» Articles » PMID: 21833640

Effects of Floral Restrictiveness and Stigma Size on Heterospecific Pollen Receipt in a Prairie Community

Overview
Journal Oecologia
Date 2011 Aug 12
PMID 21833640
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Plant species vary greatly in the degree to which floral morphology restricts access to the flower interior. Restrictiveness of flower corollas may influence heterospecific pollen receipt, but the impact of floral morphology on heterospecific pollen transfer has received little attention. We characterized patterns of pollinator visitation and quantities of conspecific and heterospecific pollen receipt for 29 species with a range of floral morphologies in a prairie community dominated by the introduced plant Euphorbia esula (leafy spurge) which has an unrestrictive morphology. Pollinator overlap was significantly greater between Euphorbia and other unrestrictive flowers than restrictive flowers. Compared to flowers with restrictive morphologies, unrestrictive flowers received significantly more Euphorbia pollen, more heterospecific pollen from other sources, and a greater diversity of pollen species, but not more conspecific pollen. However, stigmatic surface area was significantly larger for flowers with unrestrictive morphologies, and the density of Euphorbia and other heterospecific pollen per stigmatic area did not significantly differ between flower types. These findings suggest that the smaller stigma size in restrictive flowers partly accounts for their decreased heterospecific pollen receipt, but that restrictiveness also allows species to increase the purity of pollen loads they receive. Given that restrictive flowers receive fewer heterospecific pollen grains but at a higher density, the effect of restrictiveness on fecundity depends on whether absolute quantity or density of heterospecific pollen affects fecundity more. Our results also indicate that abundant neighbors are not necessarily important heterospecific pollen sources since Euphorbia pollen was rarely abundant on heterospecifics.

Citing Articles

Pollen Interference Between Rare and Common Species.

Malecore E, Fischer M Ecol Evol. 2024; 14(11):e70505.

PMID: 39524308 PMC: 11549573. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.70505.


Heterospecific pollen avoidance strategy prevails in the generalized plant-pollinator network on Yongxing Island.

Wang X, Cai J, Tong M, Shi M, Zhao Z, Li S Ecol Evol. 2024; 14(3):e11123.

PMID: 38444723 PMC: 10912527. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.11123.


Spatial variation of pollen receipt and effects of heterospecific pollen on seed set in .

Fang Q, Zhang T, Montgomery B Ecol Evol. 2023; 13(2):e9795.

PMID: 36760706 PMC: 9897956. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.9795.


Causes and consequences of variation in heterospecific pollen receipt in Oenothera fruticosa.

Smith G, Swartz M, Spigler R Am J Bot. 2021; 108(9):1612-1624.

PMID: 34460097 PMC: 9291898. DOI: 10.1002/ajb2.1720.


Pollinator effectiveness is affected by intraindividual behavioral variation.

Russell A, Fetters A, James E, Ashman T Oecologia. 2021; 197(1):189-200.

PMID: 34392412 DOI: 10.1007/s00442-021-05016-4.


References
1.
Memmott J, Waser N . Integration of alien plants into a native flower-pollinator visitation web. Proc Biol Sci. 2002; 269(1508):2395-9. PMC: 1691186. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2174. View

2.
Morales C, Traveset A . A meta-analysis of impacts of alien vs. native plants on pollinator visitation and reproductive success of co-flowering native plants. Ecol Lett. 2009; 12(7):716-28. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01319.x. View

3.
Lopezaraiza-Mikel M, Hayes R, Whalley M, Memmott J . The impact of an alien plant on a native plant-pollinator network: an experimental approach. Ecol Lett. 2007; 10(7):539-50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01055.x. View

4.
Wolda H . Similarity indices, sample size and diversity. Oecologia. 2017; 50(3):296-302. DOI: 10.1007/BF00344966. View

5.
Cruden R, Miller-Ward S . POLLEN-OVULE RATIO, POLLEN SIZE, AND THE RATIO OF STIGMATIC AREA TO THE POLLEN-BEARING AREA OF THE POLLINATOR: AN HYPOTHESIS. Evolution. 2017; 35(5):964-974. DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1981.tb04962.x. View