Spatiotemporal variation in the pollination systems of a supergeneralist plant: isAngelica sylvestris(Apiaceae) locally adapted to its most effective pollinators?

Abstract

Angelica sylvestris is morphologically well adapted to ecological generalization, and there is little evidence that the surveyed populations represent distinct pollination ecotypes. Most likely, the observed variation in floral characters can be interpreted as 'adaptive wandering'. Specialization in this family seems possible only under very special circumstances, for example when the pollinator community comprises insect visitor groups that clearly differ in their pollination capacity (e.g. due to differences in their functional morphology) and/or have different perceptional biases (e.g. for colour or scent). However, the barrier to the evolution of morphological adaptations resulting in the fine-tuning of the flower towards particular pollinator types may arise from the architectural constraints on the floral bauplan that make umbellifers so uniform in their floral displays and so successful in attracting large numbers of pollinators.

Temporal changes in the most effective pollinator of a bromeliad pollinated by bees and hummingbirds

“…Accordingly, the spatiotemporal variation of the most effective pollinator is the factor most frequently advocated to explain the emergence and maintenance of generalist pollination systems. Several studies have explored temporal variation in composition and frequency of floral visitors (Fenster & Dudash, 2001;Ivey, Martinez & Wyatt, 2003;Zych et al, 2018). Other studies have quantified the effectiveness (i.e., the product of efficacy times visitation rate, after Herrera (1987) and Freitas (2013)) of different pollinator species or functional groups (Amorim, Galetto & Sazima, 2013;Salas-Arcos, Lara & Ornelas, 2017).…”

Intraspecific Variation in Nectar Chemistry and Its Implications for Insect Visitors: The Case of the Medicinal Plant, Polemonium Caeruleum L.

“…Since nectar production is under pollinator-mediated selection, parameters such as composition, volume, and sugar concentration may be highly variable between plant species [ 1 , 7 , 8 ]. Earlier studies of nectar diversity have postulated that some nectar features, such as sugar and AA profiles, are species-invariant [ 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 ], and some new analyses support a rather conservative proportion of nectar components, that is sugars, between populations of the same species (e.g., [ 12 ]). However, this notion seems to be the result of technical difficulties associated with early analytical methods [ 3 , 13 ] because many recent studies have reported variation in nectar traits between populations, within populations, within one inflorescence, or even among sexual phases of the same flower [ 8 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ].…”

“…Earlier studies of nectar diversity have postulated that some nectar features, such as sugar and AA profiles, are species-invariant [ 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 ], and some new analyses support a rather conservative proportion of nectar components, that is sugars, between populations of the same species (e.g., [ 12 ]). However, this notion seems to be the result of technical difficulties associated with early analytical methods [ 3 , 13 ] because many recent studies have reported variation in nectar traits between populations, within populations, within one inflorescence, or even among sexual phases of the same flower [ 8 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Such variations are mainly a consequence of environmental factors, such as soil properties, air temperature, and sun exposure [ 1 , 2 , 8 , 13 , 21 ], and, according to the latest study, microorganisms inhabiting nectar [ 22 , 23 ].…”

Peer Review #1 of "Temporal changes in the most effective pollinator of a bromeliad pollinated by bees and hummingbirds (v0.1)"

“…Manuscript to be reviewed variation of the most effective pollinator is the factor most frequently advocated to explain the emergence and maintenance of generalist pollination systems. Several studies have explored temporal variation in composition and frequency of floral visitors (Fenster & Dudash, 2001;Ivey, Martinez & Wyatt, 2003;Zych et al, 2018). Other studies have quantified the effectiveness (i.e., the product of efficacy times visitation rate, after Herrera, 1987;Freitas 2013) of different pollinator species or functional groups (e.g., Amorim, Galetto & Sazima, 2013;Salas-Arcos, Lara & Ornelas, 2017).…”