Food deception as a pollination strategy has inspired many studies over the last few decades. Pollinator deception has evolved in many orchids possibly to enhance outcrossing. Food-deceptive orchids usually have low pollinator visitation rates as compared to rewarding species. They may benefit in visitations from the presence (magnet-species hypothesis) or, alternatively, absence of coflowering rewarding species (competition hypothesis). We present data on pollinator visitations on a deceptive, terrestrial orchid Calypso bulbosa, a species with a single flower per plant and whose flowering period partly overlaps with rewarding, early flowering willows (Salix sp.) and later-flowering bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus). When surveying inactive bumblebee queens on willows in cool weather, about 7% of them carried Calypso pollinia. Most common bumblebee species appeared to visit and thus pollinate Calypso. Bumblebees typically visited one to three Calypso flowers before flying away, providing some support for the outcrossing hypothesis. We conclude that, regarding the pollinations strategy, both magnet-species and competition hypotheses have a role in the pollination of Calypso, but on different spatial scales. On a large scale rewarding species are important for attracting pollinators to a given region, but on a small scale absence of competition ensures sufficient pollination rate for the deceptive orchid.

Natural fruit set is constrained by pollen limitation and fruiting failure, and pollen limitation is expected to be especially severe in deceptive orchids. We performed hand cross‐pollinations in ten populations of a food‐deceptive orchid, Calypso bulbosa, under sparse and dense canopies in three non‐consecutive years. We explored the relationships between natural fruit set, pollen limitation and fruiting failure. Mean natural fruit set over the years was 60%, which is exceptionally high for a deceptive orchid. On average, hand cross‐pollination increased fruit set by 23%. Among open‐pollinated plants that did not set a fruit, 55.5% were estimated to be pollen limited and 44.5% to be limited by fruiting failure, i.e. inability to set a fruit after pollination. In species with high natural fruit set, hand cross‐pollination experiments may not always detect statistically significant pollen limitation. In our case, pollen limitation tended to become significant when the natural fruit set dropped below 60%. Canopy cover had a significant effect on fruiting failure, which was more severe under a dense canopy. Although our results demonstrate pollen limitation in many cases, they also highlight the fact that food deception can be a very effective pollination strategy. © 2013 The Linnean Society of London,