Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 167, Issue 4, pp 1075–1083 | Cite as

Plant–pollinator interactions and floral convergence in two species of Heliconia from the Caribbean Islands

  • Silvana Martén-RodríguezEmail author
  • W. John Kress
  • Ethan J. Temeles
  • Elvia Meléndez-Ackerman
Plant-Animal interactions - Original Paper

Abstract

Variation in interspecific interactions across geographic space is a potential driver of diversification and local adaptation. This study quantitatively examined variation in floral phenotypes and pollinator service of Heliconia bihai and H. caribaea across three Antillean islands. The prediction was that floral characters would correspond to the major pollinators of these species on each island. Analysis of floral phenotypes revealed convergence among species and populations of Heliconia from the Greater Antilles. All populations of H. caribaea were similar, characterized by long nectar chambers and short corolla tubes. In contrast, H. bihai populations were strongly divergent: on Dominica, H. bihai had flowers with short nectar chambers and long corollas, whereas on Hispaniola, H. bihai flowers resembled those of H. caribaea with longer nectar chambers and shorter corolla tubes. Morphological variation in floral traits corresponded with geographic differences or similarities in the major pollinators on each island. The Hispaniolan mango, Anthracothorax dominicus, is the principal pollinator of both H. bihai and H. caribaea on Hispaniola; thus, the similarity of floral phenotypes between Heliconia species suggests parallel selective regimes imposed by the principal pollinator. Likewise, divergence between H. bihai populations from Dominica and Hispaniola corresponded with differences in the pollinators visiting this species on the two islands. The study highlights the putative importance of pollinator-mediated selection as driving floral convergence and the evolution of locally-adapted plant variants across a geographic mosaic of pollinator species.

Keywords

Convergent evolution Heliconia Hummingbird Islands Pollination 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank T. Clase, A. Cherenfant, J. Fumero, N. Martén, B. Peguero, R. Perez, R. Rodríguez, N. Ruiz and M. Vindas for assistance conducting field work. The authors thank P. Acevedo for discussion of ideas and providing useful botanical information, and I. Lopez for generating the distribution map. V. Gowda, S. Johnson, and three anonymous reviewers provided insightful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Logistic support for fieldwork was provided by Jardín Botánico Nacional de Santo Domingo in Dominican Republic, and El Verde Field Station in Puerto Rico. Research permits were awarded by Depto de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales in Puerto Rico, and by the Secretaría de Estado de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales in the Dominican Republic, and experiments complied with the current laws of those countries. Funding was provided by Smithsonian Institution grant to SMR, NSF Grant DEB 0614218 to E. Temeles and W.J. Kress.

Supplementary material

442_2011_2043_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (51 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 51 kb)
442_2011_2043_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (148 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 147 kb)

References

  1. Acevedo P, Strong M (2010) Catalogue of the seed plants of the West Indies. Smtihsonian Institution. http://botany.si.edu/Antilles/WestIndies
  2. Anderson L (1981) Revision of Heliconia sect. Heliconia (Musaceae). Nordic J Bot 1:759–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson B, Johnson SD (2009) Geographical covariation and local convergence of flower depth in a guild of fly-pollinated plants. New Phytol 182:533–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry F, Kress WJ (1991) Heliconia: an identification guide. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd A (2002) Morphological analysis of sky island populations of Macromeria viridiflora (Boraginaceae). Syst Bot 27:116–126Google Scholar
  6. Cox B (1994) AHB in Puerto Rico. Am Bee J 134:668–669Google Scholar
  7. Fenster CB, Armbruster WS, Thomson JD, Wilson P, Dudash MR (2004) Pollination syndromes and floral specialization. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:375–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fumero-Cabán JJ, Melendez-Ackerman EJ (2007) Relative pollination effectiveness of floral visitors of Pitcairnia angustifolia (Bromeliaceae). Am J Bot 94:419–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Givnish TJ, Millam KC, Mast AR, Paterson TB, Theim TJ, Hipp AL, Henss JM, Smith JF, Wood KR, Sytsma KJ (2009) Origin, adaptive radiation and diversification of the Hawaiian lobeliads (Asterales: Campanulaceae). Proc Biol Sci 276:407–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gowda V (2009) Pollination biology and inter-island geographical variation in the mutualistic Heliconia (Heliconiaceae)-hummingbird (Trochilidae) interaction of the eastern Caribbean Islands. PhD dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Grant PR (1972) Convergent and divergent character displacement. Biol J Linn Soc 4:39–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grant PR (1986) Ecology and evolution of Darwin’s finches. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  13. Grant V (1949) Pollination systems as isolating mechanisms in angiosperms. Evolution 3:82–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grant V (1992) Floral isolation between ornithophilous and sphingophilous species of Ipomopsis and Aquilegia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89:11828–11831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grant V, Grant KA (1965) Flower pollination in the Phlox family. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Harder LD, Johnson SD (2009) Darwin’s beautiful contrivances: evolutionary and functional evidence for floral adaptation. New Phytol 183:530–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herrera C, Castellanos MC, Medrano M (2006) Geographical context of floral evolution: towards an improved research programme in floral diversification. In: Harder L, Barrett SCH (eds) Ecology and evolution of flowers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 278–294Google Scholar
  18. Johnson SD (1997) Pollination ecotypes of Satyrium hallackii (Orchidaceae) in South Africa. Bot J Linn Soc 123:225–235Google Scholar
  19. Johnson SD (2006) Pollinator-driven speciation in plants. In: Harder L, Barrett SCH (eds) Ecology and evolution of flowers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 278–294Google Scholar
  20. Kay KM, Sargent RD (2009) The role of animal pollination in plant speciation: integrating ecology, geography, and genetics. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:637–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH, Byers GS, Gori DF (1984) Organization of a tropical island community of hummingbirds and flowers. Ecology 65:1358–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Losos JB (1992) The evolution of convergent structure in Caribbean Anolis communities. Syst Biol 41:403–420Google Scholar
  23. Nattero J, Cocucci AA (2007) Geographical variation in floral traits of the tree tobacco in relation to its hummingbird pollinator fauna. Biol J Linn Soc 90:657–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pigliucci M (2001) Phenotypic plasticity: beyond nature and nurture. Johns Hopkins University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Raffaele H, Wiley J, Garrido O, Keith A, Raffaele J (1998) A guide to the birds of the West Indies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  26. SAS Institute (2008) SAS for Windows, version 9.2. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  27. Schemske DW (1981) Floral convergence and pollinator sharing in two bee-pollinated tropical herbs. Ecology 62:946–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schuchmann KL (1999) Family Trochilidae (hummingbirds). In: del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J (eds) Handbook of the birds of the world. Barn owls to hummingbirds, vol 5. Lynx, Barcelona, pp 468–680Google Scholar
  29. Stiles FG (1975) Ecology, flowering phenology, and hummingbird pollination of some Costa Rican Heliconia species. Ecology 56:285–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Temeles EJ, Kress WJ (2003) Adaptation in a plant–hummingbird association. Science 300:630–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Temeles EJ, Kress WJ (2010) Mate choice and mate competition by a tropical hummingbird at a floral resource. Proc Biol Sci 277:1607–1613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Temeles EJ, Pan IL, Brennan JL, Horwitt JN (2000) Evidence for ecological causation of sexual dimorphism in a hummingbird. Science 289:441–443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Temeles EJ, Goldman RS, Kudla AU (2005) Foraging and territory economics of sexually dimorphic purple-throated Caribs (Eulampis jugularis) on three Heliconia morphs. Auk 122:187–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Temeles EJ, Koulouris CR, Sander SE, Kress WJ (2009) Effect of flower shape and size on foraging performance and trade-offs in a tropical hummingbird. Ecology 90:1147–1161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Temeles EJ, Miller JS, Rifkin JL (2010) Evolution of sexual dimorphism in bill size and shape of hermit hummingbirds (Phaethornithinae): a role for ecological causation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 365:1053–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wright JW, Stanton ML, Sherson R (2006) Local adaptation to serpentine and non-serpentine soils in Collinsia sparsiflora. Evol Ecol Res 8:1–21Google Scholar
  37. Wunderle JM (1995) Responses of bird populations in a Puerto-Rican forest to hurricane Hugo—the first 18 months. Condor 97:879–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvana Martén-Rodríguez
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • W. John Kress
    • 1
  • Ethan J. Temeles
    • 3
  • Elvia Meléndez-Ackerman
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of BotanyNational Museum of Natural HistoryWashington DCUSA
  2. 2.Departamento de Biología EvolutivaInstituto de EcologíaXalapaMéxico
  3. 3.Department of BiologyAmherst CollegeMassachusettsUSA
  4. 4.Institute for Tropical Ecosystem StudiesUniversity of Puerto Rico at Rio PiedrasSan JuanUSA

Personalised recommendations