, water or nitrogen (Osada et al ., 2014; Ponce-Bautista et al ., 2017; Mediavilla et al ., 2019), altering the outcome of interactions with animals (Sobral et al ., 2013, 2014; Shimada et al ., 2015; Wetzel et al ., 2016), driving selection on reproductive traits (Austen et al ., 2015; Dai et al ., 2016; Arceo-Gómez et al ., 2017; Kulbaba et al ., 2017), and enhancing tolerance of environmental unpredictability (Tíscar Oliver & Lucas Borja, 2010; Hidalgo et al ., 2016). Because of these ecological effects, subindividual variability can eventually influence the fitness of individuals and become itself a target for natural selection, since plants not only have characteristic trait means but also characteristic trait variances and spatio-temporal patterns of subindividual heterogeneity (Herrera, 2009, 2017; Kulbaba et al ., 2017; Harder et al ., 2019).…”