Advertisement

Chemoecology

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 75–88 | Cite as

Floral scents: their roles in nursery pollination mutualisms

  • Martine Hossaert-McKey
  • Catherine Soler
  • Bertrand Schatz
  • Magali Proffit
Review Paper

Abstract

Mutualisms are interspecies interactions in which each participant gains net benefits from interacting with its partner. In nursery pollination mutualisms, pollinators reproduce within the inflorescence they pollinate. In these systems, each partner depends directly on the other for its reproduction. Therefore, the signal responsible for partner encounter is crucial in these horizontally transmitted mutualisms, in which the association between specific partners must be renewed at each generation. As in many other interspecies interactions, chemical signals are suspected to be important in the functioning of these mutualisms. We synthesized and compared the published data available on the role of floral scents in the functioning of the 16 known independently evolved nursery pollination mutualisms. So far, attraction of pollinators to their specific hosts has been investigated in only seven of these systems, and the majority of the studies have been conducted on one of them, fig/fig wasp interactions. While such unevenness of the information limits the potential for meta-analysis, some patterns emerge from this review concerning the role of flower volatiles in maintaining the specificity of pollinator attraction, in signaling the appropriate phenological stage for pollinator visit, in attracting the pollinator toward the rewardless sex in dioecious plant species and in aiding the location and exploitation of resources by parasites and predators associated with these mutualisms. Finally, we highlight new perspectives on the evolution of signals in these diversified systems depending on the age and the degree of specificity of the interaction, and on the effect of phylogenetic inertia on the evolutionary dynamics of plant signals.

Keywords

Chemical mediation Specific pollination Pollination by deceit Community ecology Pollinator behavior Evolutionary ecology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

MH would like to express her gratitude to JM Delwart for his generosity and the excellent meeting he organized in November 2008. We thank J. Pasteels for providing us the opportunity to write this review paper. We also thank Doyle McKey for his constructive discussions and helpful comments on the manuscript, Glenn Svensson for his interesting discussion, and an anonymous reviewer. This work was partly supported by the ANR grant Nice Figs (ANR BDIV-006-001).

References

  1. Anstett MC (2001) Unbeatable strategy, constraints and coevolution, or how to resolve evolutionary conflicts: the case of the fig/wasp mutualism. Oikos 95:476–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anstett MC, Bronstein JL, Hossaert-McKey M (1996) Resource allocation: a conflict in the fig/fig wasp mutualism? J Evol Biol 9:417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anstett MC, Hossaert-McKey M, Kjellberg F (1997) Figs and fig pollinators: evolutionary conflicts in a coevolved mutualism. Trends Ecol Evol 12:94–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Anstett MC, Gibernau M, Hossaert-McKey M (1998) Partial avoidance of female inflorescence of a dioecious fig by their mutualistic pollinating wasps. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 265:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arditti J, Hogan N, Chadwick AV (1973) Post-pollination phenomena in orchid flowers. IV. Effects of ethylene. Am J Bot 60:883–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashman TL (2009) Sniffing out patterns of sexual dimorphism in floral scent. Funct Ecol 23:852–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergström G, Groth I, Pellmyr O, Endressb PK, Thienb LB, Hübenerd A, Francke W (1991) Chemical basis of a highly specific mutualism: chiral esters attract pollinating beetles in Eupomatiaceae. Phytochemistry 30:3221–3225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borges R, Bessière JM, Hossaert-McKey M (2008) The chemical ecology of seed dispersal in monoecious and dioecious figs. Funct Ecol 22:484–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bronstein JL (1988) Predators of fig wasps. Biotropica 20:215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bronstein JL (2001) The costs of mutualisms. Am Zool 41:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bronstein JL, Alarcon R, Geber M (2006) The evolution of plant–insect mutualisms. New Phytol 172:412–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen C, Song Q (2008) Responses of the pollinating wasp Ceratosolen solmsi marchali to odor variation between two floral stages of Ficus hispida. J Chem Ecol 34:1536–1544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen C, Song QS, Proffit M, Bessiere JM, Li ZB, Hossaert-McKey M (2009) Private channel: a single unusual compound assures specific pollinator attraction in Ficus semicordata. Funct Ecol 23:941–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Compton SG, Robertson HG (1988) Complex interactions between mutualisms: ants tending homopterans protect fig seeds and pollinators. Ecology 69:1302–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Compton S, van Noort S (1992) Southern African fig wasps (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea): resource utilization and host relationships. Proc Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie Van Wetenschappen 95:423–425Google Scholar
  16. Cook JM, Rasplus JY (2003) Mutualists with attitude: coevolving fig wasps and figs. Trends Ecol Evol 18:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cuautle MC, Thompson JN (2010) Diversity of floral visitors to sympatric Lithophragma species differing in their floral morphology. Oikos 162:71–80Google Scholar
  18. Dodson C, Dressler R, Hill H, Adams R, Williams N (1969) Biologically active compounds in orchid fragrances. Science 164:1243–1249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dötterl S, Jürgens A (2005) Spatial fragrance patterns in flowers of Silene latifolia: lilac compounds as olfactory nectar guides? Plant Syst Evol 255:99–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dötterl S, Jürgens A, Seifert K, Laube T, Weissbecker B, Schutz S (2006) Nursery pollination by a moth in Silene latifolia: the role of odours in eliciting antennal and behavioural responses. New Phytol 169:707–718CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Dötterl S, Burkhardt D, Jürgens A, Mosandl A (2007) Stereoisomeric pattern of lilac aldehyde in Silene latifolia, a plant involved in a nursery pollination system. Phytochemistry 68:499–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Dudareva N, Pichersky E (2000) Biochemical and molecular genetic aspects of floral scents. Plant Physiol 122:627–633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Dudareva N, Pichersky E (2006) Floral scent metabolic pathways: their regulation and evolution. In: Dudareva N, Pichersky E (eds) Biology of floral scent. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 55–78Google Scholar
  24. Dufaÿ M, Anstett MC (2003) Conflicts between plants and pollinators that reproduce within inflorescences: evolutionary variations on a theme. Oikos 100:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dufaÿ M, Hossaert-McKey M, Anstett MC (2003) When leaves act like flowers: how dwarf palms attract their pollinators. Ecol Lett 6:28–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dufaÿ M, Hossaert-McKey M, Anstett MC (2004) Temporal and sexual variation of leaf produced pollinator-attracting odours in the dwarf palm. Oecologia 139:392–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Fenster CB, Armbruster WS, Wilson P, Dudash MR, Thomson JD (2004) Pollination syndromes and floral specialization. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:375–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Firn RD, Jones CG (2003) Natural products-a simple model to explain chemical diversity. Nat Prod Rep 20:382–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gibernau M (1997) Odeurs et spécificité dans les mutualismes figuier-pollinisateur : Le cas de Ficus carica L. et de Blastophaga psenes L. Thèse, Université de Montpellier, FranceGoogle Scholar
  30. Gibernau M, Hossaert-McKey M, Frey JE, Kjellberg F (1998) Are olfactory signals sufficient to attract fig pollinators? Ecoscience 5:306–311Google Scholar
  31. Gimenez-Benavides L, Dötterl S, Jürgens A, Escudero A, Iriondo JM (2007) Generalist diurnal pollination provides greater fitness in a plant with nocturnal pollination syndrome: assessing the effects of a SileneHadena interaction. Oikos 116:1461–1472Google Scholar
  32. Grafen A, Godfray HCJ (1991) Vicarious selection explains some paradoxes in dioecious fig pollinator systems. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 245:73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grison L, Edwards AA, Hossaert-McKey M (1999) Interspecies variation in floral fragrances emitted by tropical Ficus species. Phytochemistry 52:1293–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grison L, Salager JL, Roy J, Hossaert-McKey M (2001) Carbon allocation to the reproductive components in male Ficus carica (Moraceae). Am J Bot 88:2214–2220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grison-Pigé L, Bessiere JM, Turlings TCJ, Kjellberg F, Roy J, Hossaert-McKey M (2001) Limited intersex mimicry of floral odour in Ficus carica. Funct Ecol 15:551–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grison-Pigé L, Bessière JM, Hossaert-McKey M (2002a) Specific attraction of fig-pollinating wasps: role of volatile compounds released by tropical figs. J Chem Ecol 28:283–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Grison-Pigé L, Hossaert-McKey M, Greeff JM, Bessière JM (2002b) Fig volatile compounds—a first comparative study. Phytochemistry 61:61–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Herre EA (1985) Sex ratio adjustment in fig wasps. Science 228:896–898CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Herre EA, Jander C, Machado CA (2008) Evolutionary ecology of figs and their associates: recent progress and outstanding puzzles. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:439–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jaeger N, Till-Bottraud I, Despres L (2000) Evolutionary conflict between Trollius europaeus and its seed-parasite pollinators Chiastocheta flies. Evol Ecol Res 2:885–896Google Scholar
  41. Jaeger N, Pompanon F, Despres L (2001) Variation in predation costs with Chiastocheta egg number on Trollius europaeus: how many seeds to pay for pollination? Ecol Entomol 26:56–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jhumur US, Dotterl S, Jürgens A (2008) Floral odors of Silene otites: their variability and attractiveness to mosquitoes. J Chem Ecol 34:14–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Jousselin E, van Noort S, Berry V, Rasplus JY, Ronsted N, Erasmus JC, Greeff JM (2008) One fig to bind them all: Host conservatism in a fig wasp community unraveled by cospeciation analyses among pollinating and nonpollinating fig wasps. Evolution 62:1777–1797CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Jürgens A, Witt T, Gottsberger G (2002) Flower scent composition in night-flowering Silene species (Caryophyllaceae). Biochem Syst Ecol 30:383–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jürgens A, Witt T, Gottsberger G (2003) Flower scent composition in Dianthus and Saponaria species (Caryophyllaceae) and its relevance for pollination biology and taxonomy. Biochem Syst Ecol 31:345–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kawakita A, Kato M (2009) Repeated independent evolution of obligate pollination mutualism in the Phyllantheae–Epicephala association. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 276:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kephart S, Reynolds R, Rutter M, Fenster C, Dudash M (2006) Pollination and seed predation by moths on Silene and allied Caryophyllaceae: evaluating a model system to study the evolution of mutualisms. New Phytol 169:667–680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Kerdelhué C, Rossi JP, Rasplus JY (2000) Comparative community ecology studies on old world figs and fig wasps. Ecology 81:2832–2849Google Scholar
  49. Kjellberg F, Gouyon PH, Ibrahim M, Raymond M, Valdeyron G (1987) The stability of the symbiosis between dioecious figs and their pollinators: a study of Ficus carica L. and Blastophaga psenes L. Evolution 41:693–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kjellberg F, Jousselin E, Hossaert-McKey M, Rasplus JY (2005) Biology, ecology, and evolution of fig-pollinating wasps (Chalcidoidea, Agaonidae). In: Raman A, Schaefer CW, Withers TM (eds) Biology, ecology, and evolution of gall-inducing arthropods, Science Publishers Inc, pp 539–572Google Scholar
  51. Knudsen JT, Gershenzon J (2005) The chemical diversity of floral scent. In: Dudareva N, Pichersky E (eds) Biology of Floral Scent. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 27–54Google Scholar
  52. Knudsen JT, Eriksson R, Gershenzon J, Stahl B (2006) Diversity and distribution of floral scent. Bot Rev 72:1–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Krebs JR, Davies NB (1993) An introduction to behavioural ecology, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York, 420 pGoogle Scholar
  54. Levin RA, McDade LA, Raguso RA (2003) Systematic utility of floral and vegetative fragrance in two genera of Nyctaginaceae. Syst Biol 52:334–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Marr DL, Brock MT, Pellmyr O (2001) Coexistence of mutualists and antagonists: exploring the impact of cheaters on the yucca–yucca moth mutualism. Oecologia 128:454–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Moore J, Hatcher MJ, Dunn A, Compton SG (2003) Fig choice by the pollinator of a gynodioecious fig: selection to rush, or intersexual mimicry? Oikos 101:180–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Muhlemann JK, Waelti MO, Widmer A, Schiestl FP (2006) Postpollination changes in floral odor in Silene latifolia: adaptive mechanisms for seed-predator avoidance? J Chem Ecol 32:1855–1860CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Okamoto T, Kawakita A, Kato M (2007) Interspecific variation of floral scent composition in Glochidion and its association with host-specific pollinating seed parasite (Epicephala). J Chem Ecol 33:1065–1081CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Patel A, Anstett MC, Hossaert McKey M, Kjellberg F (1995) Pollinators entering female dioecious figs—why commit suicide. J Evol Biol 8:301–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Patt JM, Hartman TG, Creekmore RW, Elliott JJ, Schal C, Lech J, Rosen RT (1992) The floral odor of Peltandra virginica contains novel trimethyl-2, 5-dioxa-bicyclo[3.2.l]nonanes. Phytochem 31:437–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Patt JM, French JC, Schal C, Lech J, Hartman TG (1995) The pollination biology of Tuckahoe, Peltandra virginica (Araceae). Am J Bot 82:1230–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pellmyr O (2003) Yuccas, yucca moths, and coevolution: a review. Ann Mo Bot Gard 90:35–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pellmyr O, Segraves KA, Althoff DM, Balcazar-Lara M, Leebens-Mack J (2007) The phylogeny of yuccas. Mol Phyl Evol 43:493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Perry JC, Mondor EB, Addicott JF (2004) An indirect mutualism: ants deter seed predators from ovipositing in yucca fruit. Can J Zool 82:823–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Proffit M, Johnson SD (2009) Specificity of the signal emitted by figs to attract their pollinating wasps: comparison of volatile organic compounds emitted by receptive syconia of Ficus sur and F. sycomorus in Southern Africa. S Afr J Bot 75:771–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Proffit M, Schatz B, Borges R, Hossaert-McKey M (2007) Chemical mediation and niche partitioning in non-pollinating fig-wasp communities. J Anim Ecol 76:296–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Proffit M, Schatz B, Bessière JM, Chen C, Soler C, Hossaert-McKey M (2008) Signalling receptivity: comparison of the emission of volatile compounds by figs of Ficus hispida before, during and after the phase of receptivity to pollinators. Symbiosis 45:15–24Google Scholar
  68. Proffit M, Chen C, Soler C, Bessière JM, Schatz B, Hossaert-McKey M (2009) Can chemical signals responsible for mutualistic partner encounter promote the specific exploitation of nursery pollination mutualisms? The case of figs and fig wasps. Entomol Exp Appl 131:46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Raguso RA (2003) Olfactory landscapes and deceptive pollination: signal, noise and convergent evolution in floral scent. In: Blomquist GJ, Vogt R (eds) Insect pheromone biochemistry and molecular biology. Academic Press, New York, pp 631–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Raguso RA (2008a) Wake up and smell the roses: the ecology and evolution of floral scent. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:549–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Raguso RA (2008b) The “invisible hand” of floral chemistry. Science 321:1163–1164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Raguso RA (2008c) Start making scents: the challenger of integrating chemistry into pollination ecology. Entomol Exp Appl 128:196–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Raguso RA, Pichersky E (1999) A day in the life of a linalool molecule: chemical communication in a plant-pollinator system. Part 1: linalool biosynthesis in flowering plants. Plant Species Biol 14:95–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ranganathan Y, Borges RM (2009) Predatory and trophobiont-tending ants respond differently to fig and fig wasp volatiles. Anim Behav 77:1539–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schaefer HM, Schaefer V, Levey DJ (2004) How plant–animal interactions signal new insights in communication. Trends Ecol Evol 19:577–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schatz B, Hossaert-McKey M (2003) Interactions of the ant Crematogaster scutellaris (Formicidae; Myrmicinae) with the fig/fig wasp mutualism. Ecol Entomol 28:359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schatz B, Hossaert-McKey M (2010) Ants use odour cues to exploit fig–fig wasp interactions. Acta Oecol 36:107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schatz B, Anstett MC, Out W, Hossaert-McKey M (2003) Olfactory prey detection of fig wasps by the ant Crematogaster scutellaris (Formicidae: Myrmicinae). Naturwissenschaften 90:456–459CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Schatz B, Proffit M, Rakhi BV, Borges R, Hossaert-McKey M (2006) Complex interactions on fig trees: ants capturing parasitic wasps are indirect mutualists of the fig–fig wasp interaction. Oikos 113:344–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schatz B, Kjellberg F, Nyawa S, Hossaert-McKey M (2008) Fig wasps: a staple food for ants on Ficus. Biotropica 40:190–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schiestl FP, Ayasse M (2001) Post-pollination emission of a repellent compound in a sexually deceptive orchid: a new mechanism for maximising reproductive success? Oecologia 126:531–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Song QS, Yang DR, Zhang GM, Yang CR (2001) Volatiles from Ficus hispida and their attractiveness to fig wasps. J Chem Ecol 27:1929–1942CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Svensson GP, Hickman MO, Bartram S, Boland W, Pellmyr O, Raguso RA (2005) Chemistry and geographic variation of floral scent in Yucca filamentosa (Agavaceae). Am J Bot 92:1624–1631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Svensson GP, Pellmyr O, Raguso RA (2006) Strong conservation of floral scent composition in two allopatric yuccas. J Chem Ecol 32:2657–2665CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Terry I, Moore CJ, Walter GH, Forster PI, Roemer RB, Donaldson J, Machin P (2004) Association of cone thermogenesis and volatiles with pollinator specificity in Macrozamia cycads. Plant Syst Evol 243:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Terry I, Walter GH, Moore CJ, Roemer RB, Hull C (2007) Odor-mediated push-pull pollination in cycads. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:549–569Google Scholar
  87. Terry I, Forster PI, Moore CJ, Roemer RB, Machin PJ (2008) Demographics, pollination syndrome and conservation status of Macrozamia platyrhachis (Zamiaceae), a geographically restricted Queensland cycad. Aust J Bot 56:321–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Theis N, Raguso RA (2005) The effect of pollination on floral fragrance in thistles. J Chem Ecol 31:2581–2600CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Thompson JN (1988) Variation in interspecific interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:65–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Thompson JN, Pellmyr O (1992) Mutualism with pollinating seed parasites amid co-pollinators—constraints on specialization. Ecology 73:1780–1791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vamosi JC, Otto SP (2002) When looks can kill: the evolution of sexually dimorphic floral display and the extinction of dioecious plants. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269:1187–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Waelti MO, Page PA, Widmer A, Schiestl FP (2009) How to be an attractive male: floral dimorphism and attractiveness to pollinators in a dioecious plant. BMC Evol Biol 9:190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Ware AB, Compton SG, Kaye PT, Van Noort S (1993) Fig volatiles: their role in attracting pollinators and maintaining pollinator specificity. Plant Syst Evol 186:147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zachariades C (1994) Complex interactions involving the Cape fig, Ficus sur Forsskål, and its associated insects. Thesis, Rhodes University, South Africa, 243 pGoogle Scholar
  95. Zachariades C, Compton SG, Schatz B (2009) Honey-dew as Danegeld? Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) tending a honeydew-producing homopteran do not offer protection from its main natural enemies. Sociobiology 54:471–488Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel AG 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martine Hossaert-McKey
    • 1
  • Catherine Soler
    • 1
  • Bertrand Schatz
    • 1
  • Magali Proffit
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre d’Écologie Fonctionnelle et Évolutive (CEFE), UMR 5175 CNRSMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.Chemical Ecology GroupSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)AlnarpSweden

Personalised recommendations