4.7 Article

Functional Differentiation of Floral Color and Scent in Gall Midge Pollination: A Study of a Schisandraceae Plant

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants11070974

关键词

Cecidomyiidae; flower signal; gall midge; Schisandra; Schisandraceae

资金

  1. NATIONAL NATURAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION OF CHINA [31970250, 31300195]
  2. specimen platform of China, teaching specimens sub-platform

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the roles of floral scent and color in attracting gall midges and finds that the combination of these two signals is more effective than using either alone. During the Resseliella-Schisandra interactions, female flowers predominantly employ visual cues to attract midges, while male flowers rely more on olfactory cues to export pollen.
Gall midges are among the most host-specific insects. Their interactions with plants likely date back to the Cretaceous period. Plants from at least seven families are involved in gall midge pollination; however, little is known about the pollination signals of gall midges. In this study, we used a Resseliella-Schisandra model to investigate the roles of floral scent and color in attracting gall midges. Field observations, behavioral bioassays via Y-tubes, and flight box experiments were performed. The results demonstrated that gall midges may be attracted by both floral scent and color and that two flower signals are more effective in promoting insect flower-landing than either alone. In the field, gall midges visited male flowers effectively at night but almost always visited female flowers during the day. Thus, during the Resseliella-Schisandra interactions, female flowers predominantly employed visual cues over scent to attract midges during the day; in contrast, olfactory cues were more functional for male flowers to export pollen in the dark. In this study, we first identified the roles of floral color and the functional differentiation of visual and olfactory cues during gall midge pollination.

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

4.7
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