The influence of Mimulus ringens floral display size on pollinator visitation patterns

Summary 1Pollinators visiting large floral displays may probe several flowers in sequence, leading to geitonogamous (among-flower) self-pollination. To investigate the relationship between floral display size and patterns of pollinator movement, we studied foraging by several pollinator species in four replicate arrays of Mimulus ringens (Scrophulariaceae). In each array displays were trimmed to two, four, eight and 16 flowers per plant. 2Bees preferred large displays, and probed more flowers in sequence on large than on small displays. However, the proportion of available flowers probed decreased with display, resulting in nearly equal floral visitation rates across treatments. 3Because pollinators probed more flowers in sequence on large displays, plants with numerous flowers should experience more geitonogamous self-pollination than plants with small displays. 4In all four treatments, pollinators frequently visited only one flower before leaving the plant. As the first flower probed on a plant cannot receive geitonogamous pollen, this potentially reduces selfing rates for those flowers, compared to flowers probed late in a long visitation sequence on a plant. Such differences among flowers in pollination history should increase variation in geitonogamous self-pollination among fruits within plants. 5The three most abundant pollinator species differed significantly in behaviours that could influence plant mating patterns, including number of flowers probed per plant; interplant movement distances; and grooming. Variation in foraging patterns was also evident among individuals within species. These subtle differences in response should affect the pollination services provided to plants.

[1]  A. Brody,et al.  Effects of experimental manipulation of inflorescence size on pollination and pre-dispersal seed predation in the hummingbird-pollinated plant Ipomopsis aggregata , 1997, Oecologia.

[2]  M. Pettersson,et al.  Pollination by a guild of fluctuating moth populations : option for unspecialization in Silene vulgaris , 1991 .

[3]  A. Agresti An introduction to categorical data analysis , 1997 .

[4]  R. Mitchell Effects of Floral Traits, Pollinator Visitation, and Plant Size on Ipomopsis aggregata Fruit Production , 1994, The American Naturalist.

[5]  S. Higashi,et al.  Effects of inflorescence size on visits from pollinators and seed set of Corydalis ambigua (Papaveraceae) , 1994, Oecologia.

[6]  T. Yahara,et al.  Effects of variation in flower number on pollinator visits in Cirsium purpuratum (Asteraceae). , 1998, American journal of botany.

[7]  M. Macnair,et al.  The effects of floral display size on pollinator service to individual flowers of Myosotis and Mimulus , 1995 .

[8]  H. Dreisig Ideal free distributions of nectar foraging bumblebees , 1995 .

[9]  P. Klinkhamer,et al.  Effects of plant size, plant density and sex differential nectar reward on pollinator visitation in the protandrous Echium vulgare (Boraginaceae). , 1990 .

[10]  T. Yahara,et al.  Cognitive Ecology of Pollination: Behavioural responses of pollinators to variation in floral display size and their influences on the evolution of floral traits , 2001 .

[11]  L. Galloway,et al.  The Contribution of Display Size and Dichogamy to Potential Geitonogamy in Campanula americana , 2002, International Journal of Plant Sciences.

[12]  J. Thomson,et al.  Heterogeneity Among Floral Visitors Leads to Discordance Between Removal and Deposition of Pollen , 1991 .

[13]  L. Harder,et al.  Mating cost of large floral displays in hermaphrodite plants , 1995, Nature.

[14]  J. Cresswell,et al.  Predicted pollen dispersal by honey-bees and three species of bumble-bees foraging on oil-seed rape : a comparison of three models , 1995 .

[15]  J. D. Karron,et al.  The influence of population density on outcrossing rates in Mimulus ringens , 1995, Heredity.

[16]  J C Stout Does size matter? Bumblebee behaviour and the pollination of Cytisus scoparius L. (Fabaceae) , 2000 .

[17]  G. Pyke,et al.  Optimal foraging in bumblebees and coevolution with their plants , 2004, Oecologia.

[18]  N. Waser A comparison of distances flown by different visitors to flowers of the same species , 1982, Oecologia.

[19]  Dave Goulson,et al.  Why do pollinators visit proportionally fewer flowers in large patches , 2000 .

[20]  P. Klinkhamer,et al.  Direct and indirect estimates of the selfing rate in small and large individuals of the bumblebee pollinated Cynoglossum officinale L (Boraginaceae). , 1999, Ecology letters.

[21]  A. Robertson The relationship between floral display size, pollen carryover and geitonogamy in Myosotis colensoi (Kirk) Macbride (Boraginaceae) , 1992 .

[22]  James D. Thomson,et al.  Trapline foraging by bumblebees: I. Persistence of flight-path geometry , 1996 .

[23]  C. Eckert CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTOGAMY AND GEITONOGAMY TO SELF-FERTILIZATION IN A MASS-FLOWERING, CLONAL PLANT , 2000 .

[24]  L. Harder,et al.  Cognitive Ecology of Pollination: The effects of floral design and display on pollinator economics and pollen dispersal , 2001 .

[25]  J. Thomson Effects of variation in inflorescence size and floral rewards on the visitation rates of traplining pollinators ofAralia hispida , 2005, Evolutionary Ecology.

[26]  P. Schmid-Hempel,et al.  Effects of inflorescence size on pollination in Epilobium angustifolium , 1988 .

[27]  J. Cresswell How and why do nectar-foraging bumblebees initiate movements between inflorescences of wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa (Lamiaceae)? , 1990, Oecologia.

[28]  L. Harder,et al.  Effects of flower number and position on self-fertilization in experimental populations of Eichhornia paniculata (Pontederiaceae) , 1994 .

[29]  P. Klinkhamer,et al.  Plant size and pollinator visitation in Cynoglossum officinale , 1989 .

[30]  Y. Linhart Ecological and Behavioral Determinants of Pollen Dispersal in Hummingbird- Pollinated Heliconia , 1973, The American Naturalist.

[31]  V. Eckhart The effects of floral display on pollinator visitation vary among populations ofPhacelia linearis (Hydrophyllaceae) , 1991, Evolutionary Ecology.

[32]  Clayton M. Hodges Bumble Bee Foraging: The Threshold Departure Rule , 1985 .

[33]  J C Stout,et al.  Floral display size in comfrey, Symphytum officinale L. (Boraginaceae): relationships with visitation by three bumblebee species and subsequent seed set , 1998, Oecologia.

[34]  T. Yahara,et al.  Visit larger displays but probe proportionally fewer flowers: counterintuitive behaviour of nectar-collecting bumble bees achieves an ideal free distribution , 2002 .

[35]  A. Snow,et al.  The Ecology of Geitonogamous Pollination , 1996 .

[36]  D. G. Lloyd,et al.  Self- and Cross-Fertilization in Plants. I. Functional Dimensions , 1992, International Journal of Plant Sciences.

[37]  P. Klinkhamer,et al.  Effects of Nectar Content on the Number of Bumblebee Approaches and the Length of Visitation Sequences in Echium vulgare (Boraginaceae) , 1999 .

[38]  J. D. Karron,et al.  Outcrossing rates of individual Mimulus ringens genets are correlated with anther–stigma separation , 1997, Heredity.

[39]  Michele R. Dudash,et al.  Plant Size Effects on Female and Male Function in Hermaphroditic Sabatia Angularis (Gentianaceae) , 1991 .

[40]  J. D. Karron,et al.  Comparison of pollinator flight movements and gene dispersal patterns in Mimulus ringens , 1995, Heredity.

[41]  L. Chittka,et al.  Cognitive Ecology of Pollination: Pollinator individuality: when does it matter? , 2001 .

[42]  Michael J. Crawley,et al.  GLIM for Ecologists , 1994 .

[43]  R. Mitchell,et al.  The influence of floral display size on selfing rates in Mimulus ringens , 2004, Heredity.

[44]  N. Waser,et al.  Geitonogamy: The neglected side of selfing. , 1993, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[45]  J. Craig Seed set in Phormium: interactive effects of pollinator behaviour, pollen carryover and pollen source , 1989, Oecologia.