Oviposition and pollination behavior of the yucca moth, Tegeticula maculata (Lepidoptera: Prodoxidae), and its relation to the reproductive biology of Yucca whipplei (Agavaceae)

Aker, Charles L.; Udovic, Daniel

doi:10.1007/bf00376905

Cited by 106 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Astel., Asteliaceae; Convall., Convallariaceae; Drac., Dracaenaceae; Funk., Funkiaceae; Hyac., Hyacinthaceae; Nol., Nolinaceae. recessed hidden stigmas of all Yucca species except Y whipplei strongly suggest that pollen transfer would be quite difficult in the absence of the moths. Nevertheless, all detailed pollination studies have indicated that T. maculata is Y whipplei's primary, and usually only, pollinator (33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38). Hesperaloe has a more common nectar-based animal pollination system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple origins of the yucca-yucca moth association.

Bogler

Neff

Simpson

1995

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The association of species of yucca and their pollinating moths is considered one of the two classic cases of obligate mutualism between floral hosts and their pollinators. The system involves the active collection of pollen by females of two prodoxid moth genera and the subsequent purposeful placement of the pollen on conspecific stigmas of species of Yucca. Yuccas essentially depend on the moths for pollination and the moths require Yucca ovaries for oviposition. Because of the specificity involved, it has been assumed that the association arose once, although it has been suggested that within the prodoxid moths as a whole, pollinators have arisen from seed predators more than once. We show, by using phylogenies generated from three molecular data sets, that the supposed restriction of the yucca moths and their allies to the Agavaceae is an artifact caused by an incorrect circumscription of this family. In addition we provide evidence that Yucca is not monophyletic, leading to the conclusion that the modern Yucca-yucca moth relationship developed independently more than once by colonization of a new host.The Yucca-yucca moth [Parategeticula and Tegeticula spp. (Prodoxidae)] interrelationship is one of the classic examples of a tight mutualism in pollination biology. The relationship has been called "a complete, unbreakable and unshakable tie-up between plant and pollinating insect" (1) and the "quintessential example" of an obligate mutualism (2). In the simplest form of the story, the 40-odd species of Yucca (Agavaceae) are believed to be virtually dependent on the activities of four species of yucca moths (three Tegeticula and one Parategeticula) for sexual reproduction. The yucca moths are in turn obligately dependent on either Yucca seeds (Tegeticula) or degenerating ovules enclosed in cysts (Parategeticula) for their larval development.The behavior of the moths involved in the mutualism is unique in the Lepidoptera. Typically, a fertilized female moth enters a large creamy-white to pinkish Yucca flower and actively gathers a mass of the sticky pollen with her maxillary tentacles, specialized appendages formed by modifications of the maxillary palps. The moth leaves the flower carrying the pollen pressed with her tentacles and forelegs against her thorax and flies to another flower of (generally) the same Yucca species in which she then oviposits in one of its three carpels. She subsequently crawls up the style and smears some of the pollen from her load onto the stigma (Yucca whipplei) or forces it into the stigmatic cavity (all other species of Yucca). The moth can repeat the process of oviposition followed by pollination several times within a flower (3, 4). The eggs hatch and the larvae feed on the developing seeds or ovarian tissue, crawl out of the fruit, and then drop to pupate in the soil. This pollination system, referred to as brood place pollination, is rare (5, 6) presumably because the balance it imposes between parasitism and mutualism is a delicate one (7).The publication costs of th...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple origins of the yucca-yucca moth association.

Bogler

Neff

Simpson

1995

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After collecting balls of pollen, the female moth flies to a flower on another plant, oviposits in the ovary of that flower, and places the pollen on a stigma (Aker & Udovic 1981). This system differs from normal biotic pollination in that pollination is deliberate on the part of the insect; however, as pollen is contacted only on leaving a plant and the stigma contacted first on approach to a new flower, the pollination system can be described as a form of approach herkogamy.…”

Section: Petunia •mentioning

confidence: 99%

The avoidance of interference between the presentation of pollen and stigmas in angiosperms II. Herkogamy

Webb¹,

Lloyd

1986

New Zealand Journal of Botany

579

457

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Herkogamy is the spatial separation of pollen presentation and pollen receipt within or between blossoms of an individual plant. Several classes of herkogamy are recognised; these are defined by whether all blossoms are identical (homomorphic herkogamy), all blossoms dispatch and receive pollen but reciprocal forms occur (reciprocal herkogamy), or some or all blossoms perform only one function (interfloral herkogamy). Within homomorphic herkogamy, unordered herkogamy, in which pollinator contacts with stigmas and pollen within a blossom are many and occur in no particular sequence, is distinguished from ordered herkogamy in which contacts are few and ordered. For ordered herkogamy further divisions are based on the operation of the pollination mechanism.Herkogamy is usually interpreted as a mechanism which reduces self-fertilisation and promotes outcrossing. However, as many herkogamous plants are also self-incompatible, it is suggested that the various classes of herkogamy also function in part or solely as mechanisms which avoid interference between pollen receipt by stigmas and pollen dispatch from anthers. Although for herkogamous blossoms these two functions are separated in space, many such flowers control pollinator behaviour so that both pollination surfaces are contacted during a single visit. In dichogamous blossoms separation of pollen dispatch and receipt is temporal rather than spatial and this difference has several important consequences for the pollination biology of dichogamous and herkogamous blossoms.

show abstract

“…Classic examples of these kinds of mutualisms include yuccas (Yucca) and yucca moths (Tegeticula, Parategeticula) (Riley 1892;Aker and Udovic 1981;Pellmyr et al 1996), and ®gs (Ficus) and ®g wasps (Agaonidae) (Janzen 1979;Wiebes 1979;Addicott et al 1990). In both of these mutualisms, females actively pollinate¯owers by deliberately collecting pollen and depositing it on or in receptive stigmas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report a new obligate pollination mutualism involving the senita cactus, Lophocereus schottii (Cactaceae, Pachyceereae), and the senita moth, Upiga virescens (Pyralidae, Glaphyriinae) in the Sonoran Desert and discuss the evolution of specialized pollination mutualisms. L. schottii is a night-blooming, self-incompatible columnar cactus. Beginning at sunset, its¯owers are visited by U. virescens females, which collect pollen on specialized abdominal scales, actively deposit pollen on¯ower stigmas, and oviposit a single egg on a¯ower petal. Larvae spend 6 days eating ovules before exiting the fruit and pupating in a cactus branch. Hand-pollination and pollinator exclusion experiments at our study site near Bahia Kino, Sonora, Mexico, revealed that fruit set in L. schottii is likely to be resource limited. About 50% of hand-outcrossed and open-pollinated senita¯owers abort by day 6 after¯ower opening. Results of exclusion experiments indicated that senita moths accounted for 75% of open-pollinated fruit set in 1995 with two species of halictid bees accounting for the remaining fruit set. In 1996,¯owers usually closed before sunrise, and senita moths accounted for at least 90% of open-pollinated fruit set. The net outcome of the senita/senita moth interaction is mutualistic, with senita larvae destroying about 30% of the seeds resulting from pollination by senita moths. Comparison of the senita system with the yucca/yucca moth mutualism reveals many similarities, including reduced nectar production, active pollination, and limited seed destruction. The independent evolution of many of the same features in the two systems suggests that a common pathway exists for the evolution of these highly specialized pollination mutualisms. Nocturnal¯ower opening, self-incompatible breeding systems, and resource-limited fruit production appear to be important during this evolution.

show abstract

Oviposition and pollination behavior of the yucca moth, Tegeticula maculata (Lepidoptera: Prodoxidae), and its relation to the reproductive biology of Yucca whipplei (Agavaceae)

Cited by 106 publications

References 10 publications

Multiple origins of the yucca-yucca moth association.

Multiple origins of the yucca-yucca moth association.

The avoidance of interference between the presentation of pollen and stigmas in angiosperms II. Herkogamy

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About