You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Coevolution and Divergence in the Joshua Tree/Yucca Moth Mutualism
William Godsoe, Jeremy B. Yoder, Christopher Irwin Smith and Olle Pellmyr
The American Naturalist
Vol. 171, No. 6 (June 2008), pp. 816-823
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/587757
Page Count: 8
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Pollinating insects, Moths, Coevolution, Plants, Pollination, Species, Phenotypic traits, Canals, Mutualism, Evolution
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Abstract: Theory suggests that coevolution drives diversification in obligate pollination mutualism, but it has been difficult to disentangle the effects of coevolution from other factors. We test the hypothesis that differential selection by two sister species of pollinating yucca moths (Tegeticula spp.) drove divergence between two varieties of the Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) by comparing measures of differentiation in floral and vegetative features. We show that floral features associated with pollination evolved more rapidly than vegetative features extrinsic to the interaction and that a key floral feature involved in the mutualism is more differentiated than any other and matches equivalent differences in the morphology of the pollinating moths. A phylogenetically based, ancestral states reconstruction shows that differences in moth morphology arose in the time since they first became associated with Joshua trees. These results suggest that coevolution, rather than extrinsic environmental factors, has driven divergence in this obligate pollination mutualism.
© 2008 by The University of Chicago.