Literature DB >> 18460431

Hummingbird responses to gender-biased nectar production: are nectar biases maintained by natural or sexual selection?

Jane E Carlson1.   

Abstract

Pollinators mediate the evolution of secondary floral traits through both natural and sexual selection. Gender-biased nectar, for example, could be maintained by one or both, depending on the interactions between plants and pollinators. Here, I investigate pollinator responses to gender-biased nectar using the dichogamous herb Chrysothemis friedrichsthaliana (Gesneriaceae) which produces more nectar during the male floral phase. Previous research showed that the hummingbird pollinator Phaethornis striigularis visited male-phase flowers more often than female-phase flowers, and multiple visits benefited male more than female fecundity. If sexual selection maintains male-biased rewards, hummingbirds should prefer more-rewarding flowers independent of floral gender. If, however, differential rewards are partially maintained through natural selection, hummingbirds should respond to asymmetry with visits that reduce geitonogamy, i.e. selfing and pollen discounting. In plants with male biases, these visit types include single-flower visits and movements from low to high rewards. To test these predictions, I manipulated nectar asymmetry between pairs of real or artificial flowers on plants and recorded foraging behaviour. I also assessed maternal costs of selfing using hand pollinations. For plants with real flowers, hummingbirds preferred more-rewarding flowers and male-phase morphology, the latter possibly owing to previous experience. At artificial arrays, hummingbirds responded to extreme reward asymmetry with increased single-flower visits; however, they moved from high to low rewards more often than low to high. Finally, selfed flowers did not produce inferior seeds. In summary, sexual selection, more so than geitonogamy avoidance, maintains nectar biases in C. friedrichsthaliana, in one of the clearest examples of sexual selection in plants, to date.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18460431      PMCID: PMC2587787          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  8 in total

1.  Pollen discounting and the evolution of selfing in Arenaria uniflora (caryophyllaceae).

Authors:  L Fishman
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.694

Review 2.  Sexual selection: an evolutionary force in plants?

Authors:  Io Skogsmyr; Asa Lankinen
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2002-11

Review 3.  Explaining phenotypic selection on plant attractive characters: male function, gender balance or ecological context?

Authors:  Tia-Lynn Ashman; Martin T Morgan
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-03-22       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila.

Authors:  A J BATEMAN
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  1948-12       Impact factor: 3.821

5.  Sex differential nectar secretion in protandrous Alstroemeria aurea (Alstroemeriaceae): is production altered by pollen removal and receipt?

Authors:  M Aizen; A Basilio
Journal:  Am J Bot       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 3.844

6.  Male-biased nectar production in a protandrous herb matches predictions of sexual selection theory in plants.

Authors:  Jane E Carlson
Journal:  Am J Bot       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.844

7.  Geitonogamy: The neglected side of selfing.

Authors:  T J de Jong; N M Waser; P G Klinkhamer
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 17.712

8.  Pollinator preference and the evolution of floral traits in monkeyflowers (Mimulus).

Authors:  D W Schemske; H D Bradshaw
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1999-10-12       Impact factor: 11.205

  8 in total
  2 in total

1.  Direct and indirect selection on floral pigmentation by pollinators and seed predators in a color polymorphic South African shrub.

Authors:  Jane E Carlson; Kent E Holsinger
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Evolutionary rates for multivariate traits: the role of selection and genetic variation.

Authors:  William Pitchers; Jason B Wolf; Tom Tregenza; John Hunt; Ian Dworkin
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2014-08-19       Impact factor: 6.237

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.