Massimo Nepi1, Stefan Little2,3, Massimo Guarnieri1, Daniele Nocentini1, Natalie Prior2, Julia Gill2, P Barry Tomlinson4, Stefanie M Ickert-Bond5, Cary Pirone6, Ettore Pacini1, Patrick von Aderkas2. 1. Department of Life Sciences, University of Siena, Via P.A. Mattioli 4, 53100 Siena, Italy. 2. Centre for Forest Biology, Department of Biology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8W 3N2, Canada. 3. Laboratoire Écologie, Systématique, Évolution, CNRS UMR 8079, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, France. 4. Montgomery Botanical Centre, 11901 Old Cutler Road, Coral Gables, FL 33156, USA. 5. UA Museum of the North and Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 907 Yukon Dr., Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA. 6. The Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University, 125 Arborway, Boston, MA 02130-3500, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gymnosperms are either wind-pollinated (anemophilous) or both wind- and insect-pollinated (ambophilous). Regardless of pollination mode, ovular secretions play a key role in pollen capture, germination and growth; they are likely also involved in pollinator reward. Little is known about the broad-scale diversity of ovular secretions across gymnosperms, and how these may relate to various reproductive functions. This study analyses the sugar and amino acid profiles of ovular secretions across a range of ambophilous (cycads and Gnetales) and anemophilous gymnosperms (conifers) to place them in an evolutionary context of their possible functions during reproduction. METHODS: Ovular secretions from 13 species representing all five main lineages of extant gymnosperms were sampled. High-performance liquid chromatography techniques were used to measure sugar and amino acid content. Multivariate statistics were applied to assess whether there are significant differences in the chemical profiles of anemophilous and ambophilous species. Data were compared with published chemical profiles of angiosperm nectar. Chemical profiles were placed in the context of phylogenetic relationships. KEY RESULTS: Total sugar concentrations were significantly higher in ovular secretions of ambophilous species than wind-pollinated taxa such as Pinaceae and Cupressophyta. Ambophilous species had lower amounts of total amino acids, and a higher proportion of non-protein amino acids compared with anemophilous lineages, and were also comparable to angiosperm nectar. Results suggest that early gymnosperms likely had ovular secretion profiles that were a mosaic of those associated with modern anemophilous and ambophilous species. Ginkgo, thought to be anemophilous, had a profile typical of ambophilous taxa, suggesting that insect pollination either exists in Gingko, but is undocumented, or that its ancestral populations were insect-pollinated. CONCLUSIONS: Chemical profiles of ovular secretions of ambophilous gymnosperms show a clear signal of pollinator-driven selection, including higher levels of carbohydrates than anemophilous taxa, lower levels of amino acids, and the presence of specific amino acids, such as β-alanine, that are known to influence insect feeding behaviour and physiology.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gymnosperms are either wind-pollinated (anemophilous) or both wind- and insect-pollinated (ambophilous). Regardless of pollination mode, ovular secretions play a key role in pollen capture, germination and growth; they are likely also involved in pollinator reward. Little is known about the broad-scale diversity of ovular secretions across gymnosperms, and how these may relate to various reproductive functions. This study analyses the sugar and amino acid profiles of ovular secretions across a range of ambophilous (cycads and Gnetales) and anemophilous gymnosperms (conifers) to place them in an evolutionary context of their possible functions during reproduction. METHODS: Ovular secretions from 13 species representing all five main lineages of extant gymnosperms were sampled. High-performance liquid chromatography techniques were used to measure sugar and amino acid content. Multivariate statistics were applied to assess whether there are significant differences in the chemical profiles of anemophilous and ambophilous species. Data were compared with published chemical profiles of angiosperm nectar. Chemical profiles were placed in the context of phylogenetic relationships. KEY RESULTS: Total sugar concentrations were significantly higher in ovular secretions of ambophilous species than wind-pollinated taxa such as Pinaceae and Cupressophyta. Ambophilous species had lower amounts of total amino acids, and a higher proportion of non-protein amino acids compared with anemophilous lineages, and were also comparable to angiosperm nectar. Results suggest that early gymnosperms likely had ovular secretion profiles that were a mosaic of those associated with modern anemophilous and ambophilous species. Ginkgo, thought to be anemophilous, had a profile typical of ambophilous taxa, suggesting that insect pollination either exists in Gingko, but is undocumented, or that its ancestral populations were insect-pollinated. CONCLUSIONS: Chemical profiles of ovular secretions of ambophilous gymnosperms show a clear signal of pollinator-driven selection, including higher levels of carbohydrates than anemophilous taxa, lower levels of amino acids, and the presence of specific amino acids, such as β-alanine, that are known to influence insect feeding behaviour and physiology.
Authors: Norman J Wickett; Siavash Mirarab; Nam Nguyen; Tandy Warnow; Eric Carpenter; Naim Matasci; Saravanaraj Ayyampalayam; Michael S Barker; J Gordon Burleigh; Matthew A Gitzendanner; Brad R Ruhfel; Eric Wafula; Joshua P Der; Sean W Graham; Sarah Mathews; Michael Melkonian; Douglas E Soltis; Pamela S Soltis; Nicholas W Miles; Carl J Rothfels; Lisa Pokorny; A Jonathan Shaw; Lisa DeGironimo; Dennis W Stevenson; Barbara Surek; Juan Carlos Villarreal; Béatrice Roure; Hervé Philippe; Claude W dePamphilis; Tao Chen; Michael K Deyholos; Regina S Baucom; Toni M Kutchan; Megan M Augustin; Jun Wang; Yong Zhang; Zhijian Tian; Zhixiang Yan; Xiaolei Wu; Xiao Sun; Gane Ka-Shu Wong; James Leebens-Mack Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-10-29 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: L Irene Terry; Gimme H Walter; John S Donaldson; Elizabeth Snow; Paul I Forster; Peter J Machin Journal: Am J Bot Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.844
Authors: Dong Ren; Conrad C Labandeira; Jorge A Santiago-Blay; Alexandr Rasnitsyn; ChungKun Shih; Alexei Bashkuev; M Amelia V Logan; Carol L Hotton; David Dilcher Journal: Science Date: 2009-11-06 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Conrad C Labandeira; Qiang Yang; Jorge A Santiago-Blay; Carol L Hotton; Antónia Monteiro; Yong-Jie Wang; Yulia Goreva; ChungKun Shih; Sandra Siljeström; Tim R Rose; David L Dilcher; Dong Ren Journal: Proc Biol Sci Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 5.349
Authors: Natalie Prior; Stefan A Little; Ian Boyes; Patrick Griffith; Chad Husby; Cary Pirone-Davies; Dennis W Stevenson; P Barry Tomlinson; Patrick von Aderkas Journal: Plant Reprod Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 3.767
Authors: Amanda R De La Torre; Anthony Piot; Bobin Liu; Benjamin Wilhite; Matthew Weiss; Ilga Porth Journal: Evol Appl Date: 2019-07-21 Impact factor: 5.183