4.1 Article

Nectar secretion strategy in three Japanese species: changes in nectar volume and sugar concentration dependent on flower age and flowering order

Journal

BOTANY
Volume 86, Issue 4, Pages 337-345

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/B07-131

Keywords

nectar volume; nectar sugar concentration; Gentiana triflora var. japonica; Lobelia sessilifolia; Hemerocallis middendorffii var. esculenta; flower age; flowering order

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We explored how changes in nectar volume and nectar sugar concentration depend oil flower age and flowering order in Gentiana triflora Pallas var. joponica (Kusnez.) Hara, Lobelia sessilifolia Lamb.. and Hemerocallis middendorffii Trautv. et Mey, var. esculenta (Koidz.) Ohwi. In G. triflora var. japonica and H. middendorffii var. esculenta, change in nectar volume was small, whereas larger changes in nectar sugar concentration occurred depending on flower age. In L. sessilifolia, both the mean nectar volume and nectar sugar concentration clearly decreased with flower age, In all species, the mean nectar volume of the early-flowering group per plant was high. In terms of the change in sex allocation, the investment in male and female organs of the early-flowering group was high in G. triflora var. japonica and L. sessilifolia. We suggest that plants of G. triflora var. japonica and H. middendorffii var. esculenta., secrete floral nectar for up to several days to sustain nectar volume to keep attracting pollinators while simultaneously reducing resource usage. Greater nectar secretion ill the early-flowering group, in which flowers have more pollen and ovules, may contribute to greater reproductive success and may be effective for pollinators in learning the location of the plants and flowers. In addition, learning by pollinators should result in increased reproductive success of the later blooming flowers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available