13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Pollinator Behaviour on a Food-Deceptive Orchid Calypso bulbosa and Coflowering Species

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Food deception as a pollination strategy has inspired many studies over the last few decades. Pollinator deception has evolved in many orchids possibly to enhance outcrossing. Food-deceptive orchids usually have low pollinator visitation rates as compared to rewarding species. They may benefit in visitations from the presence (magnet-species hypothesis) or, alternatively, absence of coflowering rewarding species (competition hypothesis). We present data on pollinator visitations on a deceptive, terrestrial orchid Calypso bulbosa, a species with a single flower per plant and whose flowering period partly overlaps with rewarding, early flowering willows ( Salix sp.) and later-flowering bilberry ( Vaccinium myrtillus). When surveying inactive bumblebee queens on willows in cool weather, about 7% of them carried Calypso pollinia. Most common bumblebee species appeared to visit and thus pollinate Calypso. Bumblebees typically visited one to three Calypso flowers before flying away, providing some support for the outcrossing hypothesis. We conclude that, regarding the pollinations strategy, both magnet-species and competition hypotheses have a role in the pollination of Calypso, but on different spatial scales. On a large scale rewarding species are important for attracting pollinators to a given region, but on a small scale absence of competition ensures sufficient pollination rate for the deceptive orchid.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Variation in sexual reproduction in orchids and its evolutionary consequences: a spasmodic journey to diversification

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mechanisms and evolution of deceptive pollination in orchids.

            The orchid family is renowned for its enormous diversity of pollination mechanisms and unusually high occurrence of non-rewarding flowers compared to other plant families. The mechanisms of deception in orchids include generalized food deception, food-deceptive floral mimicry, brood-site imitation, shelter imitation, pseudoantagonism, rendezvous attraction and sexual deception. Generalized food deception is the most common mechanism (reported in 38 genera) followed by sexual deception (18 genera). Floral deception in orchids has been intensively studied since Darwin, but the evolution of non-rewarding flowers still presents a major puzzle for evolutionary biology. The two principal hypotheses as to how deception could increase fitness in plants are (i) reallocation of resources associated with reward production to flowering and seed production, and (ii) higher levels of cross-pollination due to pollinators visiting fewer flowers on non-rewarding plants, resulting in more outcrossed progeny and more efficient pollen export. Biologists have also tried to explain why deception is overrepresented in the orchid family. These explanations include: (i) efficient removal and deposition of pollinaria from orchid flowers in a single pollinator visit, thus obviating the need for rewards to entice multiple visits from pollinators; (ii) efficient transport of orchid pollen, thus requiring less reward-induced pollinator constancy; (iii) low-density populations in many orchids, thus limiting the learning of associations of floral phenotypes and rewards by pollinators; (iv) packaging of pollen in pollinaria with limited carry-over from flower to flower, thus increasing the risks of geitonogamous self-pollination when pollinators visit many flowers on rewarding plants. All of these general and orchid-specific hypotheses are difficult to reconcile with the well-established pattern for rewardlessness to result in low pollinator visitation rates and consequently low levels of fruit production. Arguments that deception evolves because rewards are costly are particularly problematic in that small amounts of nectar are unlikely to have a significant effect on the energy budget of orchids, and because reproduction in orchids is often severely pollen-, rather than resource-limited. Several recent experimental studies have shown that deception promotes cross-pollination, but it remains unknown whether actual outcrossing rates are generally higher in deceptive orchids. Our review of the literature shows that there is currently no evidence that deceptive orchids carry higher levels of genetic load (an indirect measure of outcrossing rate) than their rewarding counterparts. Cross-pollination does, however, result in dramatic increases in seed quality in almost all orchids and has the potential to increase pollen export (by reducing pollen discounting). We suggest that floral deception is particularly beneficial, because of its promotion of outcrossing, when pollinators are abundant, but that when pollinators are consistently rare, selection may favour a nectar reward or a shift to autopollination. Given that nectar-rewardlessness is likely to have been the ancestral condition in orchids and yet is evolutionarily labile, more attention will need to be given to explanations as to why deception constitutes an 'evolutionarily stable strategy'.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Orchid diversity: an evolutionary consequence of deception?

              The Orchidaceae are one of the most species-rich plant families and their floral diversity and pollination biology have long intrigued evolutionary biologists. About one-third of the estimated 18,500 species are thought to be pollinated by deceit. To date, the focus has been on how such pollination evolved, how the different types of deception work, and how it is maintained, but little progress has been made in understanding its evolutionary consequences. To address this issue, we discuss here how deception affects orchid mating systems, the evolution of reproductive isolation, speciation processes and neutral genetic divergence among species. We argue that pollination by deceit is one of the keys to orchid floral and species diversity. A better understanding of its evolutionary consequences could help evolutionary biologists to unravel the reasons for the evolutionary success of orchids.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                ScientificWorldJournal
                ScientificWorldJournal
                TSWJ
                The Scientific World Journal
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                2356-6140
                1537-744X
                2015
                12 March 2015
                : 2015
                : 482161
                Affiliations
                1Department of Biology, University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
                2Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Pavia, Via S. Epifanio 14, 27100 Pavia, Italy
                3Oulanka Research Station, Thule Institute, University of Oulu, Liikasenvaarantie 134, 93999 Kuusamo, Finland
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Hai-Qin Sun

                Article
                10.1155/2015/482161
                4377512
                c754b9c1-f139-482c-b3a0-4ddd6f18bb76
                Copyright © 2015 Juha Tuomi et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 21 October 2014
                : 11 February 2015
                Categories
                Research Article

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article