| Literature DB >> 29043032 |
Emma J Morgan1, Christopher N Kaiser-Bunbury2, Peter J Edwards3, Frauke Fleischer-Dogley4, Chris J Kettle1.
Abstract
Habitat degradation can reduce or even prevent the reproduction of previously abundant plant species. To develop appropriate management strategies, we need to understand the reasons for reduced recruitment in degraded ecosystems. The dioecious coco de mer palm (Lodoicea maldivica) produces by far the largest seeds of any plant. It is a keystone species in an ancient palm forest that occurs only on two small islands in the Seychelles, yet contemporary rates of seed production are low, especially in fragmented populations. We developed a method to infer the recent reproductive history of female trees from morphological evidence present on their inflorescences. We then applied this method to investigate the effects of habitat disturbance and soil nutrient conditions on flower and fruit production. The 57 female trees in our sample showed a 19.5-fold variation in flower production among individuals over a seven-year period. Only 77.2% of trees bore developing fruits (or had recently shed fruits), with the number per tree ranging from zero to 43. Flower production was positively correlated with concentrations of available soil nitrogen and potassium and did not differ significantly between closed and degraded habitat. Fruiting success was positively correlated with pollen availability, as measured by numbers and distance of neighboring male trees. Fruit set was lower in degraded habitat than in closed forest, while the proportion of abnormal fruits that failed to develop was higher in degraded habitat. Seed size recorded for a large sample of seeds collected by forest wardens varied widely, with fresh weights ranging from 1 to 18 kg. Synthesis: Shortages of both nutrients and pollen appear to limit seed production of Lodoicea in its natural habitat, with these factors affecting different stages of the reproductive process. Flower production varies widely amongst trees, while seed production is especially low in degraded habitat. The size of seeds is also very variable. We discuss the implications of these findings for managing this ecologically and economically important species.Entities:
Keywords: Lodoicea maldivica; Seychelles Islands; flower production; fruit abortion; fruit set; habitat degradation; nutrient allocation; pollen limitation; reproductive ecology; seed size
Year: 2017 PMID: 29043032 PMCID: PMC5632624 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3312
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Photographs of Lodoicea maldivica on Praslin. (a) Female bearing a large fruit set. The most recently produced fruits can be observed on the uppermost inflorescences, and successively more mature fruits can be seen on inflorescences hanging lower down on the palm. (b) Dissected abnormal fruit. (c) Dissected fruit with seed inside. (d) Female bearing fruits and abnormal fruits. (e) Receptive female flower. (f) Gecko (Ailuronyx trachygaster) feeding on the nectar of a male inflorescence. (g) Seed. (h) Closed forest in Vallée de Mai. (i) Degraded shrubland in the north of Praslin. Two adult males can be observed amongst the shrub
Figure 2Locations of the sites of sampled female Lodoicea maldivica on Praslin. Black triangles are individuals that had six or more fruits; dark gray circles are those with no fruits; light gray squares are all others. Trees sampled in the south of the island belong to closed forest (crossed area = Praslin National Park, lined area = Ravin de Fond Ferdinand Nature Reserve), and trees sampled in the north belong to patches of Lodoicea trees in an otherwise homogeneous, degraded shrubland
Variables tested in this study for each female Lodoicea maldivica, including resin adsorption rates for nitrogen (N; , and combined), available soil phosphorus (P) and potassium (K), and soil pH (all measurements combined from 0.5 and 1 m sampling distances from females). Also measured were the distance to the nearest male and number of males within 10 m from the female, and the standardized multilocus heterozygosity (MLH) of the female. Spearman's rho correlation coefficients (except inflorescence number against soil pH and MLH, which were tested with Pearson's correlations), and significance levels are given. One outlying female that produced 43 fruits was excluded from all correlations
| Variable |
| Mean ( | Range | Correlation coefficient | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inflorescence no. | Flower no. | Fruit no. | % fruit set | ||||
| Available N (μg N/g/day) | 56 | 4.90 (6.31) | 0.46–28.79 | 0.317 | 0.381** | 0.002 | −0.090 |
| Soil P (μg P/g dry soil) | 52 | 3.72 (3.20) | 0.31–14.99 | 0.315 | 0.196 | 0.164 | 0.126 |
| Soil K (μg K/g dry soil) | 52 | 129.35 (97.92) | 31.00–509.05 | 0.370 | 0.235 | 0.241 | 0.166 |
| Soil pH | 52 | 4.93 (0.43) | 3.76–6.34 | 0.267 | 0.158 | 0.094 | 0.069 |
| Distance to nearest male (m) | 57 | 28.06 (34.87) | 0.4–159 | 0.066 | 0.159 | −0.483 | −0.529 |
| No. males ≤ 10 m | 57 | 0.93 (1.69) | 0–9 | −0.143 | −0.240 | 0.465 | 0.533 |
| MLH | 57 | 0.768 (0.243) | 0.360–1.321 | −0.073 | −0.041 | 0.020 | −0.023 |
****P ≤ .0001, ***P ≤ .001, **P ≤ .01 Significance values after sequential Bonferroni corrections for each response variable.
Variation in reproductive output of female Lodoicea maldivica included in this study. Reported are the means (±SD). Fruit set is defined as proportion of flowers that developed into fruits
| Reproductive output | Closed forest ( | Degraded shrubland ( | Overall ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of inflorescences | 6.97 (3.00) | 6.78 (2.56) | 6.91 (2.85) |
| No. of flowers (all)/ inflorescence | 5.26 (1.77) | 4.95 (0.04) | 5.16 (1.66) |
| No. of flowers (all)/ tree | 39.62 (28.14) | 35.72 (21.00) | 38.39 (25.97) |
| No. of undeveloped ovules/tree | 31.92 (24.99) | 31.06 (17.68) | 31.65 (22.78) |
| No. of fruits (all)/ tree | 6.18 (7.27) | 0.72 (1.02) | 4.46 (6.54) |
| No. of developing fruits/tree | 5.62 (6.80) | 0.61 (1.04) | 4.04 (6.10) |
| No. of fallen immature fruits/tree | 0.36 (1.14) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.25 (0.95) |
| No. of fallen mature fruits/tree | 0.15 (0.43) | 0.06 (0.24) | 0.12 (0.38) |
| Fruit set | 0.21 (0.19) | 0.03 (0.04) | 0.16 (0.18) |
| No. of abnormal fruits/tree | 1.54 (4.53) | 4.00 (6.37) | 2.32 (5.25) |
Final GLM models for female Lodoicea maldivica fecundity
| Estimate |
|
| Pr(>| | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (a) Response: inflorescence number | ||||
| Intercept | 1.6789 | 0.0988 | 16.998 | <2e‐16 |
| N | 0.0121 | 0.0077 | 1.577 | 0.1148 |
| K | 0.0012 | 0.0005 | 2.396 | 0.0166 |
| Null deviance: 58.065 on 50 | ΔAICc (full & final): 19.6 | |||
| Residual deviance: 49.966 on 48 | ΔAICc (penultimate & final): −0.2 | |||
| (b) Response: flower number | ||||
| Intercept | 3.2506 | 0.1483 | 21.924 | <2e‐16 |
| N | 0.0209 | 0.0125 | 1.672 | 0.0944 . |
| K | 0.0018 | 0.0008 | 2.173 | 0.0298 |
| Null deviance: 61.526 on 50 | ΔAICc (full & final): 21.8 | |||
| Residual deviance: 53.194 on 48 | ΔAICc (penultimate & final): 0.3 | |||
| (c) Response: Presence of fruit(s) (both vegetation types) | ||||
| Intercept | 2.1691 | 0.5278 | 4.110 | 3.96e‐05 |
| Degraded shrubland | −2.1691 | 0.7076 | −3.065 | 0.00218 |
| Null deviance: 61.210 on 56 | ΔAICc (full & final): 12.3 | |||
| Residual deviance: 50.746 on 55 | ΔAICc (penultimate & final): −1.3 | |||
| (d) Response: Presence of fruit(s) (closed forest) | ||||
| Intercept | 2.1691 | 0.5278 | 4.11 | 3.96e‐05 |
| Null deviance: 25.793 on 38 | ΔAICc (full & final): 5.7 | |||
| Residual deviance: 25.793 on 37 | ΔAICc (penultimate & final): 2.0 | |||
| (e) Response: Fruit set when fruit(s) present (both vegetation types) | ||||
| Intercept | −0.64972 | 0.2258 | −2.878 | 0.00639 |
| Distance to nearest male | −0.0690 | 0.0182 | −3.781 | 0.00051 |
| Degraded shrubland | −2.1272 | 0.8579 | −2.596 | 0.01312 |
| Distance to nearest male × degraded shrubland | 0.0624 | 0.0214 | 2.920 | 0.00573 |
| Null deviance: 273.27 on 43 | ΔQAICc (full & final): 9.1 | |||
| Residual deviance: 134.99 on 40 | ΔQAICc (penultimate & final): 1.9 | |||
| (f) Response: Presence of abnormal fruit(s) | ||||
| Intercept | −2.2305 | 0.4968 | −4.490 | 3.69e‐05 |
| Distance to nearest male | 0.0507 | 0.0143 | 3.549 | 8e‐04 |
| Null deviance: 71.097 on 56 | ΔQAICc (full & final): 10.3 | |||
| Residual deviance: 48.910 on 55 | ΔQAICc (penultimate & final): −0.4 | |||
***p ≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, *p ≤ .05, p < .01.
Figure 3Frequency histogram showing numbers of fruits and abnormal fruits produced by individual female Lodoicea maldivica trees. Each female is represented twice: once each for the numbers of fruits and abnormal fruits
Contingency table of female Lodoicea maldivica with fruits and abnormal fruits in closed forest, degraded shrubland and overall populations. Total numbers for each category are given in brackets. Fisher's two‐tailed exact probabilities are shown
| Abnormal fruits | Fruits | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| + | − | ||
| Closed forest | |||
| + | 42.86% (3) | 57.14% (4) | 100% |
| − | 93.75% (30) | 6.25% (2) | 100% |
| Total | 84.62% (33) | 15.38% (6) | (39) |
| Degraded shrubland | |||
| + | 54.55% (6) | 45.45% (5) | 100% |
| − | 42.86% (3) | 57.14% (4) | 100% |
| Total | 50.00% (9) | 50.00% (9) | (18) |
Two‐tailed exact test p = .006.
Two‐tailed exact test p = 1.
Figure 4Frequency distribution of the fresh weights (kg) of Lodoicea maldivica seeds (N = 2,416)