4.7 Article

Interspecific competition for pollination lowers seed production and outcrossing in Mimulus ringens

期刊

ECOLOGY
卷 86, 期 3, 页码 762-771

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1890/04-0694

关键词

Bombus fervidus; competition for pollination; field experiment; improper pollen transfer; Lobelia siphilitica; mating system; mimulus ringens; outcrossing rate; seeds per fruit; seed set; pollen loss; visitation rate

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sympatric plant species with similar flowering phenologies and floral morphologies may compete for pollination, and as a consequence potentially influence each other's reproductive success and mating system. Two likely competitors are Mimulus ringens and Lobelia siphilitica, which co-occur in wet meadows of central and eastern North America, produce blue zygomorphic flowers, and share several species of bumble bee pollinators. To test for effects of competition for pollination, we planted experimental arrays of Mimulus ringens, each consisting of genets with unique combinations of homozygous marker genotypes. In two arrays we planted mixtures of Mimulus and Lobelia. and in two additional arrays we planted Mimulus without a competitor for pollination. Bumble bee pollinators frequently moved between Mimulus and Lobelia flowers in the mixed-species arrays, with 42% of plant-to-plant movements being interspecific transitions. Pollinator movements between species were associated with a reduction in the amount of conspecific pollen arriving on Mimulus stigmas. The presence of Lobelia led to a significant 37% reduction in the mean number of Mimulus seeds per fruit. In addition, Mimulus had a significantly lower rate of outcrossing in the mixed-species arrays (0.43) than in the pure arrays (0.63). This is the first study to demonstrate that competition for pollination directly influences outcrossing rates. Our work suggests that in self-compatible populations with genetic load, competition for pollination may not only reduce seed quantity, but may also lower seed quality.

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