• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Bowdoin Science Journal

  • Home
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Our Staff
  • Sections
    • Biology
    • Chemistry and Biochemistry
    • Math and Physics
    • Computer Science and Technology
    • Environmental Science and EOS
    • Honors Projects
    • Psychology and Neuroscience
  • Contact Us
  • Fun Links
  • Subscribe

Lex Renkert '27

Orchid Species’ Infidelity Challenges Biological Immutability

May 9, 2024 by Lex Renkert '27

From researchers to botanists, the pervasive method of plant identification has relied heavily on the observation of physical characteristics. The outward appearance of an organism, or phenotype, is determined in large part by genotype, an organism’s genetic makeup (Editors, 2018). Therefore, ecological identifications often go unchallenged, and genotype is assumed based on phenotypic classification. Physical characteristics, such as color or size, are regarded as fundamental to the identity of most species, despite the subjectivity of these observations. Molecular ecologists sought to examine this reality, in conjunction with their analysis of speciation, in their 2023 study focused on East Coast orchids (Evans et al., 2023).

National Geographic defines a species as a “group of organisms that can reproduce naturally with one another and create fertile offspring” (National Geographic Society, 2023). However, this is not always what occurs in the natural world. In rare instances, two individuals of differing species may reproduce, generating progeny that are often sterile: a phenomenon defined as “hybridization”. This study, conducted by Evans et al., investigates a novel case of this cross species reproduction among the Platanthera blephariglottis, Platanthera cristata, and Platanthera ciliaris species. 

Researchers had observed that several Platanthera orchid species often grow in close proximity to each other. In these locations of overlap, plants with distinct characteristics of multiple separate species are present. This has led many to conclude, based on visual classification, that these individuals are hybrids. Historically, crosses between P. blephariglottis and P. christata have been defined as P. x canbyi, while offspring between P. blephariglottis and P. ciliaris have been defined as P. x bicolor (Figure 1). Though the crosses have been assumed based on the intermediate nature of their structures, this tells scientists little about what is happening at the molecular level. As such, they aimed to answer three questions through their work: Are these organisms truly hybrids? Which species cross? Do the genetic results match their phenotypically assigned species?

Figure 1: Orchid crosses between each species, which demonstrate intermediate characteristics between parental phenotypes.

To answer these, researchers ran tests to compare phenotypic classifications with genetic composition. They began by measuring physical characteristics (morphology), such as flower width, and averaging this data among each assigned species identity (Figure 2). DNA samples were then extracted, enabling each plant to be sequenced and sorted based on genetic composition. Overlaying the DNA samples with their paired physical measurements, researchers could see clearly the degree to which their classifications matched a plant’s genetic code. 

Figure 2: Violin plot demonstrating variation in flower morphology. These graphs visually represent the intermediate nature of hybrid phenotypes. Figure adapted from Evans et al.

After performing these tests, researchers found that each species maintained distinct morphological measurements, with the presumed hybrid offspring sorting independently between the appropriate parents. Results also demonstrated that in locations where both parents were not present, the phenotypic intermediaries disappeared. These plants are true hybrids. Yet, this is not to assert that all previous assumptions were found to be flawless. It was also revealed that researchers had genotypically misclassified several samples: many of the plants initially categorized as P. ciliaris were actually P. x bicolor hybrids, and some of the collected plants were either backcrosses (genetic products of a hybrid and pure species) or the offspring of two hybrids.

On the molecular level, they discovered that genes flowed more freely between P. blephariglottis and P. ciliaris, with P. cristata remaining more distinct. There are several potential factors influencing this semipermeable barrier to hybridization, with physical structure and typical pollinators being the most instrumental. Because both P. blephariglottis and P. ciliaris are consistently pollinated by swallowtail butterflies, their cross P. x bicolor is rather common. P. x canbyi, whose parents are only occasionally pollinated by bumblebees, is much less frequent. This distinction in pollination is due to the specialized reproductive structures tailored to each organism, which also act as a barrier to hybridization morphologically.

Hybridization maintains the potential to introduce adaptive genes or advantageous characteristics, but it also has the potential to erode the genetic makeup of a species. Posing a threat to rare or endangered individuals, crossing in this manner comes with the risk of producing an unhelpful or potentially detrimental recombination of alleles. This study demonstrated that phenotypic characteristics are not a reliable form of species identification in the field, and challenges the validity of past ecological research. If phenotype is not a reliable form of identification, how many studies might have been based on an ill informed set of genotypic presumptions? These orchids also defy the dominant definition of a distinct species, as they freely reproduce and cross, creating valid intermediates. By reproducing across species lines, these plants subvert typical notions of biological concreteness and lead us to wonder: how much do we truly know about the natural world?

 

Works Cited

Editors, B. D. (2018, March 27). Genotype vs. Phenotype. Biology Dictionary. https://biologydictionary.net/genotype-vs-phenotype/

Evans, S. A., Whigham, D. F., Hartvig, I., & McCormick, M. K. (2023). Hybridization in the Fringed Orchids: An Analysis of Species Boundaries in the Face of Gene Flow. Diversity, 15(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15030384

National Geographic Society. (2023, October 19). Species. National Geographic. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/species

Filed Under: Science

Invasive Species: Ecological Shapeshifters?

May 2, 2024 by Lex Renkert '27

Watershed reeds of midcoast Maine provide a deeper look into the field of epigenetics

Forests, grasslands, and marshes are ecological battlegrounds. In the fight to hold territory, maintain access to resources, and reproduce, many organisms compete directly to occupy the same niche– the role played by a specific organism in an ecosystem. An organism’s ability to carry out these roles is dictated by its “fitness” or capacity to survive and contribute its genes to the next generation. Naturally, relative reproductive success is incredibly environmentally dependent. Most organisms are tailor-made to thrive within their native habitats via natural selection. However, this biological narrative is challenged by the proliferation of invasive species in competition with their native counterparts. In their 2016 study, Spens and Douhovnikoff argue that epigenetics may be key to understanding ecological invasiveness and that the common reed (Phragmites australis) is “an ideal model species” (Spens & Douhovnikoff, 2016) for studying this rapidly expanding subfield of genetics.

Among other things, greater phenotypic plasticity, or “the ability of individual genotypes to produce different phenotypes when exposed to different environmental conditions” (Fusco & Minelli, 2010), increases an organism’s potential to adjust to its surroundings and occupy a vast variety of niches. This becomes possible through epigenetics.  Epigenetic modifications alter gene expression without changing the underlying DNA sequence (Weinhold, 2006). Methylation, the process by which methyl groups are added to DNA, is the key turning genes “on” and “off” (Menezo et al., 2020). The addition of methyl groups prevents DNA-transcribing proteins from accessing the DNA strand, stopping the gene’s expression as a protein. This has the potential to create significant differences in structural and even cellular function among individuals that are otherwise genetically identical.

Clonal plants provide a unique opportunity to study environmental pressures on epigenetics, as these individuals can act as their own genetic control. Reeds are an excellent example of this: as facultatively clonal plants, they can utilize both sexual and asexual reproduction. Exploiting this integral feature, and the existence of multiple subspecies of reed in midcoast Maine, researchers studied the genomes of both native and invasive reeds in two separate locations, Libby and Webhannet. They addressed two questions: Do introduced subspecies exhibit greater epigenetic variation (indicating that epigenetics plays a role in the success of an invasive species)? And will the variation between subspecies genotypes be lesser than the variation within a single genotype’s epigenetic markers (suggesting that epigenetic variation can be used to adapt to an incredibly variable environment)?

Researchers sought answers by studying clusters of reeds called ramets. Since all the reeds within a ramet were genetically identical, they could selectively measure epigenetic variation. These clones were grown within heterogeneous microhabitats that contain varying combinations of nutrients and conditions. Extracted DNA fragments were compared based on the level of methylation among subspecies, genotype, and ramet.

In both sites, the invasive reed demonstrated greater epigenetic diversity than the native reed (Figure 1). Up to 71% of epigenetic variation at the Webhannet site is attributed to differences among genotypes. These results suggest that clones adjust to the demands of their environments via epigenetics, rather than genotypic adaptation. Flexibility of this kind allows for rapid specialization in response to the hyper-individualized environmental conditions of each ramet. Additionally, each site developed an epigenetic “signature” with both subspecies exhibiting distinct, location specific, morphological characteristics. The significant differences in epigenetic markers between sites hint at the potential for large scale shifts due to epigenetics, should genotype not be a factor in these differences. The distinct characteristics displayed by each species demonstrate the vast alterations necessary to survive in an environment with subtle differences.

Figure 1. Epigenetic markers clustered by species (native, introduced) and location (Libby, Webhannet). Differences within a single genotype were greater than variation between genotypes, particularly for the introduced species. Figure adapted from Spens and Douhovnikoff

While this study was small scale, it supports the position that epigenotype variation provides a strong competitive advantage in the natural world. It also suggests that further study would provide more valuable information about the relevance of epigenetics in ecology. In our rapidly changing environment, due to climate change and other human influences, these native genotypes are in danger of being displaced from their niches. Despite a species’ history with its habitat, subtle alterations can have vast impact on individuals that demonstrate low plasticity or tolerance for change. Introduced organisms who demonstrate more flexible epigenotypes have the potential to outcompete their neighbors, eroding local ecosystems beyond repair. This reality drives ecological research in the direction of epigenetics, not only for the sake of discovery, but also in hopes of protecting species who cannot adapt as quickly as we disrupt.

 

Works Cited

Fusco, G., & Minelli, A. (2010). Phenotypic plasticity in development and evolution: Facts and concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1540), 547–556. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0267

Menezo, Y., Clement, P., Clement, A., & Elder, K. (2020). Methylation: An Ineluctable Biochemical and Physiological Process Essential to the Transmission of Life. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(23), 9311. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21239311

Spens, A., & Douhovnikoff, V. (2016). Epigenetic variation within Phragmites australis among lineages, genotypes, and ramets. Springer International Publishing. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-016-1223

Weinhold, B. (2006). Epigenetics: The Science of Change. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(3), A160–A167.

Filed Under: Biology, Environmental Science and EOS Tagged With: climate change, epigenetics, invasive, reed

Primary Sidebar

CATEGORY CLOUD

Biology Chemistry and Biochemistry Computer Science and Tech Environmental Science and EOS Honors Projects Math and Physics Psychology and Neuroscience Science

RECENT POSTS

  • Floating Systems: Jellyfish and Evolving Nervous Systems May 22, 2025
  • Biological ChatGPT: Rewriting Life With Evo 2 May 4, 2025
  • Unsupervised Thematic Clustering for Genre Classification in Literary Texts May 4, 2025

FOLLOW US

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Footer

TAGS

AI AI ethics Alzheimer's Disease antibiotics artificial intelligence bacteria Bathymetry Beavers Biology brain Cancer Biology Cell Biology Chemistry and Biochemistry Chlorofluorocarbons climate change Computer Science and Tech CRISPR Cytoskeleton Depression dreams epigenetics Ethics Genes honors Luis Vidali Marine Biology Marine Mammals Marine noise Medicine memory Montreal Protocol Moss neurobiology neuroscience Nutrients Ozone hole Plants Psychology and Neuroscience REM seabirds sleep student superintelligence Technology therapy

Copyright © 2025 · students.bowdoin.edu