Literature DB >> 20671428

Dependency on floral resources determines the animals' responses to floral scents.

Robert R Junker1, Nico Blüthgen.   

Abstract

Animal-pollinated angiosperms either depend on cross-pollination or may also reproduce after self-pollination - the former are thus obligately, the latter facultatively dependent on the service of animal-pollinators. Analogously, flower visitors either solely feed on floral resources or complement their diet with these, and are hence dependent or not on the flowers they visit. We assume that obligate flower visitors evolved abilities that enable them to effectively forage on flowers including mechanisms to bypass or tolerate floral defences such as morphological barriers and repellent / deterrent secondary metabolites. Facultative flower visitors, in contrast, are supposed to lack these adaptations and are often prevented to consume floral resources by defence mechanisms. In cases where obligate flower visitors are mutualists and facultative ones are antagonists, this dichotomy provides a solution for the plants' dilemma to attract pollinators and simultaneously repel exploiters. In a meta-analysis, we recently supported this hypothesis: obligate flower visitors are attracted to floral scents, while facultative ones are repelled. Here, we add empirical evidence to these results: bumblebees and ants, obligate and facultative flower visitors, respectively, responded as predicted by the results of the meta-analysis to synthetic floral scent compounds.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20671428      PMCID: PMC3115183          DOI: 10.4161/psb.5.8.12289

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plant Signal Behav        ISSN: 1559-2316


  7 in total

1.  Herbivore responses to plant secondary compounds: a test of phytochemical coevolution theory.

Authors:  Howard V Cornell; Bradford A Hawkins
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2003-03-21       Impact factor: 3.926

2.  Floral evolution. A compromise on floral traits.

Authors:  Kathryn Brown
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-10-04       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Responses to olfactory signals reflect network structure of flower-visitor interactions.

Authors:  Robert R Junker; Nicole Höcherl; Nico Blüthgen
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 5.091

Review 4.  Consumptive emasculation: the ecological and evolutionary consequences of pollen theft.

Authors:  Anna L Hargreaves; Lawrence D Harder; Steven D Johnson
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2009-05

5.  Floral scents repel facultative flower visitors, but attract obligate ones.

Authors:  Robert R Junker; Nico Blüthgen
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 4.357

6.  Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions.

Authors:  J L Bronstein
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 17.712

7.  The olfactory component of floral display in Asimina and Deeringothamnus (Annonaceae).

Authors:  Katherine R Goodrich; Robert A Raguso
Journal:  New Phytol       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 10.151

  7 in total
  2 in total

1.  Floral odor bouquet loses its ant repellent properties after inhibition of terpene biosynthesis.

Authors:  Robert R Junker; Jonathan Gershenzon; Sybille B Unsicker
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2011-12-09       Impact factor: 2.626

2.  Extracting the Behaviorally Relevant Stimulus: Unique Neural Representation of Farnesol, a Component of the Recruitment Pheromone of Bombus terrestris.

Authors:  Martin F Strube-Bloss; Austin Brown; Johannes Spaethe; Thomas Schmitt; Wolfgang Rössler
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.