Abstract
Abstract Knowledge of factors driving reproductive isolation is essential to understand the process of speciation. To study the reproductive isolation of two closely related species with overlapping flowering seasons, Iris domestica and Iris dichotoma, we compared their reproductive system, floral biology and pollination biology. The results indicated that I. domestica was facultatively xenogamous, whereas I. dichotoma was facultatively autogamous. Although the two species differed significantly in floral colour, floral diameter, floral structure, nectar volume, flower opening and closing times, they shared the same diurnal pollinator, the honeybee Apis cerana. The frequency of pollination by A. cerana did not differ significantly between the two species, but honeybee pollination of I. domestica was more efficient compared with that of I. dichotoma. Despite the difference in floral structure between the two species, both species deposited pollen on the same parts of the body of honeybees. The temporal partitioning of within-day flowering times between I. domestica (from 07.15 to 08.15 h to 18.00 to 19.00 h) and I. dichotoma (from 15.45 to 16.15 h to 22.00 to 23.00 h), together with the time memory of honeybees, meant that the two species did not overlap in the time of their pollination, thus leading to temporal isolation as a major driver of reproductive isolation between the two species.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 14
Claim · model-written summary
I. domestica was facultatively xenogamous.
- Taxon
- I. domestica
Iris domesticae0 - Outcome
- facultatively xenogamouse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“I. domestica was facultatively xenogamous”
Claim · model-written summary
I. dichotoma was facultatively autogamous.
- Taxon
- I. dichotoma
Iris dichotomae0 - Outcome
- facultatively autogamouse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“I. dichotoma was facultatively autogamous”
Claim · model-written summary
The two Iris species differed significantly in floral colour.
IrisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the two species differed significantly in floral colour, floral diameter, floral structure, nectar volume, flower opening and closing times”
t0“Iris”
Claim · model-written summary
The two Iris species differed significantly in floral diameter.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the two species differed significantly in floral colour, floral diameter, floral structure, nectar volume, flower opening and closing times”
t0“Iris”
Claim · model-written summary
The two Iris species differed significantly in floral structure.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the two species differed significantly in floral colour, floral diameter, floral structure, nectar volume, flower opening and closing times”
t0“Iris”
Claim · model-written summary
The two Iris species differed significantly in nectar volume.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the two species differed significantly in floral colour, floral diameter, floral structure, nectar volume, flower opening and closing times”
t0“Iris”
Claim · model-written summary
The two Iris species differed significantly in flower opening and closing times.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the two species differed significantly in floral colour, floral diameter, floral structure, nectar volume, flower opening and closing times”
t0“Iris”
Claim · model-written summary
Both species shared Apis cerana as a diurnal pollinator.
- Interactor
- Apis cerana
Apis ceranae0pollinator - Outcome
- shared the same diurnal pollinatore0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“they shared the same diurnal pollinator, the honeybee Apis cerana”
t0“Iris”
Claim · model-written summary
Apis cerana pollination frequency did not differ significantly between species.
- Interactor
- A. ceranaApis ceranae0pollinator
- Outcome
- frequency of pollination by A. ceranae0
- Direction
- did not differe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The frequency of pollination by A. cerana did not differ significantly between the two species”
t0“Iris”
Claim · model-written summary
Honeybee pollination was more efficient for I. domestica than I. dichotoma.
- Taxon
- I. domesticaIris domesticae0
- Interactor
- honeybee
_Apis_mellifera_(female)_-_on_viburnum_tinus_flowers.jpg?width=60)
Apis melliferae0pollinator - Outcome
- honeybee pollinatione0
- Direction
- more efficiente0
- Comparator
- I. dichotomae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Apis_mellifera_(female)_-_on_viburnum_tinus_flowers.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“honeybee pollination of I. domestica was more efficient compared with that of I. dichotoma”
Claim · model-written summary
Both Iris species placed pollen on the same honeybee body parts.
- Interactor
- honeybeesApis melliferae0pollinator
- Outcome
- deposited pollen on the same parts of the body of honeybeese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both species deposited pollen on the same parts of the body of honeybees”
t0“Iris”
Claim · model-written summary
I. domestica flowered within the stated daytime window.
- Taxon
- I. domesticaIris domesticae0
- Outcome
- from 07.15 to 08.15 h to 18.00 to 19.00 he0
- Value
- 07.15 to 08.15 h to 18.00 to 19.00 he0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“I. domestica (from 07.15 to 08.15 h to 18.00 to 19.00 h)”
Claim · model-written summary
I. dichotoma flowered within the stated afternoon-to-night window.
- Taxon
- I. dichotomaIris dichotomae0
- Outcome
- from 15.45 to 16.15 h to 22.00 to 23.00 he0
- Value
- 15.45 to 16.15 h to 22.00 to 23.00 he0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“I. dichotoma (from 15.45 to 16.15 h to 22.00 to 23.00 h)”
Claim · model-written summary
Flowering-time partitioning and honeybee time memory produced nonoverlapping pollination and temporal isolation.
- Taxon
- I. domesticaIris domesticae0
- Interactor
- honeybeesApis melliferae0pollinator
- Outcome
- temporal isolatione0
- Qualifier
- time memory of honeybeese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The temporal partitioning of within-day flowering times between I. domestica (from 07.15 to 08.15 h to 18.00 to 19.00 h) and I. dichotoma (from 15.45 to 16.15 h to 22.00 to 23.00 h), together with the time memory of honeybees, meant that the two species did not overlap in the time of their pollination, thus leading to temporal isolation as a major driver of reproductive isolation between the two species.”