Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 64, Issue 1, pp 104–110 | Cite as

The pollination biology and breeding system of Monarda fistulosa (Labiatae)

  • Robert William Cruden
  • Luise Hermanutz
  • Jane Shuttleworth
Original Papers

Summary

Successful cross-pollination of Monarda fistulosa is the result of a complex interaction among flower opening, the pollen-bearing areas of the pollinators and/or their behavior, and the maturation of the stigmas. The flowers open continuously from 0800–2000 h providing a temporally predictable rich source of nectar and pollen. Recently opened flowers may reduce the ability of bees to discriminate between resource rich and poor patches and encourage systematic foraging within patches. The continuous opening of flowers coupled with protandry also results in some flowers of most capitula being in the staminate and others in the pistillate phase. Autogamy is highly unlikely due to strong protandry and the spatial separation of anthers and stigmas. Geitonogamy, at least that mediated by Bombus is unlikely because the pollen is spread over a relatively large area of the wings, which reduces the likelihood of a stigma contacting just deposited pollen. Because pollen is transferred from the much smaller coxal area of Anthophora and other bees that mistake the stigmas of early pistillate phase flowers for stamens some geitonogamy seems inevitable. However, the delayed receptivity of young stigmas to self-pollen decreases the likelihood of self-pollen germinating on such stigmas. Older stigmas are equally receptive to self- and cross-pollen and the number of pollen grains germinating and pollen tubes reaching the base of the style increases with flower age.

Keywords

Germinate Pollen Tube Complex Interaction Rich Source Phase Flower 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bateman AJ (1956) Cryptic self-incompatibility in the wallflower: Cheiranthus cheiri L. Heredity 10:257–261Google Scholar
  2. Beattie AJ (1971) A technique for the study of insect borne pollen. Pan-Pac Entomol 47:82Google Scholar
  3. Bolten AB, Feinsinger P, Baker HG, Baker I (1979) On the calculation of sugar concentration in flower nectar. Oecologia (Berl) 41:301–304Google Scholar
  4. Cruden RW (1972a) Pollinators in high-elevation ecosystems: Relative effectiveness of birds and bees. Science 176:1439–1440Google Scholar
  5. Cruden RW (1972b) Pollination biology of Nemophila menziesii (Hydrophyllaceae) with comments on the evolution of oligolectic bees. Evolution 26:373–389Google Scholar
  6. Cruden RW (1977) Intraspecific variation in pollen-ovule ratios and nectar secretion-Preliminary evidence of ecotypic adaptation. Ann Missouri Bot Gard 63:277–289Google Scholar
  7. Cruden RW, Hermann-Parker SM (1977) Temporal dioecism: An alternative to dioecism? Evolution 31:863–866Google Scholar
  8. Cruden RW, Hermann SM, Peterson S (1983) patterns of nectar production and plant-pollinator coevolution. In: Bentley BA, Elias TS (eds) The Biology of Nectaries. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 80–125Google Scholar
  9. Darwin C (1895) The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilization in the Vegetable Kingdom. D. Appleton and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisikowitch D, Woodell SRJ (1974) The effect of water on pollen germination in two species of Primula. Evolution 28:692–694Google Scholar
  11. Estes JR, Thorp RW (1975) Pollination ecology of Pyrrhopappus carolinianus (Compositae). Am J Bot 62:148–159Google Scholar
  12. Feinsinger P (1978) Ecological interactions between plants and hummingbirds in a successional tropical community. Ecol Monogr 48:269–287Google Scholar
  13. Gill FB, Wolf LL (1977) Nonrandom foraging by sunbirds in a patchy environment. Ecology 58:1284–1296Google Scholar
  14. Gill LS (1980) reproductive biology of Canadian Labiatae. Phytologia 47:89–96Google Scholar
  15. Heinrich B (1979) Resource heterogeneity and patterns of movement in foraging bumblebees. Oecologia (Berl) 40:235–245Google Scholar
  16. Heslop-Harrison J (1975) The physiology of the pollen grain surface. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 190:275–299Google Scholar
  17. Heslop-Harrison J (1979) Pollen walls as adaptive systems. Ann Missouri Bot Gard 66:813–829Google Scholar
  18. Hiebert SM, Calder WA, III (1983) Sodium, potassium, and chloride in floral nectars: Energy-free contributions to refractive index and salt balance. Ecology 64:399–402Google Scholar
  19. Inouye DW, Favre NA, Lanum JA, Levine DM, Meyers JB, Roberts MS, Tsao FC, Wang Y-Y (1980) The effects of nonsugar nectar constitutents on estimates of nectar energy content. Ecology 61:992–996Google Scholar
  20. Kirby EG, Vasil IK (1979) Effect of pollen protein diffusates on germination of eluted pollen samples of Petunia hybrida in vitro. Ann Bot 44:361–367Google Scholar
  21. Martin FW (1959) Staining and observing pollen tubes in the style by means of fluorescence. Stain Tech 34:125–128Google Scholar
  22. Nettancourt Dde (1977) Incompatibility in Angiosperms. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. Pleasants JM, Zimmerman M (1979) Patchiness in the dispersal of nectar resources: evidence for hot and cold spots. Oecologia (Berl) 41:283–288Google Scholar
  24. Pyke GH (1978a) Optimal foraging in bumblebees and coevolution with their plants. Oecologia (Berl) 36:281–293Google Scholar
  25. Pyke GH (1978b) Optimal foraging: Movement patterns of bumblebees between inflorescences. Theoret Pop Biol 13:72–98Google Scholar
  26. Real LA (1981) Uncertainty and pollinator-plant interactions: The foraging behavior of bees and wasps on artificial flowers. Ecology 62:20–26Google Scholar
  27. Robertson C (1892) Flowers and insects — Labiatae. Trans Acad Sci St Louis. 6:101–131 (in Pamphlets on Pollination No 27)Google Scholar
  28. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. Second Edition. WH Freeman and Company, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  29. Southwick EE, Loper GM, Sadwick SE (1981) Nectar production, composition, energetics and pollinator attractiveness in spring flowers of western New York. Am J Bot 68:994–1002Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Environmental Data Service. Climatological Data, Iowa (1979) 90:7, 8; (1980) 91: 7, 8Google Scholar
  31. Waddington KD, Heinrich B (1981) Patterns of movement and floral choice by foraging bees. In: Kamil A, Sargent T (eds) Foraging Behavior: Ecological, Ethological, and Physiological Approaches. Garland STPM Press, New York, pp 215–230Google Scholar
  32. Waddington KD, Allen T, Heinrich B (1981) Floral preferences of bumblebees (Bombus edwardsii) in relation to intermittent versus continuous rewards. Anim Behav 29:779–784Google Scholar
  33. Weller SG, Ornduff R (1977) Cryptic self-incompatbility in Amsinckia grandiflora. Evolution 31:47–53Google Scholar
  34. Werner PA, Platt WJ (1976) Ecological relationships of co-occurring goldenrods (Solidago: Compositae). Am Nat 110:959–971Google Scholar
  35. Whitehouse HLK (1950) Multiple-allelomorph incompatibility of pollen and style in the evolution of the angiosperms. Ann Bot NS 14:198–216Google Scholar
  36. Whitten WM (1981) Pollination ecology of Monarda didyma, M. clinopodia, and hybrids (Lamiaceae) in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Am J Bot 68:435–442Google Scholar
  37. Willson MF, Burley N (1983) Mate Choice in Plants: Tactics, Mechanisms, and Consequences. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  38. Zimmerman M (1981) Patchiness in the dispersion of nectar resources: Probable causes. Oecologia (Berl) 49:154–157Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert William Cruden
    • 1
  • Luise Hermanutz
    • 1
  • Jane Shuttleworth
    • 1
  1. 1.Iowa Lakeside LaboratoryMilfordUSA

Personalised recommendations