4.7 Article

Impact of floral characters, pollen limitation, and pollinator visitation on pollination success in different populations of Caragana korshinskii Kom

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-46271-z

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National basic resource survey Survey on the desert major plant communities in China [2017FY100200]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31600252, 41771117]
  3. CAS Light of West China Program [Y729821001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Caragana korshinskii Kom. has a significant function in desert-grassland revegetation in arid regions. Plant reproduction in arid regions can be restricted due to inadequate pollen receipt and reduced pollen transfer. An assessment of pollination success as a result of pollen limitation and pollinator visitation in various C. korshinskii populations is presently lacking. We thus tested three different treatments (pollen addition, control, and procedural control) to elucidate how pollen limitation affects seed numbers per flower in C. korshinskii. We also determined the effect of pollinator visit frequency on seeds per flower. Our results demonstrated that there was a higher proportion of open flowers and mature fruits in the managed population than in the natural population. Pollen addition significantly increased seed number per flower, and pollen limitation was determined to be a significant limiting factor in seed production. Furthermore, Apis mellifera was determined to be the principal pollinator, and pollinator visitation frequency was significantly correlated with open flower number. Our findings also demonstrated that pollinator visitation rate and seed production were positively correlated. Management and pollinator visitation could affect seed production, which may explain the higher seeds per flower in the managed population compared with the natural population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available