2008
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2008.00830.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pollination efficiency and reproductive patterns in relation to local plant density, population size, and floral display in the rewardingListera ovata(Orchidaceae)

Abstract: Pollination efficiency and reproductive success vary strongly among populations of most animal-pollinated plant species, depending on their size and local density, whereas individual plants within populations experience varying levels of reproductive output as a result of differences in floral display. Although most orchid species have been shown to be severely pollination limited, few studies have investigated the impact of the above-mentioned factors on pollination success and reproduction, especially in rew… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

8
78
2
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(89 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
8
78
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, self-compatibility was reported by Pedersen et al (2009) in the related Cephalanthera exigua (72.7% fruiting from 11 artificially self-pollinated flowers) and by Chung et al (2004) for Cephalanthera longibracteata (without any empirical data). For N. ovata, the high fruiting level noted after induced autogamy confirms the results after experimental pollination in Sweden (100% fruiting from 27 flowers) (Nilsson, 1981) and Belgium (> 97.5% fruiting level, without information on how many flowers were handpollinated) (Brys et al, 2008). Self-compatibility in this species was also reported for populations located in Germany (Müller, 1868) and the Czech Republic (Procházka and Velísek, 1983), also without any quantitative data.…”
Section: Discussion Induced Autogamysupporting
confidence: 66%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…However, self-compatibility was reported by Pedersen et al (2009) in the related Cephalanthera exigua (72.7% fruiting from 11 artificially self-pollinated flowers) and by Chung et al (2004) for Cephalanthera longibracteata (without any empirical data). For N. ovata, the high fruiting level noted after induced autogamy confirms the results after experimental pollination in Sweden (100% fruiting from 27 flowers) (Nilsson, 1981) and Belgium (> 97.5% fruiting level, without information on how many flowers were handpollinated) (Brys et al, 2008). Self-compatibility in this species was also reported for populations located in Germany (Müller, 1868) and the Czech Republic (Procházka and Velísek, 1983), also without any quantitative data.…”
Section: Discussion Induced Autogamysupporting
confidence: 66%
“…However, even though the pollinia became compressed in older flowers, Claessens and Kleynen (2011) point out the role of the median anther wall and clinandrium in late autogamy prevention. A lack of spontaneous autogamy was also reported in natural populations of N. ovata (Hildebrand, 1863;Procházka and Velísek, 1983) and after a small bagging experiment (Brys et al, 2008).…”
Section: Spontaneous Autogamymentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Fruits and seeds recorded after induced geitonogamy in another population (ZE) indicate that in this population the self-compatible system was realized. However, the frequency of geitonogamous fruits and mean number of seeds were not very high in comparison to many other self-compatible plants, which exhibit very high levels of fruiting (up to 100%) as a result of induced selfing [33][34][35]. Both the number of geitonogamous fruits and seeds were also significantly lower than those from controlled pollination recorded in the ZE population.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Likewise, even fewer studies have tested its predictions at both the population and individual plant level (but see Brys et al 2008). It is important to analyze the predictions of the pollination efficiency hypothesis at both levels because the ecological effects of masting are best described at the population level (e.g., Kelly 1994, Kelly et al 2001, whereas the evolutionary dynamics must be documented at the level of the individual (Yang et al 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%