Open AccessIntraspecific variation in fruit size and shape in Corema album (Ericaceae) along a latitudinal gradient: from fruits to populations
Author(s) -
Larrinaga Asier R.,
Guitián Pablo
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
biological journal of the linnean society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.906
H-Index - 112
eISSN - 1095-8312
pISSN - 0024-4066
DOI - 10.1111/bij.12794
Subject(s) - intraspecific competition , biology , phenotypic plasticity , variation (astronomy) , range (aeronautics) , trait , population , ecology , ericaceae , bergmann's rule , fructification , latitude , botany , demography , physics , materials science , geodesy , sociology , astrophysics , computer science , geography , composite material , programming language
Plant trait variation can be the result of environmental variability, developmental instability, and plasticity, although it can also arise from previous selective pressures on fruit traits themselves or directly on their variation. We aimed to quantify fruit size and shape variability at within‐plant, among‐plant, among‐population, and among‐year levels. For 2 years, we measured fruit size and shape along the geographical range of Corema album , aiming to determine whether (1) the population level among‐plant variation is lower than within‐plant and among‐population variation and (2) the ratio of within‐plant to among‐plant variation follows a latitudinal pattern. Levels of fruit variation were in accordance with the reported mean levels for reproductive organs. Most variance concentrated on within‐ and among‐individual levels for size, showing higher values for among‐individual variation in fruit shape. Although fruit size retained important variation among populations, this source of variance was negligible for fruit shape. This difference could arise from contrasting mechanical or developmental constraints. Despite the marked climatic differences along the latitudinal range of the species, latitude did not affect the ratio of within‐ to among‐plant variation. We show that an analysis of the often‐disregarded sources of intraspecific variation can produce unexpected results that deserve further investigation.