Chemical mediation and niche partitioning in non‐pollinating fig‐wasp communities

Proffit, Magali; Schatz, Bertrand; Borges, Renée M.; Hossaert‐McKey, Martine

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01213.x

Cited by 65 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some pollinating floral parasites are known to respond more strongly to the floral scent signal of their specific hosts in areas where several potential host plant species occur in sympatry and attract different but closely related insect pollinators (Chen and Song 2008;HossaertMcKey et al 2010;Okamoto et al 2007;Proffit et al 2007;Svensson et al 2010). Additionally, recent evidence suggests that floral scent signals are geographically and phylogenetically variable in some of these highly specific pollination systems Soler et al 2011; but see Svensson et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The production of such a diverse array of compounds is likely to incur energetic (Gershenzon 1994;Wright and Schiestl 2009) and ecological costs, because the same compounds that attract mutualistic insects also may attract antagonistic herbivores and seed predators (Irwin et al 2004;Proffit et al 2007;Schiestl et al 2011;Theis 2006;Theis and Adler 2012;Wright and Schiestl 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Floral Scent Contributes to Interaction Specificity in Coevolving Plants and Their Insect Pollinators

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemical defenses, repellents, and attractants are important shapers of species interactions. Chemical attractants could contribute to the divergence of coevolving plant-insect interactions, if pollinators are especially responsive to signals from the local plant species. We experimentally investigated patterns of daily floral scent production in three Lithophragma species (Saxifragaceae) that are geographically isolated and tested how scent divergence affects attraction of their major pollinator-the floral parasitic moth Greya politella (Prodoxidae). These moths oviposit through the corolla while simultaneously pollinating the flower with pollen adhering to the abdomen. The complex and species-specific floral scent profiles were emitted in higher amounts during the day, when these day-flying moths are active. There was minimal divergence found in petal color, which is another potential floral attractant. Female moths responded most strongly to scent from their local host species in olfactometer bioassays, and were more likely to oviposit in, and thereby pollinate, their local host species in no-choice trials. The results suggest that floral scent is an important attractant in this interaction. Local specialization in the pollinator response to a highly specific plant chemistry, thus, has the potential to contribute importantly to patterns of interaction specificity among coevolving plants and highly specialized pollinators.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Floral Scent Contributes to Interaction Specificity in Coevolving Plants and Their Insect Pollinators

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fig wasps also include a diverse group (multiple families) of nonpollinating exploiters of the mutualism, most of which are also host-specific (Weiblen 2002). When fig flowers become receptive to pollination, volatile cues are released that attract both pollinating (Ware et al 1993;Grison-Pigé et al 2002) and nonpollinating (Proffit et al 2007) wasps to fig syconia (enclosed inflorescences). In a textbook example of a highly coevolved mutualism, previously inseminated pollinators enter the syconium through a small opening and provide pollination services to the plant while laying their eggs into a subset of its many ovules.…”

Section: The Fig-fig Wasp Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here we model the target as the radius of the cloud of volatile cues surrounding the fig, which we assume to be a circle, as recent empirical research has shown that nonpollinating wasps use volatile cues to locate receptive host figs (Proffit et al 2007). We do not know of any empirical estimates of r tar , but we found the range of r tar values over which coexistence occurred to be extremely robust.…”

Section: Probability Of Wasp Dispersalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade-Offs and Coexistence: A Lottery Model Applied to Fig Wasp Communities

Duthie

Abbott²,

Nason³

2014

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological communities in which organisms complete their life cycles on discrete ephemeral patches are common and often support an unusually large number of species. Explaining this diversity is challenging for communities of ecologically similar species undergoing preemptive competition, where classic coexistence mechanisms may not readily apply. We use nonpollinating fig wasps as a model community characterized by high diversity and preemptive competition to show how subadditive population growth and a tradeoff between competitor fecundity and dispersal ability can lead to coexistence. Because nonpollinator species are often closely related, have similar life histories, and compete for the same discrete resources, understanding their coexistence is challenging given competitive exclusion is expected. Empirical observations suggest that nonpollinating fig wasp species may face a trade-off between egg loads and dispersal abilities. We model a lottery in which a species' competitive ability is determined by a trade-off between fecundity and dispersal ability. Variation in interpatch distance between figs generates temporal variability in the relative benefit of fecundity versus dispersal. We show that the temporal storage effect leads to coexistence for a range of biologically realistic parameter values. We further use individual-based modeling to show that when species' traits evolve, coexistence is less likely but trait divergence can result. We discuss the implications of this coexistence mechanism for ephemeral patch systems wherein competition is strongly preemptive.

show abstract

“…The mutualistic relationship between F. microcarpa and E. verticillata is maintained by the chemical communication of "generalization" strategy. (Degenhardt et al, 2003); 第二种是 "专化" (specialization)策略, 即通过释放不常见的单一挥发性物质来实现其特异性, 这些化合物往往是植物次生代谢分解产生的, 如一些芳香族化合物 (Dötterl et al, 2005)。已知大多数植物种类采取"泛化"策略吸引传粉者, 采取"专化"策略的植物种类极为少见 (Knudsen et al, 1993;Chen et al, 2009) (Ware et al, 1993;Proffit et al, 2007) Table 1. hispida) (Proffit et al, 2008), 推测其隐头花序挥发 …”

unclassified

Chemical composition of volatiles from the syconia of Ficus microcarpa and host recognition behavior of pollinating fig wasps

Zhang¹,

Wang²,

Miao³

et al. 2017

Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemical mediation and niche partitioning in non‐pollinating fig‐wasp communities

Cited by 65 publications

References 45 publications

Floral Scent Contributes to Interaction Specificity in Coevolving Plants and Their Insect Pollinators

Floral Scent Contributes to Interaction Specificity in Coevolving Plants and Their Insect Pollinators

Trade-Offs and Coexistence: A Lottery Model Applied to Fig Wasp Communities

Chemical composition of volatiles from the syconia of Ficus microcarpa and host recognition behavior of pollinating fig wasps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About