, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 160–163

Interpopulation variation in nectar production in Aconitum columbianum (Ranunculaceae)

  • Don Brink
  • J. M. J. deWet


In Aconitum columbianum there are extreme interpopulation differences in rates of nectar secretion per flower. Since nectar sugar concentration varies little among populations, increased nectar secretion results in a greater mass of sugar per flower for pollinator attraction. These differences in the amount of reward offered per flower account at least in part for observed higher levels of pollinator activity in populations with high nectar production. Nectar production is correlated also with nectary depth, i.e., flowers in populations with deep nectaries have higher rates of nectar secretion than those with shallow nectaries. Nectary depth differences adapt populations to different pollinator-types. Populations with deeper nectaries are adapted to pollination by bumblebees with longer tongues and more specialized foraging behaviors. In conclusion, there are basic differences in pollination ecology among geographical races of a. columbianum, which are indicated by correlated interpopulution differences in (1) nectar production, (2) level of pollinator activity, (3) nectar depth, and (4) pollinator-type.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bolten AB, Feinsinger P, Baker HG, Baker I (1979) On the calculation of sugar concentration in flower nectar. Oecologia (Berl) 41:301–304Google Scholar
  2. Brink DE (1980) Reproduction and variation in Aconitum columbianum (Ranunculaceae), with emphasis on California populations. Amer J Bot 67:263–273Google Scholar
  3. Inouye DW (1976) Resource partitioning and community structure: a study of bumblebees in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Ph.D. dissertation. Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  4. Inouye DW (1977) Species structure of bumblebee communities in North America and Europe. In: WJ Mattson (ed), The role of arthropods in forest ecosystems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York p 35–40Google Scholar
  5. Inouye DW (1978) Resource partitioning in bumblebees: experimental studies of foraging behavior. Ecology 59:672–678Google Scholar
  6. Pyke GH (1974) Studies in the foraging efficiency of animals. Ph.D. dissertation. Univ. of ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. Pyke GH (1978a) Optimal foraging: movement patterns of bumblebees between inflorescences. Theor Popul Biol 13:72–98Google Scholar
  8. Pyke GH (1978b) Optimal foraging in bumblebees and coevolution with their plants. Oecologia (Berl) 36:281–293Google Scholar
  9. Waser NM (1978a) Competition for hummingbird pollination and sequential flowering in two Colorado wildflowers. Ecology 59:934–944Google Scholar
  10. Waser NM (1978b) Interspecific pollen transfer and competition between co-occurring plant species. Oecologia (Berl) 36:223–236Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Don Brink
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. M. J. deWet
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Crop Evolution Laboratory, Department of BotanyUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Department of AgronomyUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations