| Literature DB >> 31608183 |
Pablo C Guerrero1, Claudia A Antinao1, Beatriz Vergara-Meriño1, Cristian A Villagra2, Gastón O Carvallo3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sympatric congeneric plants might share pollinators, or each species might avoid competition by evolving specialized traits that generate partitions in pollinator assemblages. In both cases, pollen limitation (a decrease in the quality and quantity of compatible reproductive pollen) can occur, driving the plant mating system to autogamy as a mechanism of reproductive assurance. We assessed the relationships between pollinator assemblages and mating systems in a group of sympatric congeneric plants. We attempted to answer the following questions: (i) How similar are pollinator assemblages among sympatric cactus species? (ii) Which mating systems do sympatric cactus species use?Entities:
Keywords: Cactaceae; Central Chile; Endemism; Hummingbird; Insect pollinators; Los Molles; Pichidangui; Plant-animal interactions; Pollen limitation; anthropocene
Year: 2019 PMID: 31608183 PMCID: PMC6786246 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7865
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Local distribution of the Eriosyce species between Pichidangui Bay and Los Molles Peninsula, Chile.
The colors of the dots on the map and within the insets refer to different taxa: (A) E. chilensis var. albidiflora (white), (B) E. chilensis (red), (C) E. curvispina var. mutabilis (orange) and (D) E. subgibbosa (blue). Map data © 2018 Google, Image DigitalGlobe, CNES / Airbus, Data SIO, NOAA, US Navy, NGA, GEBCO.
Pollinator richness and number of visits for four Eriosyce taxa in two consecutive years, central Chile.
| Year 2016 | Year 2017 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taxon | Species richness | Number of visits | Species richness | Number of visits |
| 4 (3–8) | 32 | 8 (4–10) | 74 | |
| 7 (3–9) | 32 | 4 (4–10) | 97 | |
| 7 (4–11) | 85 | 6 (4–10) | 118 | |
| 4 (3–9) | 50 | 2 (2–7) | 14 | |
| Total | 11 (4–10) | 199 | 12 (5–11) | 303 |
Note:
Values in parentheses in species richness are 95% confidence intervals estimated after matrix randomization (N = 9,999).
Similarity of pollinator assemblages (1—Bray–Curtis index) among the Eriosyce species during 2016 (below the diagonal) and 2017 (above the diagonal).
The diagonal depicts intraspecific similarity between the years 2016 and 2017. The observed similarity indexes were contrasted with null models to test whether they were different from the expected by chance, values that deviated from null expectations are marked with asterisks (*P < 0.05), the interval of null models are shown in parenthesis.
| 0.403 (0.050–0.851) | 0.690 (0.070–0.837) | 0.242 (0.027–0.857) | 0.018 (0–0.851) | |
| 0.844 (0.051–0.847) | 0.453 (0.073–0.833) | 0.104* (0.154–0.860) | 0 (0–0.718) | |
| 0.291 (0.165–0.868) | 0.342 (0.049–0.843) | 0.187 (0.136–0.872) | 0.030 (0–0.776) | |
| 0.032* (0.064–0.833) | 0 (0–0.862) | 0.089 (0.050–0.852) | 0.438 (0–0.811) |
Figure 2Reproductive output of the Eriosyce species after the pollination experiment.
(A) Number of seeds (mean ± standard error), (B) number of seed (standardized) and (C) proportion of fruits produced. For each panel, the bars indicate the results of the three pollination treatments: unmanipulated plants (Control), manually cross-pollinated plants (Cross) and automatically self-pollinated plants (Self). Taxa names were abbreviated as follows: E. chilensis var. albidiflora (alb), E. chilensis (chi), E. curvispina var. mutabilis (mut) and E. subgibbosa (sub). For seed production, we reported the statistical significance of the Kruskal–Wallis test that compared differences among treatments for each species (***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05; ns, non-significant differences). Letters above seed number bars are the results of Nemenyi a posteriori tests; different letters indicate significant differences among compared treatments.