| Literature DB >> 35655126 |
Xiaoyue Wang1,2, Demei Hu1,2, Yan Chen1,2, Mengda Xiang1,2, Hanqing Tang1,2, Yin Yi1, Xiaoxin Tang3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Floral morphs are characterized differentiations in reciprocal positions of sexual organs and ancillary floral traits in heterostylous plants. However, it remains unclear how differential floral morphs ensure reproductive success between morphs using the same pollinator.Entities:
Keywords: Breeding system; Distyly; Nectar traits; Pollination efficiency; Pollinator
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35655126 PMCID: PMC9164504 DOI: 10.1186/s12870-022-03659-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 5.260
Fig. 1The short-styled (hereafter S-morph) and long-styled morphs (hereafter L-morph) of distylous Tirpitzia sinensis (A), and the main visitors of T. sinensis (B). A (i) the S-morph and (ii) L- morph of Tirpitzia sinensis. (iii) Pistil and stamen of L- and S- morphs. B (i, ii) Hawkmoth pollinator Macroglossum probed for the nectar secreted at the base of the long floral tube of T. sinensis (Note the pollen deposited on the tongue in i, marked with a red arrow). (iii) Bumblebees (Bombus) always robbed the nectar. (iv) Honeybees (Apis) mainly groomed the T. sinensis pollen into their corbiculae, acting as pollen thieves when visiting the flowers. All the photos are taken by Xiaoyue Wang and Demei Hu
Comparisons of vegetative and reproductive traits (mean ± SE) between long-styled morphs (hereafter L-morph) and short-styled (hereafter S-morph) morphs of Tirpitzia sinensis tested by a generalized linear model (GLM) analysis. Values of one morph significantly larger than the other are written in bold
| Traits | L-morph | S-morph | Wald χ2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaf length (mm) | 45.98 ± 0.57 | 3.89 | 0.049 | |
| Leaf width (mm) | 26.67 ± 0.57 | 3.981 | 0.046 | |
| Sepal length (mm) | 6.32 ± 0.12 | 17.836 | < 0.001 | |
| Sepal width (mm) | 2.87 ± 0.04 | 7.045 | 0.008 | |
| Corolla length (mm) | 22.49 ± 0.28 | 8.482 | 0.004 | |
| Corolla width (mm) | 22.29 ± 0.27 | 21.63 ± 0.27 | 2.934 | 0.087 |
| Blade length (mm) | 11.23 ± 0.14 | 4.056 | 0.044 | |
| Blade width (mm) | 9.11 ± 0.15 | 9.455 | 0.002 | |
| Opening diameter (mm) | 1.49 ± 0.03 | 1.47 ± 0.02 | 0.368 | 0.544 |
| Tube depth (mm) | 32.19 ± 0.26 | 54.607 | < 0.001 | |
| Tube diameter (mm) | 1.86 ± 0.03 | 1.87 ± 0.02 | 0.098 | 0.754 |
| Pistil length (mm) | 30.64 ± 0.33 | 164.13 | < 0.001 | |
| Stamen length (mm) | 29.94 ± 0.26 | 334.767 | < 0.001 | |
| Anther length (mm) | 1.31 ± 0.03 | 50.254 | < 0.001 | |
| Anther width (mm) | 0.56 ± 0.02 | 0.53 ± 0.02 | 2.517 | 0.113 |
| Anther thickness (mm) | 0.36 ± 0.01 | 0.35 ± 0.01 | 0.071 | 0.79 |
| Flower lifetime (days) | 3.4 ± 0.07 | 3.5 ± 0.11 | 1.124 | 0.289 |
| Pollen grain number | 1268.2 ± 51.3 | 70.485 | < 0.001 | |
| Pollen polar axis length (µm) | 46.02 ± 0.62 | 483.332 | < 0.001 | |
| Pollen equatorial axis length (µm) | 45.87 ± 0.56 | 445.653 | < 0.001 | |
| Ovule number | 8.2 ± 0.1 | 8.2 ± 0.1 | 0.026 | 0.871 |
| Pollen/ovule ratio | 154.41 ± 6.44 | 183.97 | < 0.001 |
Fig. 2Comparison of nectar volume, sugar concentration (mean ± SE) of L- and S-morphs between day and night in T. sinensis (A) and comparison of fructose, glucose and sucrose composition (mean ± SE) in the L- and S-morph nectar of T. sinensis (B). Bars that share the same letters are not significantly different between treatments. Numbers in the bar graph represent the sample size
Fig. 3Comparison of visits/flower/hour between honeybees, bumblebees and hawkmoths to S- and L-morphs. Bars sharing the same letters are not significantly different in visit rates among three visitor groups. The visit rates of hawkmoths to the S-morph are significantly higher than those to the L-morph (marked with black arrows)
Comparisons of pollination efficiency (pollen removal and pollen receipt of one visit by a hawkmoth) (mean ± SE, sample size) between the L- and S-morphs of Tirpitzia sinensis analyzed by GLM. Values of the L-morph significantly larger than those of the S-morph are written in bold
| L-morph | S-morph (46) | Wald | df | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pollen removal | 994.3 ± 37.3 | 418.602 | 1 | < 0.001 | |
| Pollen receipt | 9.9 ± 1.8 | 51.408 | 1 | < 0.001 |
Generalized linear model: effect of pollen recipient morph (L- and S-morphs) and pollination treatments (control, intermorph, intramorph, self-, autogamy and emasculated) and their interaction on seed set (%) in Tirpitzia sinensis
| Source of variation | df | Wald χ2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pollen recipient morph | 1 | 0.965 | 0.326 |
| Pollination treatments | 5 | 238.863 | <0.001 |
| Interaction | 5 | 23.962 | <0.001 |
Fig. 4Comparison of seed set under control, intermorph, intramorph, self-, autogamy and emasculated pollination treatments in L- and S-morphs. Bars sharing the same letters are not significantly different in seed set among pollination treatments. The seed set under control treatment between S- and L-morphs had no significant difference (marked with black arrows)