Skip to main content
Log in

Bumblebee visitation and seedset in Melampyrum pratense and Viscaria vulgaris: heterospecific pollen and pollen limitation

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Fruiting and seed set in two bumblebee-pollinated herbs, Melampyrum pratense L. (annual, Scrophulariaceae) and Viscaria vulgaris Bernh. (perennial, Caryophyllaceae) were studied on a dry meadow in southwestern Sweden in June 1986 and 1988. Both species produced seeds by self-fertilization. In Melampyrum (homogamous) fruiting and seed set by selfing were much lower than by natural pollination; in Viscaria (protandrous) fruiting by selfing and by natural polination were similar, but seed set per flower was lower by selfing than by natural pollination. Sequential hand pollinations increased seed set in Melampyrum, but not in Viscaria. Thus, the number of pollinations is important for high seed set in Melampyrum, and number of pollen grains deposited one pollination is important for high seed set in Viscaria. Late flowering resulted in the production of fewer seeds in both species, although the visitation rate in pure Viscaria stands was sufficient, because of limited resources. Pollen was the limiting resource in Viscaria, because hand pollination increased natural seed set. In Melampyrum pollen was limiting in 1988 but so were consumable resources, because the seedset decreased with time despite hand pollination. Pure stands of Viscaria had sced set similar to plants in mixed stands (with Melampyrum and Rhinanthus), although plants in mixed stands received fewer visits. Many seeds produced late in the season are the result of self pollination; emasculated Viscaria flowers had a very low seedset late in the season. Pollen loads containing approximately 50% heterospecific grains did not affect seed set in either species. Application of heterospecific (Lupinus) pollen to receptive Viscaria styles 6 h before conspecific pollen did not affect seed set.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Campbell DR (1985) Pollen and gene dispersal: The influence of competition for pollination. Evolution 39: 418–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DR, Motten AF (1985) The mechanism of competition of pollination between two forest herbs. Ecology 66: 554–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapham AR, Tutin TG, Warburg EF (1962) Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge, England

  • Frankie GW, Opler PA, Bawa KS (1976) Foraging behaviour of solitary bees: Implications for out-crossing of a neotropical forest tree species. J Ecol 64: 1049–1057

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennersten O, Kwak MM (1991) Competition for bumblebee visitation between Melampyrum pratense and Viscaria vulgaris with healthy and Ustilago-infected flowers. Oecologia

  • Jennersten O, Berg L, Lehman C (1988) Phenological differences in pollinator visitation, pollen deposition and seed set in the sticky catchfly, Viscaria vulgaris. J Ecol 76: 1111–1132

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohn JR, Waser NM (1985) The effect of Delphinium nelsonii pollen on seed set in Ipomopsis aggregata, a competitor for hummingbird pollination. Am J Bot 72: 1144–1148

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwak MM (1988) Pollination ecology and seed-set in the rare annual species Melampyrum arvense L. (Scrophulariaceae). Acta Bot Neer 37: 153–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwak MM, Jennersten O (1986) The significance of pollination time and frequency and of purity of pollen loads for seed set in Rhinanthus angustifolius (Scrophulariaceae) and Viscaria vulgaris (Caryophyllaceae). Oecologia 70: 502–507

    Google Scholar 

  • Lack AJ (1976) Competition for pollinators and evolution in Centaurea. New Phytol 77: 787–792

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosquin T (1971) Competition for pollinators as a stimulus for evolution of flowering time. Oikos 22: 398–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Ockendon DJ, Currah L (1977) Self-pollination reduces the number of cross-pollen tubes in the styles of Brassica oleracea L. New Phytol 78: 675–680

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute Inc. (1987) SAS/STATTM Guide for personal computers, version 6 edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sukhada K, Jayachandra (1980) Pollen allelopathy — a new phenomenon. New Phytol 84: 739–745

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson JD, Andrews BJ, Plowright RC (1981) The effect of a foreign pollen on ovule development in Diervilla lonicera (Caprifoliaceae). New Phytol 90: 777–783

    Google Scholar 

  • Waset NM (1978) Interspecific pollen transfer and competition between co-occurring plant species. Oecologia 36: 233–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Waser NM, Fugate ML (1986) Pollen precedence and stigma closure: a mechanism of competition between Delphinium nelsonii and Ipomopsis aggregata. Oecologia 70: 573–577

    Google Scholar 

  • Willson MF, Burley N (1983) Mate choice in plants: tactics, mechanisms, and consequences. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kwak, M.M., Jennersten, O. Bumblebee visitation and seedset in Melampyrum pratense and Viscaria vulgaris: heterospecific pollen and pollen limitation. Oecologia 86, 99–104 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317395

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317395

Key words

Navigation