Am. J. Bot. Cross-Journal Searching
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Anderson, G. J.
Right arrow Articles by Hill, J. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Anderson, G. J.
Right arrow Articles by Hill, J. D.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Anderson, G. J.
Right arrow Articles by Hill, J. D.
(American Journal of Botany. 2002;89:67-78.)
© 2002 Botanical Society of America, Inc.

Reproductive Biology

Many to flower, few to fruit: the reproductive biology of Hamamelis virginiana (Hamamelidaceae)1

Gregory J. Anderson2 and James D. Hill

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, U-43, Storrs, Connecticut 06269-3043 USA

Hamamelis virginiana flowers from late September to late November. In 1977, we began studying the reproductive biology of this eastern North American arborescent shrub by examining floral phenology and rewards, pollen-ovule ratios, breeding system, pollination, pollinator and resource limitation, and seed dispersal. The homogamous, self-incompatible flowers emit a faint odor, bear nectar with sucrose ratios typical of bee- and fly-pollinated flowers, and produce abundant sticky pollen. Flowers were visited infrequently by insects representing six orders. Flies were the most common floral visitors, specifically members of the genus Bradysia, but small bees also carried high percentages of Hamamelis pollen. Despite high pollen/ovule ratios (11 445 grains/ovule), bees and flies are likely pollinators, as experiments indicate wind pollination is less likely. Pollen quantity and resource availability did not appear to limit reproductive output, but pollen quality did. Tests of >40 000 flowers showed natural fruit set to be <1%. The flowering time, breeding system, and clumped distribution of plants, likely due in part to limited seed dispersal, combine to yield this remarkably low fruit set. Because all other species of Hamamelis flower from late winter to early summer, it may be that H. virginiana evolved a fall flowering phenology to avoid competition for pollinators with the closely related H. vernalis.

Key Words: breeding system • floral phenology • fruit/flower ratios • Hamamelidaceae • Hamamelis, pollen/ovule ratios • pollination; • pollinator limitation • reproductive limitations






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the Botanical Society of America, Inc.