Most species of Maxillaria s.l. are rewardless and employ deceit pollination strategies. Some, however, reward pollinators with nectar, resins or pseudopollen (farina). Pseudopollen is yellow–white in colour and is usually composed of food‐laden cells formed by detachment or fragmentation of moniliform labellar hairs. As the pollen of epidendroid orchids is bound in pollinia, it is not accessible to pollen‐foraging insects. It has thus been proposed that potential insect pollinators, deceived by the resemblance of pseudopollen to the nutritious, powdery pollen of other angiosperms, gather it and feed it to their larvae. Mimicry here, however, may not be as simple as supposed. This study compares the pseudopollen of selected species of Maxillaria s.s., namely Maxillaria grandis, M. grayi, M. huebschii and M. roseola (all members of the M. grandiflora complex), M. lepidota (M. arachnites complex) and M. buchtienii (M. splendens complex), using light microscopy (LM), fluorescence microscopy, histochemistry, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and comments on its evolutionary significance. Some members of the M. grandiflora complex produce pseudopollen‐forming hairs, the cells of which contain potential food rewards in the form of an intravacuolar protein body and abundant starch grains. Others produce pseudopollen that is devoid of protein bodies, but contains abundant starch, and others produce pseudopollen that lacks protein bodies and contains negligible amounts of starch. Maxillaria lepidota and M. buchtienii fall into the second and third categories, respectively. Lipid droplets, when present, usually occur in minute quantities. These observations suggest that a dual deceit strategy operates in some species, as pseudopollen not only mimics powdery pollen, but in many instances lacks a food reward. Cryptic evolutionary changes to pseudopollen content may confer biological advantage by reducing expenditure of material and energy in food reward production, while trichome micromorphology simultaneously encourages pollinator visits. The presence or absence of particular foods may, in turn, result in pollinator selection. Conversely, in the absence of food rewards, insect behaviour is unlikely to be reinforced, possibly to the detriment of the orchid. © 2013 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2013, 173, 744–763.
A b s t r a c tThe structure of the osmophores in Stanhopea graveolens and Cycnoches chlorochilon was studied by means of light microscopy (LM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The scent glands are located in the basal part of the labellum. The surface of the osmophores is wrinkled or rugose, which increases the area of fragrance emission. On the surface of the epidermis, remnants of secretion are noticeable in S. graveolens, but these are absent in C. chlorochilon. The osmophore tissue is composed of secretory epidermal cells and several layers of subepidermal parenchyma, and it is supplied by vascular bundles that run in ground parenchyma. The secretory cells have large nuclei, a dense cytoplasm with numerous ER profiles, lipid droplets, and plastids with a substantial amount of starch, which are probably involved in the synthesis of volatile substances. In the cell walls of the osmophore cells, numerous pits with plasmodesmata occur that are likely to take part in symplastic transport of the scent compounds. The structure of the osmophores is similar in both investigated species. Both S. graveolens and C. chlorochilon are pollinated by euglossine bees, and such similarity results from adaptation to effective scent emission and attraction of pollinators.
The diverse anatomy of the nectary is described for a range of Aeridinae species. All species of Ascocentrum investigated displayed features characteristic of ornithophilous taxa. They have weakly zygomorphic, scentless, red or orange flowers, display diurnal anthesis, possess cryptic anther caps and produce nectar that is secluded in a relatively massive nectary spur. Unicellular, secretory hairs line the lumen at the middle part of the spur. Generally, however, with the exception of Papilionanthe vandarum, the nectary spurs of all entomophilous species studied here (Schoenorchis gemmata, Sedirea japonica, Stereochilus dalatensis) lack secretory trichomes. Moreover, collenchymatous secretory tissue, present only in the nectary spur of Asiatic Ascocentrum species, closely resembles that found in nectaries of certain Neotropical species that are hummingbird-pollinated and assigned to subtribes Maxillariinae Benth., Laeliinae Benth. and Oncidiinae Benth. This similarity in anatomical organization of the nectary, regardless of geographical distribution and phylogeny, indicates convergence.
Floral food‐rewards of Bulbophyllum range from nectar to protein‐rich mucilage and lipid‐rich labellar secretions. For the first time, the structure of the labellum and the secretory process are investigated for four African Bulbophyllum species. The most specialized type of labellar organization occurred in B. schinzianum, the deep, narrow, median longitudinal groove consisting of palisade‐like secretory cells flanked by trichomes containing lipid droplets, and the copious secretion containing sugar. This groove was absent or poorly defined, shallow and wide, in the remaining taxa, the scant secretion containing lipid. All taxa possessed a striate cuticle lacking cracks and pores, and micro‐channels were present, cuticular blisters occurring only in B. schinzianum. The labellum contained storage parenchyma (B. lupulinum) or mesophyll‐like parenchyma (B. schinzianum), but in section Megaclinium (B. falcatum and B. maximum), these were replaced by aerenchyma. In B. schinzianum, the form of the labellar groove, sweet fragrance and sugary secretion suggest pollination by Hymenoptera, the food‐reward and fragrance indicating that pseudocopulation is unlikely. Conversely, the form of the labellum of taxa having smaller flowers, and the lipid‐rich secretion, suggests pollination by small flies. The labellar aerenchyma may facilitate this process or even aid wind‐assisted pollination. © 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 179, 266–287.
In terms of location, morphology, anatomy and ultrastructure, the floral elaiophores of both Gomesa and Oncidium species examined are very similar, and distinction between these genera is not possible based on elaiophore features alone. Furthermore, many of these elaiophore characters are shared with representatives of other clades of Oncidiinae, including the Ornithocephalus clade. Consequently, elaiophores are considered homoplasious and of limited value in investigating the phylogeny of this subtribe.
Nectaries are common in Ranunculaceae. These secretory structures, however, have not been studied in detail despite their importance in plant-animal interactions, and data relating to the structure of nectary spurs, which are so characteristic of several genera of this family, remain scarce. In order to redress this imbalance, we sought, in the present paper, to analyze the anatomical and ultrastructural organization of the nectary spurs of four representatives of Ranunculaceae, i.e., Aconitum lycoctonum L., Aquilegia vulgaris L., Consolida regalis Gray, and Delphinium elatum L. Nectary spurs were examined using light, fluorescence, scanning electron, and transmission electron microscopy. The floral nectaries of A. lycoctonum and A. vulgaris are situated at the apices of the spurs, whereas in C. regalis and D. elatum, the nectary is located along the floor surface of the spurs. Nectar in C. regalis and D. elatum is exuded through micro-channels in the cuticle, whereas in A. lycoctonum and A. vulgaris, it is released by means of cell wall disruption, indicating that the method of nectar secretion here is holocrine. Structurally, the nectary of all four investigated species is quite similar, and its cells are typical of nectar-producing cells described in the literature. It is proposed that in A. lycoctonum and A. vulgaris, disruption of the cell wall and the release of the entire cell contents into the spur cavity contribute to the composition of the nectar that the latter contains, enriching it with cytoplasmic components. We conclude that the manner of nectar exudation may vary considerably between closely related plant species, regardless of their geographical origin and phylogeny.
Epidendrum, the largest genus of Neotropical orchids, contains both nectar-secreting and nectarless species. Here, we compare the fine structure of the inner floral spur, termed the cuniculus, in nectariferous (E. difforme, E. nocturnum, E. porpax, E. rigidum, E. vesicatum) and seemingly nectarless (E. capricornu, E. ciliare, E. criniferum, E. pseudepidendrum, E. radicans, E. xanthoianthinum) species. This is the first time for such a detailed investigation of cuniculus structure to be undertaken for Epidendrum. Our aim was to characterize features indicative of secretory activity and to ascertain whether flowers presumed to be nectarless produce alternative pollinator food-rewards. The cuniculus is formed by fusion of the basal part of the labellum and column and extends alongside the ovary and transmitting tract. Our study indicates that all investigated species produce nectar or nectar-like secretion to varying degrees, and no alternative pollinator food-rewards were observed. Even though macroscopic investigation of presumed rewardless species failed to reveal the presence of secretion within the cuniculus, close observations of the cells lining the cuniculus by LM, SEM, and TEM revealed the presence of cuticular blisters and surface material. Moreover, the similarity of both the thick tangential cell walls (with the exception of E. vesicatum) and organelle complement of cuniculus epidermal cells in both copiously nectariferous species and those producing only small quantities of surface secretion confirmed the presence of secretory activity in species generally regarded to be rewardless. The secretory character was particularly obvious in the cells of the cuniculus of E. nocturnum, but also in E. ciliare, E. radicans and E. xanthoianthinum, since electron-dense cytoplasm and mitochondria, ER and secretory vesicles were abundant. Furthermore, cell wall protuberances occurred in E. nocturnum, which was indicative of intense transmembrane transport. This investigation highlights the need to examine more closely whether Epidendrum spp. considered to lack food-rewards based solely on macroscopic examination really are rewardless and deceptive.
A b s t r a c tTo date, the structure of the cuniculus nectary has not been studied in detail. Furthermore, the secretory mechanism of such nectaries has not been investigated. The present paper describes, for the first time, the structural organization and ultrastructure of the cuniculus nectary in the moth-pollinated orchid Brassavola flagellaris Barb. Rodr. This tubular structure is situated between the perianth tube and ovary and, in its possession of thick, cellulose cell walls, resembles the nectary of ornithophilous taxa. The presence of large secretory vesicles that fuse with the plasmalemma indicate that granulocrine nectar secretion occurs in this species. The lumen of the cuniculus is lined with unicellular hairs. However, the cuticle overlying the whole epidermal surface lining the lumen (both glabrous and pubescent regions) was coated with nectar residues and became distended and cracked, indicating that this entire tissue is probably involved in nectar secretion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.