|
|
||||||||
|
(American Journal of Botany. 2008;95:974-984.) doi: 10.3732/ajb.0800106 © 2008 Botanical Society of America, Inc. |
What's this? |
Reproductive Biology |
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
Received for publication 24 March 2008. Accepted for publication 23 May 2008.
FOOTNOTES
1 The authors thank E. Elle for germination information, A. Randle for identifying the bees, T. Pendergast for help in the field and revision of the manuscript, E. York for assistance in the greenhouse, Ernst Seed Conservation for land use, L. Aguilar for providing the digital camera, T. Harper for help editing the pollinator movie, A. Stephenson and M. Vallejo-Marin for comments and discussion, C. Majetic and the Kalisz and Ashman laboratories for discussion, and Greg Anderson and two anonymous reviewers for comments on a previous version of the manuscript. This research was supported by a Fabriola Aguirre Fellowship from the Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) of the University of Pittsburgh and by the McKinley-Darbaker grant from the Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology to A.Q.-A. Additional logistical support from NSF DEB 0108099 to T.L.A. and from NSF DEB 0324764 to S.K. This is contribution 221 to the Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology.
4 Author for correspondence (andreaquesadaaguilar{at}gmail.com)
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
Compiled by, F. Tooke, T. Chiurugwi, and N. Battey Flowering Newsletter bibliography for 2008 J. Exp. Bot., June 23, 2009; (2009) erp154v1. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |