Format

Send to

Choose Destination
New Phytol. 2018 Nov;220(3):739-749. doi: 10.1111/nph.14505. Epub 2017 Mar 3.

Covariation and phenotypic integration in chemical communication displays: biosynthetic constraints and eco-evolutionary implications.

Author information

1
Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
2
Department of Animal Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), NL-6700, EH Wageningen, the Netherlands.
3
Department of Evolutionary Ecology, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), 28006, Madrid, Spain.
4
Department of Environmental and Biological Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, 70211, Kuopio, Finland.
5
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012, India.
6
German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Halle-Jena-Leipzig/Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Deutscher Platz 5e, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
7
Laboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, PO Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
8
Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Vejlsøvej 25, 8600, Silkeborg, Denmark.
9
Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, 1030, Vienna, Austria.
10
Department of Biochemistry, Max-Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, 07745, Jena, Germany.
11
Department of Crop Production Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7043, S750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
12
Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), University of Amsterdam, 1090 GE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
13
Department of Entomology, Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, 07745, Jena, Germany.
14
Departamento de Ingeniería Genética, CINVESTAV - Irapuato, Irapuato, CP 36821, México.
15
Institute for Neurobiology, Ulm University, Helmholtzstr. 10/1, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
16
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
17
Deptartment of Biology, Lund University, SE 223 62, Lund, Sweden.
18
Nattaro Labs AB, Medicon Village, 223 81, Lund, Sweden.
19
Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Research Group Experimental Ecology and Evolution, 07745, Jena, Germany.
20
Department of Ecology, School of Biology/Chemistry, University of Osnabrück, 49074, Osnabrück, Germany.
21
Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Würzburg University, 97074, Würzburg, Germany.
22
Department of Biology, Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
23
Institute of Zoology, University of Mainz, 55128, Mainz, Germany.
24
Plant Ecology and Evolution, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 75236, Sweden.
25
Department of ECOBIO, IRD, 44 Bd de Dunkerque, 13572, Marseille Cedex 02, France.
26
Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
27
Institute of Zoology, University of Regensburg, Universitätsstraße 31, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
28
Department of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, University of Zürich, Zollikerstrasse 107, 8008, Zürich, Switzerland.
29
Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA.

Abstract

Chemical communication is ubiquitous. The identification of conserved structural elements in visual and acoustic communication is well established, but comparable information on chemical communication displays (CCDs) is lacking. We assessed the phenotypic integration of CCDs in a meta-analysis to characterize patterns of covariation in CCDs and identified functional or biosynthetically constrained modules. Poorly integrated plant CCDs (i.e. low covariation between scent compounds) support the notion that plants often utilize one or few key compounds to repel antagonists or to attract pollinators and enemies of herbivores. Animal CCDs (mostly insect pheromones) were usually more integrated than those of plants (i.e. stronger covariation), suggesting that animals communicate via fixed proportions among compounds. Both plant and animal CCDs were composed of modules, which are groups of strongly covarying compounds. Biosynthetic similarity of compounds revealed biosynthetic constraints in the covariation patterns of plant CCDs. We provide a novel perspective on chemical communication and a basis for future investigations on structural properties of CCDs. This will facilitate identifying modules and biosynthetic constraints that may affect the outcome of selection and thus provide a predictive framework for evolutionary trajectories of CCDs in plants and animals.

KEYWORDS:

biosynthetic constraints; chemical communication; correlation network analysis; floral scents; phenotypic integration; vegetative scents

PMID:
28256726
DOI:
10.1111/nph.14505

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center