4.1 Article

Quantity versus quality: identifying the most effective pollinators of the hummingbird-pollinated Vriesea rodigasiana (Bromeliaceae)

期刊

PLANT SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 299, 期 1, 页码 97-105

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00606-012-0706-5

关键词

Ornithophily; Pollen load; Pollen placement sites; Pollinator efficiency and importance; Bill length; Visitation frequency

资金

  1. State of Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) within the BIOTA/FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although hummingbirds are considered the major bromeliad pollinators, different species may contribute differently to pollination. This study analyses the importance of different hummingbirds to pollination of Vriesea rodigasiana (Bromeliaceae), based on visitation frequency (a quantity component) and germinated pollen load per visit (a quality component) in the Atlantic rainforest of southeastern Brazil. This bromeliad flowers for 3-4 months with a peak in March. Its yellow, tubular flowers last about 13 h and demonstrate approach herkogamy. During flowering peak, Thalurania glaucopis visited more flowers than Ramphodon naevius, whereas by the end of the flowering season the latter visited more. Differences in hummingbird bill length resulted in different pollen placement and stigma contact. The short-billed T. glaucopis received pollen on the top of its head, depositing it on the center of the stigma, while the long-billed R. naevius received it on the proximal part of its bill, depositing it on the lower lobe of the stigma. Flowers visited by T. glaucopis had six times more pollen tubes than those visited by R. naevius. Our results suggest that this functional group of hummingbirds may be split into even smaller groups, namely short-billed and long-billed hummingbirds, based on different sites of pollen placement. Although both species were pollen vectors of V. rodigasiana, the short-billed T. glaucopis was its most effective pollinator in the area supporting Stebbin's principle, linking floral features and good pollinators.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据