HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

What's this?

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplementary Data Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Burkle, L. A. Articles by Newman, D. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Burkle, L. A. Articles by Newman, D. A. Agricola Articles by Burkle, L. A. Articles by Newman, D. A. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Predicting the effects of nectar robbing on plant reproduction: implications of pollen limitation and plant mating system¹

Department of Biological Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755 USA; Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, Crested Butte, Colorado 81224 USA; Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G5 Canada

ABSTRACT

The outcome of species interactions is often difficult to predict, depending on the organisms involved and the ecological context. Nectar robbers remove nectar from flowers, often without providing pollination service, and their effects on plant reproduction vary in strength and direction. In two case studies and a meta-analysis, we tested the importance of pollen limitation and plant mating system in predicting the impacts of nectar robbing on female plant reproduction. We predicted that nectar robbing would have the strongest effects on species requiring pollinators to set seed and pollen limited for seed production. Our predictions were partially supported. In the first study, natural nectar robbing was associated with lower seed production in Delphinium nuttallianum, a self-compatible but non-autogamously selfing, pollen-limited perennial, and experimental nectar robbing reduced seed set relative to unrobbed plants. The second study involved Linaria vulgaris, a self-incompatible perennial that is generally not pollen limited. Natural levels of nectar robbing generally had little effect on estimates of female reproduction in L. vulgaris, while experimental nectar robbing reduced seed set per fruit but not percentage of fruit set. A meta-analysis revealed that nectar robbing had strong negative effects on pollen-limited and self-incompatible plants, as predicted. Our results suggest that pollination biology and plant mating system must be considered to understand and predict the ecological outcome of both mutualistic and antagonistic plant–animal interactions.

Key Words: Bombus occidentalis • Colorado • Delphinium nuttallianum • Linaria vulgaris • meta-analysis • nectar robbing • pollen limitation • self-compatibility

Received for publication May 14, 2007. Accepted for publication October 9, 2007.

FOOTNOTES

¹ The authors thank P. Flanagan, S. Keller, and A. Toth for help in the field and A. Brody, S. Elliott, B. DeGasperis, D. Inouye, P. Muller, and L. Rolfe for valuable comments on the manuscript. The staff of Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL) provided access to field sites. Field research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (DEB-9806501), the RMBL (Lee. R. G. Snyder Fund), and the Colorado Mountain Club. Laboratory work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (DEB-0089643).

⁵ Author for correspondence (e-mail: Laura.A.Burkle{at}Dartmouth.edu )

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Y.-W. Zhang, Q. Yu, J.-M. Zhao, and Y.-H. Guo Differential effects of nectar robbing by the same bumble-bee species on three sympatric Corydalis species with varied mating systems Ann. Bot., July 1, 2009; 104(1): 33 - 39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]