The evolution of obligate pollination mutualisms: senita cactus and senita moth

Fleming, Theodore H.; Holland, J. Nathaniel

doi:10.1007/s004420050459

Cited by 157 publications

(167 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

155

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fruit set (fraction of flowers initiating fruit development) is limited by rainfall and water availability (Holland 2002). In 1995, 1996, and 1998-2000, we studied senita cacti near Bahia de Kino (BK), Sonora, Mexico (28°N, 111°W). At BK we had two study sites, Seri Flats and Polilla Flats.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These systems include globeflowers and flies (Pellmyr 1989(Pellmyr , 1992Hemborg and Despres 1999;Jaeger et al 2000), Lithophragma and Greya moths (Thompson and Pellmyr 1992;Thompson 1994;, Silene vulgaris and Hadena moths (Pettersson 1991a(Pettersson , 1991b(Pettersson , 1992a(Pettersson , 1992b, and senita cacti and senita moths (Fleming and Holland 1998;Holland andFleming 1999a, 1999b). Evolution of extreme specialization of these plants on pollinating seed-consumers may depend on presence or absence of co-pollinators (Pettersson 1991a; Thompson and Pellmyr 1992;.…”

Section: And Fig/fig Waspmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, senita are similar to plants of less specialized systems because flower traits do not completely exclude co-pollinators. A few bee species pollinate flowers of senita cacti (Fleming and Holland 1998). How specialized are senita and senita moths on one another?…”

Section: And Fig/fig Waspmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We report Greenhouse-Geisser adjusted P-values. We re-analyzed 1995, 1996, and 1997 data (Fleming and Holland 1998;Fleming et al 2001) to account for among-plant variance and to compare results with resource limitation. Trials were not conducted in 1999 and 2000 because flowers closed prior to sunrise, naturally excluding diurnal bees.…”

Section: Resource-versus Pollen-limited Fruit Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Co-pollinators and specialization in the pollinating seed-consumer mutualism between senita cacti and senita moths

Holland

Fleming

2002

Oecologia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Specialization of a plant on a particular pollinator may not evolve if co-pollinators are effective and abundant. This is particularly evident if fruit set is resource limited and cannot be increased above the levels produced by the actions of co-pollinators. The pollinating seed-consuming interaction between senita cacti and senita moths in the Sonoran Desert presents a paradox because it exhibits many traits resembling those of the highly specialized yucca/yucca moth system, but also involves co-pollinators. For 6 years, we studied how contributions of nocturnal senita moths and diurnal co-pollinating bees to fruit set depended on resource and pollen limitation, time of flower closing, and the onset and phenology of flowering. Fruit set was typically resource limited. Fruit set of flowers exposed only to senita moths was not different from resource-limited fruit set of control flowers. When only co-pollinating bees were allowed to visit flowers, however, fruit set became pollen limited. Only in one year when fruit set was pollen limited were bees able to increase fruit set beyond the level resulting from senita moth pollination. High temperatures commonly induced flowers to close before sunrise so that diurnal bees were unable to visit flowers. This was particularly important from 1998 to 2000, when flowering did not begin until late in spring when temperatures were already high enough to induce flowers to close before sunrise. Bees were typically functionally redundant with senita moths; excluding bees from visiting flowers did not alter fruit set. Nevertheless, extreme specialization of floral traits to exclude co-pollinators has not evolved in senita, possibly because there are times when bees do increase fruit set. This can occur when senita moths are rare, fruit set is pollen limited, cool temperatures prevent flowers from closing before sunrise, and flowering begins early in spring.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: And Fig/fig Waspmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: And Fig/fig Waspmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resource-versus Pollen-limited Fruit Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Co-pollinators and specialization in the pollinating seed-consumer mutualism between senita cacti and senita moths

Holland

Fleming

2002

Oecologia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unlike the yucca/yucca moth and senita cactus/senita moth associations (obligate mutualism; Fleming and Holland 1998), the interaction studied here between Silene latifolia and Hadena bicruris is not obligate and is therefore considered to be a basal form of nursery pollination (Dufaÿ and Anstett 2003;Bernasconi et al 2009). However, there is evidence for potential specialization in this system, at least to some degree: the two species have similar geographic distributions, flowering and oviposition are synchronous (Biere and Honders 1996;Bopp and Gottsberger 2004;Wright and Meagher 2003), moths respond to specific scent compounds emitted by the flowers (Dotterl et al 2006), and H. bicruris larvae grow better on S. latifolia than on other host species (Bopp and Gottsberger 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Benefits and costs to pollinating, seed-eating insects: the effect of flower size and fruit abortion on larval performance

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant-pollinator interactions are well-known examples of mutualism, but are not free of antagonism. Antagonistic interactions and defenses or counter-defenses are expected particularly in nursery pollination. In these systems, adult insects, while pollinating, lay their eggs in flowers, and juveniles consume the seeds from one or several fruits, thereby substantially reducing plant fitness. The outcome of such interactions will depend, for the plant, on the balance between pollination versus seed predation and for the larvae on the balance between the food and shelter provided versus the costs imposed by plant defenses, e.g., through abortion of infested fruits. Here, we examine the costs and benefits to the larvae in the nurserypollination system Silene latifolia/Hadena bicruris. Using selection lines that varied in flower size (large-vs. smallflowered plants), we investigated the effects of variation in flower and fruit size and of a potential defense, fruit abortion, on larval performance. In this system, infested fruits are significantly more likely to be aborted than noninfested fruits; however, it is unclear whether fruit abortion is effective as a defense. Larger flowers gave rise to larger fruits with more seeds, and larvae that were heavier at emergence. Fruit abortion was frequently observed (ca. 40% of the infested fruits). From aborted fruits, larvae emerged earlier and were substantially lighter than larvae emerging from non-aborted fruits. The lower mass at emergence of larvae from aborted fruits indicates that abortion is a resistance mechanism. Assuming that lower larval mass implies fewer resources invested in the frugivore, these results also suggest that abortion is likely to benefit the plant as a defense mechanism, by limiting both resources invested in attacked fruits, as well as the risk of secondary attack. This suggests that selective fruit abortion may contribute to the stability of mutualism also in this non-obligate system.

show abstract

Reproductive Isolation

2004

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Genetics, Genomics and Proteomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evolution of obligate pollination mutualisms: senita cactus and senita moth

Cited by 157 publications

References 24 publications

Co-pollinators and specialization in the pollinating seed-consumer mutualism between senita cacti and senita moths

Co-pollinators and specialization in the pollinating seed-consumer mutualism between senita cacti and senita moths

Benefits and costs to pollinating, seed-eating insects: the effect of flower size and fruit abortion on larval performance

Reproductive Isolation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About