Strong phylogenetic effects on floral scent variation of oil‐secreting orchids in South Africa

Steiner, Kim E.; Kaiser, Roman; Dötterl, Stefan

doi:10.3732/ajb.1100141

Cited by 40 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To test whether T. globosa produced scent blends that were similar to those of potential model species, and whether potential models differed in their scent blends, we compared differences in scent composition (the proportional contributions of compounds to total peak area) among the species. We calculated the Bray–Curtis similarity index using Primer 6.1.6 (Clarke & Gorley, ) to assess pairwise semi‐quantitative similarities among the individual samples, and performed a PERMANOVA (10 000 permutations) based on the obtained similarity matrix in Primer 6.1.6. to assess differences in scent among species (Steiner, Kaiser & Dötterl, ). We did not discriminate between samples of T. globosa obtained from the different regions, because plants from the Czech Republic and Austria were similarly scented (see Results).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

DoesTraunsteinera globosa(the globe orchid) dupe its pollinators through generalized food deception or mimicry?

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non‐rewarding orchids rely on various ruses to attract their pollinators. One of the most common is for them to resemble flowers sought by insects as food sources. This can range from generalized food deception to the mimicry of specific sympatric food plants. We investigated the basis of pollinator deception in the European food‐deceptive orchid Traunsteinera globosa, which has unusually compact flowerheads resembling those of sympatric rewarding species of Knautia and Scabiosa (Dipsacaceae), and Valeriana (Caprifoliaceae). Visual signals of T. globosa are similar in both fly and bee vision models to those of the sympatric food plants used in the choice experiments, but scent signals are divergent. Field experiments conducted in Austria and the Czech Republic showed that both naive and experienced (with respect to visitation of T. globosa) insect species approached the orchids at the same rate as food plants, but direct contact with orchid flowers was taxon specific. Flies were most easily duped into probing the orchid, and, in doing so, frequently received and deposited pollinaria, whereas most bees and butterflies avoided landing on orchid flowers. We conclude that T. globosa is a mimic of a guild of fly‐pollinated plants, but the ecological dependence of the orchid on its models remains to be fully tested. © 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2016, 180, 269–294.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

DoesTraunsteinera globosa(the globe orchid) dupe its pollinators through generalized food deception or mimicry?

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Composition of floral scents varies within and among species and is probably defined by balancing selection due to pollinators and other selective agents (e.g., florivores), but also by phylogenetic constraints (common ancestors with similar chemistry, Raguso 2001;Sch€ affler et al 2012). Phylogenetic effects on flower scents have been studied previously, but especially focused on the qualitative dimension (Azuma et al 1999;Williams and Whitten 1999;Barkman 2001;Levin et al 2003;Schiestl 2010;Steiner et al 2011). By contrast, the quantitative and semiquantitative information has been usually ª 2016 The Authors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analyses of flower scent inSileneaereveal a contrasting phylogenetic signal between night and day emissions

Prieto‐Benítez

Millanes

Dötterl

et al. 2016

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flower scents are complex blends of volatile compounds often shaped by selection pressures exerted by mutualistic and antagonistic interaction partners, but also by phylogenetic constraints. So far, little is known about the relative effect of selection and phylogenetic signal on scent patterns, and no study to date analyzed the phylogenetic signal in multivariate semiquantitative scent patterns. We analyzed the phylogenetic signal in qualitative and semi-quantitative patterns of flower scents in 47 Sileneae (Caryophyllaceae) species using phylogenetic principal component analysis (pPCA) and several indices of univariate and multivariate phylogenetic signal. As previous results showed that Sileneae species are visited by diurnal and nocturnal pollinators and flower scents also vary along the day, we compared the phylogenetic signal between night and day. Multivariate pPCA analyses identified compounds that correlate with the phylogeny at both night and day; however, multivariate Bloomberg 0 s K detected phylogenetic signal in the dataset of night scents, but not of day scents. In multivariate qualitative datasets, phylogenetic signal was neither found for day nor for night scents. In univariate analyses, phylogenetic signal was detected for some compounds both for day and night scents. Overall, we found that the phylogenetic signal is stronger in night compared to day scents, which might be owed to the different guilds of pollinators at day and night. At day, the phylogenetic resemblance of Sileneae scents might be masked by or disappear due to divergent selective pressures exerted by a diverse guild of pollinators on the different species. In contrast, we hypothesize that the nocturnal moth pollinators exert similar selective pressures; thus, the phylogenetic similarity of scent profiles might be conserved. Future studies of scent phylogenetic signal must consider not only the usage of qualitative measures but also semiquantitative analyses.

show abstract

“…The relationship between plants and pollinators -including co-evolution, pollinator sensory bias and associative learning (Schiestl and Johnson, 2013) -is particularly important for closely related floral species whose reproductive isolation is mediated by differential pollinator preference (Fulton and Hodges, 1999;Schemske and Bradshaw, 1999;Ramsey et al, 2003;Hodges et al, 2004;Aldridge and Campbell, 2007;Klahre et al, 2011). In many such cases the composition and class of volatiles in the scents overlap (Jürgens, 2004;Svensson et al, 2006;Waelti et al, 2008;Steiner et al, 2011). How do pollinators discriminate between the different floral species, and which subset of volatiles in the floral bouquet is necessary and sufficient for mediating the differential pollinator visitation?…”

Section: Research Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

Three floral volatiles contribute to differential pollinator attraction in monkeyflowers (Mimulus)

Byers

Bradshaw

Riffell

2013

Journal of Experimental Biology

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flowering plants employ a wide variety of signals, including scent, to attract the attention of pollinators. In this study we investigated the role of floral scent in mediating differential attraction between two species of monkeyflowers (Mimulus) reproductively isolated by pollinator preference. The emission rate and chemical identity of floral volatiles differ between the bumblebee-pollinated Mimulus lewisii and the hummingbird-pollinated M. cardinalis. Mimulus lewisii flowers produce an array of volatiles dominated by D-limonene, β-myrcene and E-β-ocimene. Of these three monoterpenes, M. cardinalis flowers produce only D-limonene, released at just 0.9% the rate of M. lewisii flowers. Using the Bombus vosnesenskii bumblebee, an important pollinator of M. lewisii, we conducted simultaneous gas chromatography with extracellular recordings in the bumblebee antennal lobe. Results from these experiments revealed that these three monoterpenes evoke significant neural responses, and that a synthetic mixture of the three volatiles evokes the same responses as the natural scent. Furthermore, the neural population shows enhanced responses to the M. lewisii scent over the scent of M. cardinalis. This neural response is reflected in behavior; in two-choice assays, bumblebees investigate artificial flowers scented with M. lewisii more frequently than ones scented with M. cardinalis, and in synthetic mixtures the three monoterpenes are necessary and sufficient to recapitulate responses to the natural scent of M. lewisii. In this system, floral scent alone is sufficient to elicit differential visitation by bumblebees, implying a strong role of scent in the maintenance of reproductive isolation between M. lewisii and M. cardinalis.

show abstract

Strong phylogenetic effects on floral scent variation of oil‐secreting orchids in South Africa

Abstract: Scent variation was greater than expected and phylogeny was more important than pollinator-mediated selection in predicting the composition of floral scents of oil-secreting orchids, despite the specialized nature of the pollinator reward system.

Cited by 40 publications

References 64 publications

DoesTraunsteinera globosa(the globe orchid) dupe its pollinators through generalized food deception or mimicry?

DoesTraunsteinera globosa(the globe orchid) dupe its pollinators through generalized food deception or mimicry?

Comparative analyses of flower scent inSileneaereveal a contrasting phylogenetic signal between night and day emissions

Three floral volatiles contribute to differential pollinator attraction in monkeyflowers (Mimulus)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About