Bedoukian   RussellIPM   RussellIPM   Piezoelectric Micro-Sprayer


Home
Animal Taxa
Plant Taxa
Semiochemicals
Floral Compounds
Semiochemical Detail
Semiochemicals & Taxa
Synthesis
Control
Invasive spp.
References

Abstract

Guide

Alphascents
Pherobio
InsectScience
E-Econex
Counterpart-Semiochemicals
Print
Email to a Friend
Kindly Donate for The Pherobase

« Previous AbstractAgricultural pest control and the environment    Next AbstractThe Effect of Mating and the Male Sex Peptide on Group Behaviour of Post-mated Female Drosophila melanogaster »

Ecology


Title:Mechanisms of Tolerance to Floral Larceny in Two Wildflower Species
Author(s):Irwin RE; Galen C; Rabenold JJ; Kaczorowski R; McCutcheon ML;
Address:"Biology Department, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755 USA. Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, Crested Butte, Colorado 81224 USA. Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211 USA. School of Natural Sciences, Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusetts 01002 USA"
Journal Title:Ecology
Year:2008
Volume:89
Issue:11
Page Number:3093 - 3104
DOI: 10.1890/08-0081.1
ISSN/ISBN:1939-9170 (Electronic) 0012-9658 (Linking)
Abstract:"Tolerance of foliar damage is widely recognized as an effective defense against herbivores and pathogens. However, tolerance of the impacts of antagonists on pollination success is less well understood. Here, we extend the framework of tolerance to foliar damage to understand how plants mitigate the pollination and fitness costs of floral larceny (i.e., the consumption of floral nectar often without pollination). We focused on two mechanisms: high nectar rewards per flower to feed all floral visitors and high flower production to compensate for reproductive losses under reduced pollination and seed set. We compared the efficacy of these mechanisms in two plant species: Polemonium viscosum and Ipomopsis aggregata. In Polemonium, ants acting as larcenists reduce nectar accumulation but do not completely empty flowers. When nectar reserves were augmented, ant consumption increased, negating the efficacy of this putative tolerance mechanism. Similarly, in Ipomopsis, nectar addition had little effect on tolerance to larceny by bumble bees, perhaps because residual intact flowers do not have enough nectar to compensate for lost rewards. Flower production in both species mitigated some of the negative impacts of larceny on seed set. In Polemonium, flower number was not plastic in response to larceny, but large inflorescences enhanced female fitness only when larcenists were present, suggesting that 'surplus' flowers in large inflorescences can function to replace reproductive losses due to larceny. In Ipomopsis, high rates of larceny induced flower production, but the fecundity benefits of making more flowers declined inversely to larcenist intensity. Overall, our results suggest (1) that tolerance to floral larceny involves 'banking' extra flowers to replace lost reproduction rather than maintaining pollination of ones with larceny, and (2) that the efficacy of flower production as a tolerance mechanism varies inversely to larceny rate"
Keywords:Ipomopsis aggregata Polemonium viscosum compensation floral larceny nectar robbing plant-animal interactions pollination tolerance;
Notes:"PubMed-not-MEDLINEIrwin, Rebecca E Galen, Candace Rabenold, Jessica J Kaczorowski, Rainee McCutcheon, Meghan L eng 2008/11/01 Ecology. 2008 Nov; 89(11):3093-3104. doi: 10.1890/08-0081.1"

 
Back to top
 
Citation: El-Sayed AM 2024. The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. <http://www.pherobase.com>.
© 2003-2024 The Pherobase - Extensive Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Ashraf M. El-Sayed.
Page created on 06-07-2024