Article

Hawkmoth Pollinators Decrease Seed Set of a Low-Nectar Petunia axillaris Line through Reduced Probing Time.

Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Altenbergrain 21, 3013 Bern, Switzerland; Institute of Biology, University of Neuchâtel, Emile Argand 13, 2009 Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Current biology: CB (Impact Factor: 10.99). 07/2012; 22(17):1635-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.06.058
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although deception of floral pollinators is well known among orchids [1, 2], the majority of animal-pollinated plants secure pollination by nectar rewards. The costs and benefits of nectar production remain poorly understood [3-5]. Here, we developed a crossing design to introgress a low-nectar-volume locus of Petunia integrifolia into the genetic background of P. axillaris. The resulting introgression line resembled P. axillaris but produced only one-third of the nectar volume. When exposed simultaneously to low-nectar and wild-type P. axillaris plants, hawkmoth pollinators reduced their probing duration on low-nectar plants but otherwise did not show any signs of discrimination against these plants. However, reduced probing duration resulted in reduced seed production in the low-nectar plants despite their higher reproductive potential as evidenced by hand pollination. In line with this interpretation, we found a positive correlation between probing duration and seed set, and hawkmoth pollination of low-nectar plants that were manually supplemented with nectar to parental levels yielded seed sets similar to hand pollination. Thus, a simple self-serving pollinator behavior-the adjustment of probing time in response to nectar volume-may select against reducing nectar and protect many plant-pollinator mutualisms against a drift toward parasitism. VIDEO ABSTRACT:

1 Bookmark
 · 
140 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most flowering plants rely on pollinators for their reproduction. Plant-pollinator interactions, although mutualistic, involve an inherent conflict of interest between both partners and may constrain plant mating systems at multiple levels: the immediate ecological plant selfing rates, their distribution in and contribution to pollination networks, and their evolution. Here, we review experimental evidence that pollinator behaviour influences plant selfing rates in pairs of interacting species, and that plants can modify pollinator behaviour through plastic and evolutionary changes in floral traits. We also examine how theoretical studies include pollinators, implicitly or explicitly, to investigate the role of their foraging behaviour in plant mating system evolution. In doing so, we call for more evolutionary models combining ecological and genetic factors, and additional experimental data, particularly to describe pollinator foraging behaviour. Finally, we show that recent developments in ecological network theory help clarify the impact of community-level interactions on plant selfing rates and their evolution and suggest new research avenues to expand the study of mating systems of animal-pollinated plant species to the level of the plant-pollinator networks.
    Journal of Evolutionary Biology 04/2014; · 3.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is estimated that floral deception has evolved in at least 7500 species of angiosperms, of which two thirds are orchids. Epipactis veratrifolia (Orchidaceae) is a model system of aphid mimicry as aphidophagous hoverflies lay eggs on false brood sites on their flowers. To understand the evolutionary ecology of floral deception, we investigated the pollination biology of E. veratrifolia across 10 populations in the Eastern Himalayas. We reconstructed the phylogeny of Epipactis and mapped the known pollination systems of previously studied species onto the tree. Some inflorescences of E. veratrifolia were so infested with aphids while they were still in bud that the some larvae of hoverflies developed to the third instar while flower buds opened. This indicated that adult female hoverflies were partly rewarded for oviposition. Although flowers failed to secrete nectar, they mimicked both alarm pheromones and aphid coloring of to attract female hoverflies as their exclusive pollinators. Phylogenetic mapping indicate that pollination by aphidophagous hoverflies is likely an ancestral condition in the genus Epipactis. We suggest that the biological interaction of aphid (prey), orchid (primary producer) and hoverfly (predator) may represent an intermediate stage between mutualism and deception in the evolution of pollination-by-deceit in E. veratrifolia. Our analyses indicate that this intermediate stage may be used as a model system to interpret the origin of oviposition (brood site) mimicry in Epipactis. We propose the hypothesis that some deceptive pollination systems evolved directly from earlier (partly) mutualistic systems that maintained the fidelity of the original pollinator(s) even though rewards (nectar/ brood site) were lost.
    BMC Plant Biology 03/2014; 14(1):63. · 4.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mutualisms require protection from non-reciprocating exploiters. Pseudomyrmex workers that engage in an obligate defensive mutualism with Acacia hosts feed exclusively on the sucrose-free extrafloral nectar (EFN) that is secreted by their hosts, a behaviour linking ant energy supply directly to host performance and thus favouring reciprocating behaviour. We tested the hypothesis that Acacia hosts manipulate this digestive specialisation of their ant mutualists. Invertase (sucrose hydrolytic) activity in the ant midguts was inhibited by chitinase, a dominant EFN protein. The inhibition occurred quickly in cell-free gut liquids and in native gels and thus likely results from an enzyme-enzyme interaction. Once a freshly eclosed worker ingests EFN as the first diet available, her invertase becomes inhibited and she, thus, continues feeding on host-derived EFN. Partner manipulation acts at the phenotypic level and means that one partner actively controls the phenotype of the other partner to enhance its dependency on host-derived rewards.
    Ecology Letters 11/2014; 17:185–192. · 17.95 Impact Factor