Am. J. Bot. Join BSA Today!
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

(American Journal of Botany. 2008;95:974-984.)
doi: 10.3732/ajb.0800106
© 2008 Botanical Society of America, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
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 Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Quesada-Aguilar, A.
Right arrow Articles by Ashman, T.-L.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Quesada-Aguilar, A.
Right arrow Articles by Ashman, T.-L.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Quesada-Aguilar, A.
Right arrow Articles by Ashman, T.-L.

Reproductive Biology

Flower morphology and pollinator dynamics in Solanum carolinense (Solanaceae): implications for the evolution of andromonoecy1

Andrea Quesada-Aguilar2,3,4, Susan Kalisz2,3 and Tia-Lynn Ashman2,3

2 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260 USA 3 Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, Linesville, Pennsylvania 16424 USA

ABSTRACT

Flower morphology and pollinator dynamics play an important role in the evolution and maintenance of many breeding systems, including andromonoecy. We used a series of field experiments to test the functional relationship between flower morphology and pollination dynamics (e.g., pollen receipt and export) in Solanum carolinense. We find that long-styled flowers serve primarily as pollen recipients and short-styled flowers as pollen donors, making this the first study to support the male–female interference hypothesis for the evolution of andromonoecy. However, this difference in the primary male or female function of the flowers depends on the pollinator identity. In flowers visited by Bombus impatiens, style length has a positive relationship with pollen deposition and a negative relationship with pollen removal. In contrast, neither morphological nor behavioral traits determine pollen deposition or removal by small halictid bees. We demonstrate that different pollinators could select for different floral morphologies, and thus, our research suggests that pollinator-specific interactions with flower morphology play an important role in the evolution and maintenance of anrdromonoecy.

Key Words: andromonoecy • male–female interference • style length • Pennsylvania • pollen deposition • pollen removal • pollinators • Solanaceae • Solanum carolinense






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the Botanical Society of America, Inc.