4.5 Article

Variations in bumble bee preference and pollen limitation among neighboring populations:: comparisons between Phyllodoce caerulea and Phyllodoce aleutica (Ericaceae) along snowmelt gradients

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
Volume 90, Issue 9, Pages 1321-1327

Publisher

BOTANICAL SOC AMER INC
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.90.9.1321

Keywords

bumble bee; Ericaceae; mating system variation; nectar volume; Phyllodoce aleutica; Phyllodoce caerulea; pollen limitation; pollinator preference

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two alpine-snowbed shrubs, Phyllodoce caerulea and P. aleutica (Ericaceae), co-occur in locales in northern Japan with early to late snowmelt, but they have different mating systems. Phyllodoce caerulea is an obligate outcrosser in any population, whereas the selfing ability of P. aleutica is highly variable among neighboring populations along snowmelt gradients: it shows high self-compatibility in early to middle snowmelt populations but low self-compatibility in late snowmelt populations. We investigated the relationships between pollinator availability and mating systems of these species along three snowmelt gradients. Relative abundance of flowers and nectar standing crop of P. caerulea decreased from early to late snowmelt plots. Bumble bees preferred P. caerulea to P. aleutica in early and middle snowmelt plots, while their preference shifted to P. aleutica in late snowmelt plots. Pollen limitation was severe in P. aleutica in early to middle snowmelt plots but it was severe in P. caerulea in late snowmelt plots. Seed-set success under natural conditions of P. aleutica was higher than that of P. caerulea in all plots. Thus, we infer that the setting ability of P. aleutica under pollinator limitation acts as a reproductive assurance. We conclude that the interaction through pollination between the sympatric species is strong enough to cause a phenotypic change in mating system even within a local area.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available