Effect of coflowering <i>Mimulus ringens</i> on phenotypic selection on floral traits of gynodioecious <i>Lobelia siphilitica</i>

WassinkErica,; Caruso, Christina M.

doi:10.1139/cjb-2013-0112

Cited by 21 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 46 publications

(65 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…). For example, a recent meta‐analysis found that presence of co‐flowering plants does not significantly reduce seed and fruit production (Charlebois and Sargent ), suggesting that manipulating co‐flowering plants should have a relatively small effect on selection on floral traits (e.g., Wassink and Caruso ). Alternatively, other biotic factors could have a relatively small effect on selection because variation in floral traits has a weaker effect on the probability of antagonistic and/or competitive interactions than on pollination (e.g., Sandring and Ågren ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta‐analysis of the agents of selection on floral traits

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Floral traits are hypothesized to evolve primarily in response to selection by pollinators. However, selection can also be mediated by other environmental factors. To understand the relative importance of pollinator‐mediated selection and its variation among trait and pollinator types, we analyzed directional selection gradients on floral traits from experiments that manipulated the environment to identify agents of selection. Pollinator‐mediated selection was stronger than selection by other biotic factors (e.g., herbivores), but similar in strength to selection by abiotic factors (e.g., soil water), providing partial support for the hypothesis that floral traits evolve primarily in response to pollinators. Pollinator‐mediated selection was stronger on pollination efficiency traits than on other trait types, as expected if efficiency traits affect fitness via interactions with pollinators, but other trait types also affect fitness via other environmental factors. In addition to varying among trait types, pollinator‐mediated selection varied among pollinator taxa: selection was stronger when bees, long‐tongued flies, or birds were the primary visitors than when the primary visitors were Lepidoptera or multiple animal taxa. Finally, reducing pollinator access to flowers had a relatively small effect on selection on floral traits, suggesting that anthropogenic declines in pollinator populations would initially have modest effects on floral evolution.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta‐analysis of the agents of selection on floral traits

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because of this difference in flower production, females also produce significantly more fruits and seeds per plant than hermaphrodites (Caruso and Yakobowski ). However, the number of seeds per fruit does not differ between females and hermaphrodites (Caruso and Yakobowski ; Wassink and Caruso ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frequency-dependent fitness in gynodioeciousLobelia siphilitica

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selection is frequency dependent when an individual's fitness depends on the frequency of its phenotype. Frequency-dependent selection should be common in gynodioecious plants, where individuals are female or hermaphroditic; if the fitness of females is limited by the availability of pollen to fertilize their ovules, then they should have higher fitness when rare than when common. To test whether the fitness of females is frequency dependent, we manipulated the sex ratio in arrays of gynodioecious Lobelia siphilitica. To test whether fitness was frequency dependent because of variation in pollen availability, we compared open-pollinated and supplemental hand-pollinated plants. Open-pollinated females produced more seeds when they were rare than when they were common, as expected if fitness is negatively frequency dependent. However, hand-pollinated females also produced more seeds when they were rare, indicating that variation in pollen availability was not the cause of frequency-dependent fitness. Instead, fitness was frequency dependent because both hand- and open-pollinated females opened more flowers when they were rare than when they were common. This plasticity in the rate of anthesis could cause fitness to be frequency dependent even when reproduction is not pollen limited, and thus expand the conditions under which frequency-dependent selection operates in gynodioecious species.

show abstract

“…Such properties include flower thickness, the dense packing of cells via veins or thin cell layers, the curvature in the epidermal layer, and irregularly shaped granules with high refractive indices van der Kooi et al 2016van der Kooi et al , 2017. Ecological studies theoretically investigating brightness often involve pollinator-mediated selection experiments, where selection pressures towards specific colour traits are quantified (Caruso et al 2010;Renoult et al 2013;Wassink and Caruso 2013;Sletvold et al 2016). Such studies provide some evidence that brightness may be important for pollinators.…”

Section: Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why colour is complex: Evidence that bees perceive neither brightness nor green contrast in colour signal processing

Garcia

Dyer

2018

FACETS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Honey bees ( Apis mellifera Linnaeus, 1758) potentially rely on a variety of visual cues when searching for flowers in the environment. Both chromatic and achromatic (brightness) components of flower signals have typically been considered simultaneously to understand how flower colours have evolved. However, it is unclear whether honey bees actually use brightness information in their colour perception. We investigated whether free-flying honey bees can process brightness cues in achromatic stimuli when presented at a large visual angle of 28° to ensure colour processing. We found that green contrast (modulation of the green receptor against the background) and brightness contrast (modulation of all three receptors against the background) did not have a significant effect on the proportion of correct choices made by bees, indicating that they did not appear to use brightness cues in a colour processing context. Our findings also reveal that, even at a small visual angle, honeybees do not reliably process single targets solely based on achromatic information, at least considering values up to 60% modulation of brightness. We discuss these findings in relation to proposed models of bee colour processing. Therefore, caution should be taken when interpreting elemental components of complex flower colours as perceived by different animals.

show abstract

Effect of coflowering Mimulus ringens on phenotypic selection on floral traits of gynodioecious Lobelia siphilitica

Cited by 21 publications

References 46 publications

A meta‐analysis of the agents of selection on floral traits

A meta‐analysis of the agents of selection on floral traits

Frequency-dependent fitness in gynodioeciousLobelia siphilitica

Why colour is complex: Evidence that bees perceive neither brightness nor green contrast in colour signal processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About