ࡱ >
[ s Q %` qx bjbj"x"x ;~ @ @ + 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 L d TL TL TL 8 L L M + 0 H N hW ~W ~W ~W e e e _ a a a a a a $ x h * e 6 e e e e e 6 6 ~W ~W @ Zy Zy Zy e 0
6 ~W 6 ~W Zy e _ Zy Zy 6 6 ~W N TL o K ( ? | 0 0 s
v
P
6 @ Zy e e e Jy e e e 0 e e e e + + + TL + + + TL J t H 6 6 6 6 6 6 Division of labour within flowers: Heteranthery, a floral strategy to reconcile contrasting pollen fates
Mario Vallejo-Marn*
Jessamyn S. Manson
James D. Thomson
Spencer C. H. Barrett
Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology. University of Toronto, 25 Willcocks Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3B2. Canada.
*Author for correspondence. Present address: School of Biological and Environmental Sciences. ϳԹ. Stirling, FK9 4LA. Scotland, U.K. Tel. (+44) 01786 467840. email: mario.vallejo@stir.ac.uk
Running title: Division of labor within flowers
Abstract
In many nectarless flowering plants, pollen serves as both the carrier of male gametes and as food for pollinators. This can generate an evolutionary conflict if the use of pollen as food by pollinators reduces the number of gametes available for cross-fertilization. Heteranthery, the production of two or more stamen types by individual flowers reduces this conflict by allowing different stamens to specialize in pollinating and feeding functions. We used experimental studies of Solanum rostratum (Solanaceae) and theoretical models to investigate this division-of-labour hypothesis. Flight cage experiments with pollinating bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) demonstrated that although feeding anthers are preferentially manipulated by bees, pollinating anthers export more pollen to other flowers. Evolutionary stability analysis of a model of pollination by pollen consumers indicated that heteranthery evolves when bees consume more pollen than should optimally be exchanged for visitation services, particularly when pollinators adjust their visitation according to the amount of pollen collected.
Keywords: bee pollination, Bombus impatiens, evolutionary stable strategy, heteranthery, nectarless flowers, Solanum rostratum, stamen functions
[Regarding plants] with two kinds of anthers... I am very low about them, and have wasted enormous labour over them, and cannot yet get a glimpse of the meaning of the parts.
C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker, October 14, 1862
I have had a letter from Fritz l suggesting a novel and very curious explanation of certain plants producing two sets of anthers of different colour. This has set me on fire to renew the laborious experiments which I made on this subject, now 20 years ago.
C. Darwin to W. Thiselton-Dyer, March 21, 1881
Introduction
In many species of flowering plants pollen, the vehicle for the transport of male gametes during cross-fertilization, is also consumed by pollinators in exchange for pollination services. The loss of pollen may be especially significant in nectarless flowers where pollen represents the only floral reward for animal pollinators, e.g. buzz-pollinated species ADDIN EN.CITE Buchmann19832445244524455Buchmann, Stephen L.Jones, C. E.Little, R. J.Buzz pollination in angiospermsHandbook of Experimental Pollination Biology73-113heterandry, heteranthery, enantiostyly1983NYScientific and Academic Editions(Buchmann, 1983). This situation can have important evolutionary consequences when the exchange of pollen as food to attract pollinators lowers the total number of gametes available for cross-fertilization and reduces fitness. Investigation of potential adaptive solutions for reconciling these contrasting pollen fates in nectarless flowers has received relatively little attention in the literature on floral function and evolution ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (but see Harder, 1990a; Harder & Wilson, 1997; Luo et al., 2008a).
The production of two or more types of stamens in the same flower (heteranthery) may help to reduce the fitness costs arising from pollen consumption by pollinators by allowing different sets of stamens to specialize in pollinating and feeding functions. Heteranthery has evolved in more than 20 families and is commonly associated with bee-pollinated, nectarless flowers ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Vogel, 1978; Buchmann, 1983; Endress, 1994; Jesson & Barrett, 2003). The stamens of heterantherous species usually differ in shape, size, or colour, with two types being most common. Typically one set of stamens has brightly coloured anthers and is easily accessible to visitors that collect pollen. The other stamens usually have different, often cryptically-coloured, anthers that are larger, and are usually displaced from the main floral axis to a position corresponding to the location of the stigma ADDIN EN.CITE Jesson200358958958917Jesson, L. K.Barrett, S. C. H.The comparative biology of mirror-image flowersInternational Journal of Plant SciencesInternational Journal of Plant SciencesS237-S2491645asymmetrycross-pollinationenantiostylyfloral syndromesmonocotyledonsphylogeny reconstructionplant sexual polymorphismWachendorfia haemodoraceaecyanella tecophilaeaceaeinbreedingdepressionphylogenetic analysiscorrelated evolutionpollinationmaintenancecharacterssymmetrysystems2003SepISI:000186318500004<Go to ISI>://000186318500004 file://E:\Motecuzoma Library PDF\Jesson & Barrett 03.pdf(Jesson & Barrett, 2003). Heteranthery provides an opportunity to investigate how differentiation in anther form and function may reduce the fitness costs of using male gametes as food for pollinators.
Anther dimorphism intrigued Charles Darwin for more than 20 years and was the object of one of his last scientific enquiries ADDIN EN.CITE Darwin189928962896289617Darwin, FrancisThe botanical work of DarwinAnnals of BotanyAnnals of Botanyix-xix131899Buchmann19832445244524455Buchmann, Stephen L.Jones, C. E.Little, R. J.Buzz pollination in angiospermsHandbook of Experimental Pollination Biology73-113heterandry, heteranthery, enantiostyly1983NYScientific and Academic Editions(Darwin, 1899; Buchmann, 1983). Yet, as indicated in the quotations above, he failed to provide a functional explanation for heteranthery, unlike the plethora of other floral adaptations that he investigated ADDIN EN.CITE Darwin18771111111116Darwin, C.The different forms of flowers on plants of the same species1877LondonJohn Murray(Darwin, 1877). Although he suspected that the two sorts of anthers differed functionally, he was unable to determine what the different functions were (quotation above). The German naturalist Fritz l provided the first explanation regarding the function of heteranthery ADDIN EN.CITE l18832637see quotation above, and 2637263717l, FritzTwo kinds of stamens with different functions in the same flowerNatureNature364-36527Heterandry, heteranthery1883LondonMacmillan(see quotation above, and l, 1883). Based on observations of multiple heterantherous species, he and his brother Hermann l suggested that heteranthery represents anther specialization into feeding and pollinating types, whereby the former reward pollinators and the latter are directly involved in cross-pollination ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (H. l, 1881, 1882; F. l, 1883). Darwin (quotation above) immediately grasped the significance and plausibility of the ls proposal, and this division-of-labor hypothesis ADDIN EN.CITE Darwin18992896F. 2896289617Darwin, FrancisThe botanical work of DarwinAnnals of BotanyAnnals of Botanyix-xix131899(F. Darwin, 1899) remains the most prevalent explanation for the functional significance of heteranthery ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Vogel, 1978; Dulberger, 1981; Buchmann, 1983; Lloyd, 1992a; Graham & Barrett, 1995; Endress, 1997; Lester et al., 1999; Jesson & Barrett, 2003; Marazzi et al., 2007; Ushimaru et al., 2007), sometimes misattributed to Darwin ADDIN EN.CITE Luo200831343134313417Luo, Z.Zhang, D.Renner, S. S.Why two kinds of stamens in buzz-pollinated flowers? Experimental support for Darwin's division-of-labour hypothesisFunctional EcologyFunctional Ecology794-80022Heterandry, heteranthery2008Luo200831353135313517Luo, Zhong-LaiGu, LeiZhang, Dian-XiangIntrafloral differentiation of stamens in heterantherous flowersJournal of Systematics and EvolutionJournal of Systematics and Evolutiondoi: 10.3724/SP.J.1002.2008.08019466Heterandry, heteranthery2008(Luo et al., 2008a,b). According to Mullers hypothesis, 1) pollinators focus their pollen-collecting efforts on feeding anthers, rather than on pollinating anthers, so that 2) pollen from pollinating anthers is more successful at reaching stigmas of other plants than pollen from feeding anthers.
Despite its early origins, the division-of-labor hypothesis has received few empirical tests, and most have not fully addressed both of its components ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Bowers, 1975; Wolfe et al., 1991; Wolfe & Estes, 1992; Gross & Kukuk, 2001; Tang & Huang, 2007; Ushimaru et al., 2007; but see Luo et al., 2008a). Only one of three studies that tracked dispersal of dye or metal particles applied to anthers of heterantherous species [Solanum rostratum (Solanaceae), Chamaecrista fasciculata (Caesalpiniaceae)] found greater dispersal from pollinating anthers than feeding anthers (Bowers 1975; Wolfe et al. 1991; Wolfe and Estes 1992). Whether these pollen surrogates applied to the exterior of anthers are good analogues of pollen grains in buzz-pollinated species, such as Solanum or Chamaecrista, is debatable. Tang and Huang ADDIN EN.CITE 200727882788278817Tang, L. L.Huang, S. Q.Evidence for reductions in floral attractants with increased selfing rates in two heterandrous speciesNew PhytologistNew Phytologist588-595175320070028-646XISI:000248451100021<Go to ISI>://000248451100021 (2007) reported that removal of feeding anthers from Monochoria korsakowii (Pontederiaceae) reduced visitation by pollinators and that flowers lacking pollinating anthers exported less pollen than flowers without feeding anthers. However, interpretation of their results is complicated, because Tang and Huang (2007) could not distinguish between self- and cross-pollen deposition on stigmas, and because anther removal introduced differences in the total number of pollen grains available for export. Other studies addressing the effect of removal of feeding anthers on pollinator visitation found either marginal effects [ ADDIN EN.CITE Ushimaru20072887Commelina communis (Commelinaceae), 2887288717Ushimaru, A.Watanabe, T.Nakata, K.American Journal of BotanyAmerican Journal of Botany249-2589422007Feb0002-9122ISI:000244241800012<Go to ISI>://000244241800012 (Commelina communis (Commelinaceae), Ushimaru et al., 2007)], or did not compare the number of visits among treatments statistically [ ADDIN EN.CITE Gross20012546Melastoma affine (Melastomataceae), 2546254617Gross, C. L.Kukuk, P. F.Acta HortActa Hort171-1785612001file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/mv6/My%20Documents/Local%20Library%20PDF/Gross%20%26%20Kukuk%2001.pdf(Melastoma affine (Melastomataceae), Gross & Kukuk, 2001)]. To date the strongest support for the division of labor hypothesis comes from a study by Luo et al. ADDIN EN.CITE Luo200831343134313417Luo, Z.Zhang, D.Renner, S. S.Why two kinds of stamens in buzz-pollinated flowers? Experimental support for Darwin's division-of-labour hypothesisFunctional EcologyFunctional Ecology794-80022Heterandry, heteranthery2008(2008a) on Melastoma malabatrichum (=M. affine). They showed that pollen from pollinating anthers is more likely to land on stigmas of other flowers than pollen from feeding anthers and that removal of feeding anthers but not pollinating anthers reduced pollinator visitation. However, their estimate of pollen deposition on stigmas did not account for differences in pollen production and, potentially, pollen removal from the two types of anthers. Currently, the division of labor is the most plausible hypothesis for the function of heteranthery, but the hypothesis clearly requires further investigation.
Anther polymorphisms have also been investigated theoretically. Lloyd ADDIN EN.CITE 200024252425242517Lloyd, D. G.The selection of social actions in families: III. Reproductively disabled individuals and organsEvolutionary Ecology ResearchEvolutionary Ecology Research29-4021disabled seedsendospermfeeding anthersparent-offspring conflictself-incompatibilitysterile castessterile pollenKIN SELECTIONSEED2000JanISI:000085022900004<Go to ISI>://000085022900004 file://E:\Motecuzoma Library PDF\Lloyd 00c.pdf(2000) pointed out that heteranthery could be interpreted as the functional sterilization of part of the gametes (feeding anther pollen) to benefit the remaining gametes (pollinating anther pollen). He showed that a parentally-expressed gene causing the production of sterile pollen will increase in frequency if the benefits of producing reproductively disabled pollen exceed the costs (b > c), whereas a doubling of the relative benefits is necessary when the disability gene is expressed in offspring (b > 2c). Although Lloyds model represents a valuable first step in understanding the evolution of heteranthery, models that explicitly incorporate the pollination process ADDIN EN.CITE Harder1996317e.g. 3173175Harder, Lawrence DBarrett, Spencer C. H.Lloyd, David G.Barrett, Spencer C. H.Pollen dispersal and mating patterns in animal-pollinated plantsFloral biology. Studies on floral evolution in animal-pollinated plants140-190geitonogamy, pollen dispersal, inflorescence size, siring success, evolution, pollinator service, mating systems1996NYChapman and Hall(e.g. Harder & Barrett, 1996) are necessary to understand the specific characteristics of both plants and pollinators that facilitate the evolution of heteranthery.
Here we combine experimental and evolutionary stable strategy (ESS) models ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Lloyd, 1979; Maynard-Smith, 1982; Morgan, 2006) to address two main questions: (1) Is anther dimorphism accompanied by division of labour between anther types? (2) Is division of labour sufficient to favour the evolutionary maintenance of heteranthery, and if so, how is it affected by plant and pollinator characteristics? For our experimental test, we used captive bumble bees (Bombus impatiens Cresson) visiting flowers of Solanum rostratum L. (Solanaceae). Specifically, we established experimentally whether feeding and pollinating anthers differ in pollinator attraction by disabling all anthers of the same type so that their pollen was inaccessible, and then recording bee behaviour. Because we did not alter flower morphology, we predicted no difference in the number of visits to flowers with blocked versus unmanipulated anthers. In contrast, because bees actively respond to differences in pollen availability ADDIN EN.CITE Buchmann198929102910291017Buchmann, S. L.Cane, J. H.OecologiaOecologia289-29481319890029-8549ISI:A1989CA52800001<Go to ISI>://A1989CA52800001 file://E:\Motecuzoma Library PDF\Buchmann & Cane 89.pdf(Buchmann & Cane, 1989), we predicted they would perceive flowers without functional feeding anthers as unrewarding, and therefore spend less time buzzing them compared to flowers without functional pollinating anthers or unmanipulated flowers. We also determined whether pollen from pollinating anthers is more likely to be transported by bees to stigmas of other flowers than pollen from feeding anthers. For our theoretical investigation of heteranthery, we modeled the pollination process of a species with dimorphic anthers visited by pollen-collecting insects to determine the conditions required to maintain heteranthery. Our analysis suggests that stamen dimorphism within flowers represents a floral strategy to minimize the fitness costs arising from the trade-off between using pollen as both a reward to attract pollinators and as gametes for cross-pollination.
Material and Methods
ϳԹ system
Solanum species produce pollen as the only reward for pollinators and are buzz pollinated, usually by bumble bees ADDIN EN.CITE Buchmann19832445244524455Buchmann, Stephen L.Jones, C. E.Little, R. J.Buzz pollination in angiospermsHandbook of Experimental Pollination Biology73-113heterandry, heteranthery, enantiostyly1983NYScientific and Academic Editions(Buchmann, 1983). The vast majority of the ~1500 Solanum species produce a single type of anther; however, within the spiny Solanum (subgenus Leptostemonum) heteranthery has evolved independently at least three times ADDIN EN.CITE Levin200617191719171917Levin, Rachel A.Myers, Nicole R.Bohs, LynnAm. J. Bot.Am. J. Bot.157-1699312006January 1, 2006http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/1/157 file://E:\Motecuzoma Library PDF\Levin et al 06.pdf(Levin et al., 2006) . We studied Solanum rostratum L. (Sect. Androceras), a widespread North American, annual, self-compatible species with weakly bilaterally symmetric, yellow enantiostylous flowers ADDIN EN.CITE Whalen197910891089108917Whalen, M. D.Gentes Herbarum359-4261161979(Whalen, 1979). Individual plants produce two types of flowers with either a right- or left-deflected style and a single, large, brown pollinating anther positioned in the opposite direction ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Todd, 1882; Harris & Kuchs, 1902; Bowers, 1975; Jesson & Barrett, 2002, 2005). The remaining four bright yellow feeding anthers are centrally located within the flower. No difference in the fertility of pollen produced by the two types of anthers has been detected in S. rostratum (Bowers 1975). Diverse insects visit flowers, including bees, wasps and flies, although Bombus spp. (including B. impatiens) are the primary pollinators ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Bowers, 1975; Jesson & Barrett, 2005). Bombus spp. visiting S. rostratum typically grab the feeding anthers with their mandibles, vigorously vibrating their indirect flight muscles (buzzing). This results in all anthers, including pollinating anthers, releasing pollen through their apical pores ADDIN EN.CITE Bowers197565656517Bowers, Karen A. W.American Journal of BotanyAmerican Journal of Botany633-6386261975file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/mv6/My%20Documents/Local%20Library%20PDF/Bowers%2075.pdf(Bowers, 1975).
To investigate pollen traits of anther types, we grew S. rostratum (accessions #804750199, #904750111, #984750086; Nijmegen Botanical Gardens, Radboud University, Netherlands) in a 3:1 mix of soil:sand in 15.2-cm plastic pots and fertilized them with 13:13:13 slow-release granular fertilizer. We grew plants in a glasshouse with 16 h light at 25 C. We analyzed variation in pollen size (diameter) and pollen number using a linear mixed effects model fitted via restricted maximum likelihood ADDIN EN.CITE R20082893nlme package, 289328939R-Development Core Team,R. A language and environment for statistical computing2.6.2.2008Vienna Foundation for Statistical Computing http://www.R-project.org.(nlme package, R-Development Core Team, 2008). All statistical analysis used the program R ver. 2.6.2 ADDIN EN.CITE R20082893289328939R-Development Core Team,R. A language and environment for statistical computing2.6.2.2008Vienna Foundation for Statistical Computing http://www.R-project.org.(R-Development Core Team, 2008).
Pollinator attraction and behavior
The division-of-labour hypothesis states that feeding anthers principally attract pollinators. Unlike previous studies, which altered both visual cues and reward availability ADDIN EN.CITE Tang20072788e.g. 2788278817Tang, L. L.Huang, S. Q.Evidence for reductions in floral attractants with increased selfing rates in two heterandrous speciesNew PhytologistNew Phytologist588-595175320070028-646XISI:000248451100021<Go to ISI>://000248451100021 Ushimaru200728872887288717Ushimaru, A.Watanabe, T.Nakata, K.American Journal of BotanyAmerican Journal of Botany249-2589422007Feb0002-9122ISI:000244241800012<Go to ISI>://000244241800012 (e.g. Tang & Huang, 2007; Ushimaru et al., 2007), we manipulated pollen availability in pollinating and feeding anthers without affecting visual cues or floral morphology. Specifically, we prevented pollen release by sealing the anther pores with a tiny amount of polyvinyl acetate glue, which simulates empty, unrewarding anthers ADDIN EN.CITE Buchmann198929102910291017Buchmann, S. L.Cane, J. H.OecologiaOecologia289-29481319890029-8549ISI:A1989CA52800001<Go to ISI>://A1989CA52800001 file://E:\Motecuzoma Library PDF\Buchmann & Cane 89.pdf(Buchmann & Cane, 1989). We then tested differential responses of bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) to feeding and pollinating anthers by: (1) recording the number and duration of visits to flowers in an experimental array, and (2) examining direct manipulation of each anther type by pollinators on individual flowers. We predicted that restricting access to pollen of feeding anthers would reduce pollinator attraction, whereas preventing access to pollen in pollinating anthers would not affect pollinator behaviour.
We used bees from two commercial colonies (Biobest Canada, Ltd; Leamington, Ontario) and a 3 x 3.3 x 2 m flight cage. For each trial, we collected nine flowers of similar size and allocated them to three treatments: control (C), feeding anthers blocked (PA-only), or pollinating anthers blocked (FA-only). New flowers were collected for each trial. To control for the potential behavioural response of bees to glue, each of the non-blocked anthers in all treatments also received a small amount of glue on the side of the anther. Because the four feeding anthers produce approximately 50% of a flowers total pollen (see Results), FA-only and PA-only flowers initially presented similar amounts of accessible pollen.
We attached each flower to the tip of 20-cm tall wire with a binder clip and placed this on a short (~50 cm) stool to form an artificial 1-flowered plant. Artificial plants were placed randomly in a 3x3 square grid with 1 m between plants. We then allowed a single bee to forage on the array for approximately 30 flower visits (7-26 minutes) and recorded the number and durations of visits to individual flowers using a tape recorder. This procedure was repeated using 22 different bees.
We employed ANOVA (glm package and Tukey tests (multcomp package) of log-transformed responses to assess differences among treatments. Analysis of visit number considered the total number of visits per treatment per trial (n = 66; 22 trials x 3 treatments). To analyze visit length, we first calculated the mean visit duration for each plant and then averaged these means for all plants in a given treatment and trial (n = 66).
To investigate whether pollinators preferentially manipulate feeding or pollinating anthers, we recorded visits by bees to Control, FA-only, or PA-only flowers for approximately 2 min with a digital video camera, and subsequently scored and analyzed behaviour using JWatcher Video ver. 1.0 ADDIN EN.CITE Blumstein20072890289028906Blumstein, D. T.Daniel, J. C.Quantifying Behavior the JWatcher Way2112007Sunderland, MassachusettsSinauer Associates, Inc.(Blumstein & Daniel, 2007). We recorded 82 2-min foraging periods by 35 bees and we tried to have each bee experience all the three treatments although this was not always possible for every foraging run. We divided total visit duration into three categories: 1) flower handlingtime spent not manipulating anthers, 2) anther buzzingwhich occurred when a bee grasped either the pollinating or the feeding anthers with its mandibles and vibrated anthers to remove pollen (scored separately for each anther type), 3) groomingactive removal of pollen from the bees body.
We analyzed the effect of bee identity and treatment on the duration (square-root transformed) of different behaviours using MANOVA. In this analysis, each of the behaviors was treated as the dependent variable. To determine whether blocking access to pollen of feeding anthers reduced the time spent collecting pollen, we also analyzed the effect of treatment (Control, FA-only, and PA-only) on the proportion of total visit duration spent buzzing the feeding anthers (arcsine transformed).
Pollen export efficiency
To determine whether pollen grains from feeding and pollinating anthers differ in their probability of reaching stigmas of other flowers, we compared pollen export from Control, FA-only, and PA-only flowers to recipient flowers with no accessible pollen. For each trial (21 total), we collected six flowers of similar size and randomly assigned half of them into one of the three donor treatments and the remainder to recipients (all anthers glued). We mounted flowers as described above and presented them individually, inside a 1.1x1.1x1.5 m flight cage, to B.impatiens workers that had previously been trained with unmanipulated flowers. Training flowers were removed from the cage 12 hours before each experimental trial to allow bees to groom themselves clean. Within each trial, the three donor treatments were randomly presented to the bees. After a flower was visited and buzzed, it was replaced by a recipient flower, which we allowed the bee to visit only once. We then excised the stigma of the recipient flower, placed it on a clean slide, stained it with fuchsine-stained glycerol jelly ADDIN EN.CITE Beattie197129122912291217Beattie, A. J.A technique for the study of insect-borne pollenPan-Pacific EntomologistPan-Pacific Entomologist8247fuchisn jelly, pollen1971(Beattie, 1971), and gently squashed it under a cover slip. We then stored slides in a refrigerator until pollen grains were counted using a light microscope at 400 x magnification. Two independent observers counted each slide and we used the mean of the two counts in analyses (correlation c o e f f i c i e n t b e t w e e n t h e t w o c o u n t s : = 0 . 9 7 2 ) .
T o a s s e s s p o l l e n r e m o v a l f r o m d o n o r f l o w e r s , w e f i r s t e s t i m a t e d i n i t i a l p o l l e n a v a i l a b i l i t y . W e c o u n t e d t h e p o l l e n g r a i n s f r o m e a c h a n t h e r i n f i v e f l o w e r s f r o m e a c h o f 2 3 p l a n t s w i t h a n E l z o n e 2 8 2 P C e l e c t r o n i c particle counter ADDIN EN.CITE Harder19902678Particle Data, Inc., currently Micromeritics, Norcross, Georgia: see 2678267817Harder, L. D.Pollen Removal by Bumble Bees and Its Implications for Pollen DispersalEcologyEcology1110-11257131990JunISI:A1990DF09100025<Go to ISI>://A1990DF09100025 file://E:\Motecuzoma Library PDF\Harder 90_Ecology.pdf(Particle Data, Inc., currently Micromeritics, Norcross, Georgia: see Harder, 1990b) and measured anther length and width (at the base) to calculate volume. To characterize the size range of electronically measured particles that should be counted as pollen, we measured pollen diameter microscopically (400x magnification) for two anthers from two randomly sampled flowers per accession, with 200 grains per sample. Pollen within 3 s.d. of the mean (i.e., >99.7% of the size distribution) fell between 13.75 and 25.04 m diameter. We analyzed these data with a general linear model that considered anther volume (log[anther length * anther width2]) and type (pollinating or feeding anther) as fixed effects, and accession, individual, and flower as random effects. We used this relation to estimate pollen availability in flowers by subtracting the count of pollen left in anthers after a bee visit from pollen availability estimated from anther measurements.
We tested the effect of treatment on pollen deposition using ANCOVA fitted via maximum likelihood (glm package). Pollen deposition was square-root transformed prior to analysis to improve normality of the residuals. Models initially included treatment, pollen removal and buzz duration as explanatory variables, but buzz duration did not contribute significantly to variation in pollen deposition and was excluded. We compared treatments using Tukeys multiple comparison test (multcomp package).
Pollen placement and pollen grooming
Our observations indicated that pollinating and feeding anthers contact different areas of the pollinators body (and see Jesson and Barrett, 2005). Because differential pollen placement may represent a potential mechanism to enforce division of labour (see Discussion) we conducted an experiment to characterize pollen placement by the two anther types. We allowed individual bees a single visit to either PA-only or FA-only flowers, freeze-killed them immediately after visitation and scored pollen deposition patterns. We visually scored the areas of the body (Dorsal, Ventral, Lateral) where pollen was deposited, as well as the density of the pollen using a four-color scale on a diagram of the bees body, and analyzed the scanned images using digital image software (Adobe Photoshop CS2 ver. 9.0.2). We multiplied the area of the body covered by a density factor (high density = 1, medium density =0.666, low density = 0.333 and calculated the total pollen deposited in each area as the sum of (area covered)*(pollen density).
Bees actively engage in stereotypic behaviours such as pollen grooming. However, bees are not capable of grooming pollen from all areas of their body equally ADDIN EN.CITE Kimsey19842762see 2762276217Kimsey, L. S.The behavioral and structural aspects of grooming and related activities in euglossine bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae)Journal of ZoologyJournal of Zoology541-550204DEC19840952-8369ISI:A1984TX77200006<Go to ISI>://A1984TX77200006 (see Kimsey, 1984). Because feeding and pollinating anthers may deposit pollen in different areas of a bees body, we investigated the ability of bumble bees to groom pollen from different parts of their bodies. We extracted pollen from S. rostratum flowers and applied it to anesthetized bees in a uniform layer using a paintbrush. We placed pollen-covered bees in a flight cage, and allowed them to groom for 15 min (n=10 bees), and then freeze-killed and pinned them. Two observers visually scored pollen coverage on each bee with a dissecting microscope using a four-point relative scale and we used the results to make a composite (average) image. We compared mean pollen density of experimental bees to the mean density observed on control bees (n=5), which were immediately freeze-killed after applying pollen.
Results
Pollen production of anther types
Pollen number per anther and pollen diameter differed significantly between feeding and pollinating anthers (F1,438 = 2847.42, F1,438 = 46.27, respectively; P < 0.01; Table 1), but did not differ between right- and left-handed flowers (F1,89 = 2.97, F1,89 = 0.003, respectively; P > 0.05). The pollinating anther in a flower produced 3.79 times more pollen than single feeding anthers (Table 1). Because each flower has four feeding anthers, the single pollinating anther produces on average 4 9 % o f t h e t o t a l p o l l e n p e r f l o w e r . P o l l e n s i z e d i f f e r e d b y o n l y ~ 0 . 1 m b e t w e e n a n t h e r t y p e s ( T a b l e 1 ) .
P o l l i n a t o r b e h a v i o u r o n f e e d i n g a n d p o l l i n a t i n g a n t h e r s
A s p e c t s o f p o l l i n a t o r v i s i t a t i o n w e r e i n f l u e n c e d b y a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f p o l l e n f r o m d i f f e r e n t a n t h e r types. As predicted, bees visited Control, FA-only, and PA-only flowers with equivalent frequency (F2,63 = 0.65, P = 0.52), suggesting that they did not discriminate among treatments when deciding which flowers to visit or revisit. In contrast, the mean duration of flower visits differed among treatments (F2,63 = 3.66, P < 0.05), because of briefer visits to PA-only flowers than to Control flowers (Tukeys tests, P < 0.05), with visit duration to FA-only flowers lying between these extremes.
The difference in pollinator behaviour on feeding and pollinating anthers was most evident through an examination of tasks executed by bees while on flowers. While visiting Control flowers, bees spent an average of 13.5% of their time handling (mean s.e. duration = 23.0 2.8 s), 16.7% buzzing (28.1 1.7s), and 68.2% grooming (56.73.4 s). On Control flowers, 94.8% of buzzing time was directed to feeding anthers (26.31.7 seconds). The fraction of buzzing time directed to feeding anthers decreased significantly when access to pollen in the feeding anthers was blocked (PA-only treatment; 85.0 2.7% of total buzzing time) relative to that for both the Control and FA-only treatments (F2,79 = 10.46, P < 0.001; Tukey test, P < 0.05), which did not differ (94.7 1.9% and 97.1 1.2% respectively; Tukey test, P > 0.05).
Pollen export of pollinating and feeding anthers
The effectiveness of feeding and pollinating anthers in exporting pollen to recipient stigmas was evaluated while controlling for the amount of pollen removed from donor flowers. Table 2A presents the mean number of pollen grains removed from donor flowers and the mean number of grains exported to recipient flowers. ANCOVA indicated that the partial regression coefficients of pollen export on pollen removal were equivalent for the three treatments (Treatment*Pollen removal interaction: F2,56 = 1.46, P = 0.239) and further analysis therefore excluded this interaction. Pollen export varied positively with pollen removal from the donor flower (F1,58 = 4.03, P = 0.049). As predicted, the number of pollen grains exported to stigmas of single recipient flowers differed significantly among treatments (F1,58 = 3.24, P = 0.046), with PA-only flowers exporting significantly more pollen than FA-only flowers (PA-only FA-only = 14.04 2.19 grains, ), but as many pollen grains as Control flowers (PA-only Control = 1.982 1.784: Table 2B). Control flowers exported more pollen than FA-only flowers, on average, but this difference was not statistically significant (Control FA-only = 5.47 1.946).
Pollen placement and grooming patterns
The analysis of pollen placement by FA-only and PA-only flowers indicated that feeding anthers deposited proportionally more pollen on the ventral surface of the bee than pollinating anthers (F1,68 = 17.43, P < 0.001), whereas pollinating anthers deposited more pollen on both the dorsal and the lateral surfaces of the bees (F1,62 = 4.51, P < 0.05, and F1,62 = 4.21, P < 0.05, respectively). In addition, the ability of pollinators to groom pollen was not uniform across their bodies. Visual inspection of the composite image of pollen remaining after 15min of grooming versus the control image (0min grooming) indicated that B. impatiens was less efficient at removing pollen from much of the bees lower dorsal side, the mid and hind legs, and along the posterior lateral sides of the abdomen (data not shown). There were additional areas of high pollen density near the dorsal side of the bees petiole (where the thorax and abdomen join), and along the notal midline. In contrast, little pollen usually remained on the ventral surface.
Theoretical analysis of heteranthery evolution
Our experimental results for Solanum rostratum support ls ADDIN EN.CITE l188326372637263717l, FritzTwo kinds of stamens with different functions in the same flowerNatureNature364-36527Heterandry, heteranthery1883LondonMacmillan(1883) original proposal that heteranthery involves a division of labour between anthers into feeding and pollinating functions. Localized deposition of pollen on different parts of the bees body and differential grooming of these pollen grains provide a mechanism to realize these different functions. We now present a phenotypic model that explores the consequences of differential grooming of pollen from feeding and pollinating anthers for the evolution and maintenance of heteranthery. The model incorporates features of the pollination process in plant species that are visited by pollen-consuming insects and have the potential to allocate resources to two anther types.
Model
We model pollination by considering separate pollen pools for feeding and pollinating anthers and allowing pollinator visitation to vary with pollen rewards (Fig. 1). Consider a population of hermaphroditic plants in which the resources available for stamen production (S) are allocated to stamens with pollinating and feeding anthers in proportions p and (1-p), respectively. Pollen production equals the product of resource availability divided by the cost per pollen grain (c). For simplicity, we assume that the fixed costs of making an anther are deducted from a separate resource pool. The number of pollen grains produced is then simply N = S / c.
We distinguish two multiplicative components of pollen export: the number of pollen grains exported per unit of visitation, E; and the number and duration of visits that a plant receives, collectively denoted by h (e.g. time spent visiting a plant or total number of visits). During visitation, pollinators remove a fraction of the pollen produced by the feeding anthers, of which a subsequent fraction is deposited on the pollinators body, the product of which is represented by EMBED Equation.3 , and the remaining pollen is lost from the pollination process. Of the pollen on a pollinators body, proportion EMBED Equation.3 is collected as a reward by the pollinator (hereafter referred to as groomed) and the re m a i n d e r , 1 gf , i s a v a i l a b l e f o r p o l l i n a t i o n . A f r a c t i o n E M B E D E q u a t i o n . 3 o f t h e n o n - g r o o m e d p o l l e n i s t r a n s f e r r e d t o o t h e r p l a n t s s t i g m a s , w h e r e a s t h e r e m a i n d e r i s l o s t . T h e s a m e e v e n t s o c c u r f o r p o l l i n a t i n g a n t h e r s w i t h i n d e p e n d e n t g r o o m i n g p r o b abilities, indicated by subscript p. Here, we restrict analysis to the simplest, and perhaps most interesting case, in which pollinators groom more pollen from feeding anthers than from pollinating anthers, i.e. EMBED Equation.3 (Fig. 1). This is likely to be particularly important for functional dimorphism, because for each anther type an increase in the grooming fraction EMBED Equation.3 jointly increases pollinator attraction and reduces pollen donation. In this case, pollen exported per unit of visitation (E) is:
EMBED Equation.3 , (1)
where EMBED Equation.3 .
We assume that pollinator visitation (h) varies as a power function of the proportion of pollen that a pollinator collects ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Harder, 1990a; Rasheed & Harder, 1997ba), gl, w h e r e l = 0 w h e n v i s i t a t i o n v a r i e s i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f g r o o m e d p o l l e n , 0 <