2002
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.89.8.1270
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Do floral herbivores respond to variation in flower characteristics in Gelsemium sempervirens (Loganiaceae), a distylous vine?

Abstract: We tested the hypothesis that traits traditionally thought to function in pollination can also influence attack by floral herbivores. Because distylous species produce two different flower types, we used Gelsemium sempervirens, a distylous vine of southeastern USA, to examine the frequency and pattern of floral herbivory in relation to floral characteristics. Flowers of the short-styled morph had larger corollas but showed no difference in the volume or concentration of nectar produced. Over the 2 yr of this s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

8
55
2
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(66 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
8
55
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Also in 2002, Osmia probed more available flowers in the high-alkaloid than the lowalkaloid treatment in pin flowers, but exhibited the opposite response to thrum flowers. The mechanistic reasons for these visitor-specific responses to floral morphs may be linked to foraging behaviors (i.e., foraging for nectar or pollen) or to correlations between morph and other floral or nectar traits (e.g., Leege and Wolfe 2002). Moreover, in 2004, high-alkaloid nectar reduced fruit production in thrum plants, but had little effect in pin plants (Appendix E).…”
Section: Differences Between Floral Morphsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also in 2002, Osmia probed more available flowers in the high-alkaloid than the lowalkaloid treatment in pin flowers, but exhibited the opposite response to thrum flowers. The mechanistic reasons for these visitor-specific responses to floral morphs may be linked to foraging behaviors (i.e., foraging for nectar or pollen) or to correlations between morph and other floral or nectar traits (e.g., Leege and Wolfe 2002). Moreover, in 2004, high-alkaloid nectar reduced fruit production in thrum plants, but had little effect in pin plants (Appendix E).…”
Section: Differences Between Floral Morphsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Distylous plant species provide an ideal opportunity to assess the associations among traits related to pollination and antagonistic interactions (Olesen, 1979;Contreras and Ornelas, 1999;Leege and Wolfe, 2002;Ornelas et al, 2004). Populations of distylous plants contain individuals that have flowers that produce either long styles and short filaments (''pin'' or L-morph) or short styles and long filaments (''thrum'' or Smorph) that are typically self-incompatible.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, plants are challenged by constantly changing abiotic and biotic environmental conditions that might affect a plant's capacity to invest in sexual reproduction (Euler and Baldwin, 1996;Carroll et al, 2001;Garc铆a and Ehrl茅n, 2002). Besides direct impacts, like floral oviposition (Dufa每 and Anstett, 2003) or floral herbivory (Leege and Wolfe, 2002;R枚 se and Tumlinson, 2004;Theis, 2006;Sanchez-Lafuente, 2007), flowers are mostly exposed to a changing environment as part of an entirely affected plant (Sampson and Cane, 1999;Carroll et al, 2001). One of the most deleterious biotic influences on plants is green leaf herbivory.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%