4.7 Article

Inflorescence architecture and wind pollination in six grass species

Journal

FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 6, Pages 851-860

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00921.x

Keywords

Poaceae; pollen removal; pollen receipt

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

1. Inflorescence architecture and floral morphology vary extensively within the Poaceae, but the functional significance of this variation remains largely unknown. As grasses are wind-pollinated, their inflorescence diversity probably reflects alternate solutions to manipulating airstreams to enhance pollen export and import. We tested this hypothesis with two field experiments that contrasted pollen removal and receipt by compact and diffuse inflorescences. 2. In the 'aggregation' experiment, we tied together panicle branches of two species with diffuse inflorescences, creating more compact inflorescences. Aggregation reduced pollen removal from both species, probably by increasing boundary-layer thickness. The effects of inflorescence aggregation differed between the two species in a manner that is consistent with pollen-size differences, which could affect the ability of pollen grains to pass through the thickened boundary layer around stigmas. 3. The 'staking' experiment constrained inflorescence motion and revealed that culm characteristics contribute to the interaction between grass inflorescences and airstreams. In particular, inflorescence oscillation principally serves pollen removal for species with compact inflorescences, but is of primary importance in pollen receipt for species with diffuse architectures. 4. These results suggest that inflorescence architecture interacts with wind in a complex manner to facilitate pollination and supports the hypothesis that the extensive diversity of inflorescence architecture within the Poaceae represents evolutionary solutions to the physical constraints of wind pollination.

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