Differential pollen placement on an Old World nectar bat increases pollination efficiency

Stewart, Alyssa B.; Dudash, Michele R.

doi:10.1093/aob/mcv163

Cited by 18 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three plant species placed pollen on areas of the bats that were consistent with our predictions. Relative M. acuminata pollen deposition was greatest on the face and Parkia was greatest on the chest, as was previously observed (Stewart and Dudash, 2016a). Relative O. indicum pollen deposition was concentrated on the crown of the head (as we predicted based on floral morphology) as well as on the face.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…In a previous study conducted in a flight cage, we experimentally tested patterns of pollen deposition by four diverse plant taxa, and we observed strong differential pollen placement on Eonycteris spelaea, an Old World bat pollinator (Stewart and Dudash, 2016a). However, pollen was collected immediately after bats finished foraging at flowers, and the patterns of pollen placement observed in our experiment may not reflect patterns observed on wild foraging bats.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…All three species are 'steady-state' plants, producing low numbers of flowers throughout most of the year. Consequently, these plant species experience high levels of overlap in flowering and potential competition for pollinators, and precise pollen placement on different areas of the pollinator helps reduce interspecific pollen transfer (Stewart and Dudash, 2016a). Moreover, given that steady-state species produce few flowers per night, precise pollen placement can increase the likelihood that pollen is transferred to a conspecific stigma.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One mechanism that is frequently proposed to reduce interspecific pollen transfer is differential pollen placement (Howell, 1977;Waser, 1983;Armbruster et al, 1994;Grant, 1994;Caruso, 2000;Muchhala and Potts, 2007). By placing pollen on different areas of a pollinator's body, plant species should lose less pollen to heterospecific flowers (improving male fitness) and receive less heterospecific pollen on stigmas (improving female fitness) (Waser, 1983;Morales and Traveset, 2008;Muchhala and Thomson, 2012;Stewart and Dudash, 2016a). However, support for the importance and effectiveness of differential pollen placement has been mixed (Howell, 1977;Armbruster et al, 1994;Murcia and Feinsinger, 1996;Muchhala and Potts, 2007;Flanagan et al, 2009;Muchhala and Thomson, 2012;Stewart and Dudash, 2016a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four of these plant taxa were used in our previous experiment (Ceiba pentandra, Durio zibethinus, Musa acuminata, Parkia spp.) and the fifth species (Oroxylum indicum) we previously hypothesized would place pollen on an area of the bat (the crown of the head) not utilized by the other four plant taxa (Stewart and Dudash, 2016a). We also examined if the distribution of pollen on flower-visiting bats changes throughout the night.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Field evidence of strong differential pollen placement by Old World bat-pollinated plants

Stewart

Dudash

2016

Ann Bot

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims Sympatric plant species that share pollinators potentially compete for pollination and risk interspecific pollen transfer, but this competition can be minimized when plant species place pollen on different areas of the pollinator's body. Multiple studies have demonstrated strong differential pollen placement by sympatric plant species under laboratory conditions; however, field evidence collected in natural settings is less common. Furthermore, it is unknown whether precise pollen placement on the pollinator's body remains constant throughout the foraging period, or if such patterns become diffused over time (e.g. due to grooming). To test the prevalence of differential pollen placement in the wild, we examined a community of five night-blooming plant species in southern Thailand that share common bat pollinators.Methods We mist-netted wild foraging nectar bats and collected pollen samples from four body parts: the crown of the head, face, chest and ventral side of one wing. We also noted the time of pollen collection to assess how pollinator pollen loads change throughout the foraging period.Key Results Our findings revealed that most of our plant study species placed pollen on precise areas of the bat, consistent with experimental work, and that patterns of differential pollen placement remained constant throughout the night.Conclusions This study demonstrates how diverse floral morphologies effectively limit interspecific pollen transfer among Old World bat-pollinated plants under natural conditions. Additionally, interspecific pollen transfer is probably minimal throughout the entire foraging period, since patterns of pollen on the bats' bodies were consistent over time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Field evidence of strong differential pollen placement by Old World bat-pollinated plants

Stewart

Dudash

2016

Ann Bot

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Why honeybees are poor pollinators of a mass‐flowering plant: Experimental support for the low pollen quality hypothesis

Diller

Castañeda‐Zárate

Johnson

2022

American J of Botany

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Premise Honeybees dominate the flower‐visitor assemblages of many plant species, yet their efficiency in terms of the quality of pollen delivered to stigmas is largely unknown. We investigated why honeybees are poor pollinators of Aloe ferox, a self‐incompatible succulent treelet with large numbers of flowers. Honeybees are very frequent visitors to flowers of this species, yet contribute very little to seed production. Methods We assessed pollen loads on honeybees, studied their visitation behavior, selectively excluded birds from plants to determine direct effects of bees on pollen deposition, seed set, and ovule abortion, and used a novel “split‐pollinator” method to test whether honeybees deposit mainly low‐quality self pollen. For the latter, we captured honeybees, and with their existing pollen loads, used them to either pollinate virgin flowers on the plant on which they were caught or to pollinate virgin flowers on different plants. Results Honeybees cumulatively deposit as much pollen on stigmas as do birds, but our experiments showed that the pollen deposited by honeybees is mostly low‐quality self pollen that leads to substantial ovule discounting and depressed seed set. Conclusions Lack of movement among A. ferox plants during individual honeybee foraging bouts is the most likely explanation for their deposition of low‐quality self pollen on stigmas. The “split‐pollinator” method is a simple and cost‐effective technique to test the quality of pollination.

show abstract

Limited reproductive interference despite high rates of heterospecific pollen transfer among co‐occurring bat‐pollinated Burmeistera

Moreira‐Hernández,

Ghai,

Terzich

et al. 2023

American J of Botany

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Premise: Many tropical plants are bat-pollinated, but these mammals often carry copious, multispecific pollen loads making bat-pollinated plants susceptible to heterospecific pollen deposition and reproductive interference. We investigated pollen transfer between sympatric bat-pollinated Burmeistera species and their response to heterospecific pollen deposition from each other. Methods: We quantified conspecific and heterospecific pollen deposition for two populations of B. ceratocarpa, a recipient species in heterospecific pollen transfer interactions, that co-occur with different donor relatives (B. borjensis and B. glabrata). We then used a cross-pollination scheme using pollen mixtures to assess the species' responses to heterospecific pollen deposition in terms of fruit abortion and seed production. Results: Burmeistera ceratocarpa received significantly more heterospecific pollen from its relatives at both sites than its own pollen was deposited on its relatives. However, heterospecific pollen deposition only affected seed production by B. borjensis and B. glabrata, but not by B. ceratocarpa, suggesting that early acting post-pollination barriers buffer the latter against reproductive interference. Crosses between sympatric and allopatric populations suggest that the study species are fully isolated in sympatry, while isolation between allopatric populations is strong but incomplete. Conclusions: We did not observe evidence of reproductive interference among our study species, because either heterospecific pollen deposition did not affect their seed production (B. ceratocarpa) or they receive heterospecific pollen only rarely (B. borjensis and B. glabrata). Frequent heterospecific pollen deposition might favor the evolution of barriers against foreign pollen (as in B. ceratocarpa) that alleviate the competitive costs of sharing low fidelity pollinators with cooccurring species.

show abstract

Differential pollen placement on an Old World nectar bat increases pollination efficiency

Abstract: In the Old World tropics, differential pollen placement is a mechanism that reduces competition among bat-pollinated plant species sharing a common pollinator.

Cited by 18 publications

References 51 publications

Field evidence of strong differential pollen placement by Old World bat-pollinated plants

Field evidence of strong differential pollen placement by Old World bat-pollinated plants

Why honeybees are poor pollinators of a mass‐flowering plant: Experimental support for the low pollen quality hypothesis

Limited reproductive interference despite high rates of heterospecific pollen transfer among co‐occurring bat‐pollinated Burmeistera

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About