, Volume 101, Issue 11, pp 893–905 | Cite as

Low abundance of long-tongued pollinators leads to pollen limitation in four specialized hawkmoth-pollinated plants in the Atlantic Rain forest, Brazil

  • Felipe W. AmorimEmail author
  • Graham E. Wyatt
  • Marlies Sazima
Original Paper


Long-tubed hawkmoth-pollinated species present some of the most remarkable examples of floral specialization depending exclusively on long-tongued hawkmoths for sexual reproduction. Nonetheless, long-tongued hawkmoths do not rely exclusively on specialized plants as nectar sources, which may limit sexual reproduction through pollen limitation. However, very few studies have quantified the level of pollen limitation in plants with highly specialized floral traits in tropical regions. In this context, we studied four sympatric hawkmoth-pollinated species in a highland Atlantic Rain forest and assessed pollen limitation and their dependence on pollinators by analyzing the floral biology, breeding system, pollination mechanisms, and abundance of long-tongued pollinators. We showed that the four species are self-compatible, but are completely dependent on long-tongued hawkmoths to set fruits, and that flower visitation was infrequent in all plant species. Pollen limitation indices ranged from 0.53 to 0.96 showing that fruit set is highly limited by pollen receipt. Long-tongued moths are much less abundant and comprise only one sixth of the hawkmoth fauna. Pollen analyses of 578 sampled moths revealed that hawkmoths visited ca. 80 plant species in the community, but only two of the four species studied. Visited plants included a long-tubed hawkmoth-pollinated species endemic to the lowland forest ca. 15–20 km away from the study site. Specialization index (H 2  = 0.20) showed that community-level interactions between hawkmoths and plants are generalized. We suggest that sexual reproduction of these highly specialized hawkmoth-pollinated species is impaired by competition among plants for pollinators, in conjunction with the low abundance and diversity of long-tongued pollinators.


Habenaria johannensis Habenaria paulistana Hillia parasitica Nectar sugar gradient Pollen limitation index Posoqueria latifolia 



We thank João P. Villani on behalf of all the people of the Santa Virgínia Field Station for the facilities and help during field work; Instituto Florestal for the granting permission for field work; A.M.S. Corrêa and M.A.V. Cruz-Barros for their help in the pollen analyses; A.P. Moraes, C.E.P. Nunes, and M. Fernández Otárola for their help during the field work; and K. Agostini, M. Moré, P.E. Oliveira, R.E. Wyatt, S. Benitez-Vieyra, and W.R. Silva for their critical reading and valuable suggestions in an earlier version of the manuscript. We are also very grateful to Peter E. Gibbs, Pietro K. Maruyama, Dave Kelly, and two anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions on the final version of the manuscript. This research was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) as part of the Thematic Project Functional Gradient (Process Number 03/12595-7), within the BIOTA/FAPESP Program—The Biodiversity Virtual Institute (; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico—CNPq (Grant 303084/2011-1 to MS). This study is part of FWA’s PhD supported by FAPESP (grant 2007/58666-3).

Supplementary material


(MPEG 11774 kb)

114_2014_1230_MOESM2_ESM.doc (1.3 mb)
Figure S1 Pollen tubes resulting from manual self-pollinations in four hawkmoth-pollinated species in an area of Montane Ombrophilous Dense Forest in the Santa Virginia Field Station, Serra do Mar State Park, south-eastern Brazil. A Pollen tubes on the stigma of Habenaria johannensis. B Pollen tubes in the ovary of Habenaria paulistana. Note deviation from the main bundle of pollen tubes towards the ovules (arrows). C Penetration of pollen tubes into the ovules (arrows) of Hillia parasitica. D Stigmatic surface of Posoqueria latifolia with pollen grains germinating (arrows) and pollen tubes penetrating the stigma. (DOC 1303 kb)


  1. Agosta SJ, Janzen DH (2005) Body size distributions of large Costa Rican dry forest moths and the underlying relationship between plant and pollinator morphology. Oikos 108:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amorim FW, Avila RS Jr, Camargo JA, Vieira A, Oliveira PE (2009) A hawkmoth crossroads? Species richness, seasonality and biogeographical affinities of Sphingidae in a Brazilian Cerrado. J Biogeogr 36:662–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amorim FW, Galetto L, Sazima M (2013) Beyond the pollination syndrome: nectar ecology and the role of diurnal and nocturnal pollinators in the reproductive success of Inga sessilis (Fabaceae). Plant Biol 15:317–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arditti J, Elliott J, Kitching IJ, Wasserthal LT (2012) ‘Good Heavens what insect can suck it’—Charles Darwin, Angraecum sesquipedale and Xanthopan morganii praedicta. Bot J Linn Soc 169:403–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker HG (1955) Self-compatibility and establishment after “long-distance” dispersal. Evolution 9:347–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batista JAN, Bianchetti LB, Miranda ZJ (2006) A revision of Habenaria section Macroceratitae (Orchidaceae) in Brazil. Brittonia 58:10–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bawa KS, Bullock SH, Perry DR, Coville RE, Grayum MH (1985) Reproductive biology of tropical lowland rain forest II. Pollination systems. Am J Bot 72:346–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beach J (1983) Posoqueria latifolia (Boca de Vieja, Guayaba de Mico, Fruta de Mono). In: Janzen DH (ed) Costa Rican natural history. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 307–308Google Scholar
  9. Blüthgen N, Menzel F, Blüthgen N (2006) Measuring specialization in species interaction networks. BMC Ecol 6:9PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Burd M (1994) Bateman’s principle and plant reproduction: the role of pollen limitation in fruit and seed set. Bot Rev 60:83–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carnaval AC, Moritz C, Hickerson M, Haddad C, Rodrigues M (2009) Stability predicts diversity in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest hotspot. Science 323:785–789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darrault RO, Schlindwein C (2002) Esfingídeos (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae) no Tabuleiro Paraibano, nordeste do Brasil: abundância, riqueza e relação com plantas esfingófilas. Rev Bras Zool 19:429–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Darrault RO, Schlindwein C (2005) Limited fruit production in Hancornia speciosa (Apocynaceae) and pollination by nocturnal and diurnal insects with long mouth parts. Biotropica 37:381–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darwin C (1862) On the various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects. D. Appleton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Delprete PG (2009) Taxonomic history, morphology, and reproductive biology of the tribe Posoquerieae (Rubiaceae, Ixoroideae). Ann Mo Bot Gard 96:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dormann CF, Fründ J, Blüthgen N, Gruber B (2009) Indices, graphs and null models: analysing bipartite ecological networks. Open Ecol J 2:7–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dressler RL (1993) Phylogeny and classification of the orchid family. Dioscorides Press, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Erdtman G (1960) The acetolysis method. A revised description. Sven Bot Tidskr 54:561–564Google Scholar
  19. Fallen ME (1986) Floral structure in the Apocynaceae: morphological, functional, and evolutionary aspects. Bot Jahrb Syst 106:245–286Google Scholar
  20. Fausto JA, Eckhart VM, Geber MA (2001) Reproductive assurance and the evolutionary ecology of self-pollination in Clarkia xantiana (Onagraceae). Am J Bot 88:1794–1800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galetto L, Bernardello G (2005) Nectar. In: Dafni A, Kevan PG, Husband BC (eds) Practical pollination biology. Enviroquest, Ontario, pp 261–313Google Scholar
  22. Glinos E, Cocucci AA (2011) Pollination biology of Canna indica (Cannaceae) with particular reference to the functional morphology of the style. Plant Syst Evol 291:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haber WA (1984) Pollination by deceit in an mass-flowering tropical tree Plumeria rubra L. (Apocynaceae). Biotropica 16:269–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haber WA, Frankie GW (1989) A tropical hawkmoth community: Costa Rican dry forest Sphingidae. Biotropica 21:155–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hallé F (1967) Etude biologique et morphologique de la tribu des Gardéniées (Rubiacées). Mém ORSTOM 22:1–146Google Scholar
  26. Harder LD, Johnson SD (2009) Darwin’s beautiful contrivances: evolutionary and functional evidence for floral adaptation. New Phytol 183:530–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herrera CM (1990) The adaptedness of the floral phenotype in a relict endemic, hawkmoth-pollinated violet. 1. Patterns of variation among disjunct populations. Biol J Linn Soc 40:275–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huang S-Q, Fenster CB (2007) Absence of long-tongued pollinators for long corolla-tube Himalayan Pedicularis species: implications for the evolution of corolla length. Int J Plant Sci 168:325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ignatov II, Janovec JP, Centeno P, Tobler MW, Grados J, Lamas G, Kitching IJ (2011) Patterns of Richness, composition, and distribution of sphingid moths along an elevational gradient in the andes-amazon region of southeastern Peru. Ann Entomol Soc Am 104:68–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Janzen DH (1986) Biogeography of an unexceptional place: what determines the saturniid and sphingid moth fauna of Santa Rosa National Park, Costa Rica, and what does it mean to conservation biology? Brenesia 25(26):51–87Google Scholar
  31. Janzen DH (1987) How moths pass the dry season in a Costa Rican dry forest. Insect Sci Appl 8:489–500Google Scholar
  32. Johnson SD, Neal PR, Peter CI, Edwards TJ (2004) Fruiting failure and limited recruitment in remnant populations of the hawkmoth-pollinated tree Oxyanthus pyriformis subsp. pyriformis (Rubiaceae). Biol Conserv 120:31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Joly CA, Assis MA, Bernacci LC, Tamashiro JY, Campos MCR, Gomes JAMA et al (2012) Floristic and phytosociology in permanent plots of the Atlantic Rainforest along an altitudinal gradient in southeastern Brazil. Biota Neotr 12:123–145Google Scholar
  34. Kearns CA, Inouye DW (1993) Techniques for pollination biologists. Colorado University Press, NiwotGoogle Scholar
  35. Kislev ME, Kravitz Z, Lorch J (1972) A study of hawkmoth pollination by a palynological analysis of the proboscis. Israel J Bot 21:57–75Google Scholar
  36. Knight TM, Steets JA, Vamosi JC, Mazer SJ, Burd M, Campbell DR, Dudash MR, Johnston MO, Mitchell RJ, Ashman T-L (2005) Pollen limitation in plant reproduction: pattern and process. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:467–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Köppen W (1948) Climatologia. Fondo de Cultura Econômica, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  38. Larson BMH, Barrett SCH (2000) A comparative analysis of pollen limitation in flowering plants. Biol J Linn Soc 69:503–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martin FW (1959) Staining and observing pollen tubes in the style by means of fluorescence. Stain Technol 34:125–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Martins DJ, Johnson SD (2007) Hawkmoth pollination of aerangoid orchids in Kenya, with special reference to nectar sugar concentration gradients in the floral spurs. Am J Bot 94:650–659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Martins DJ, Johnson SD (2013) Interactions between hawkmoths and flowering plants in East Africa: polyphagy and evolutionary specialization in an ecological context. Biol J Linn Soc 110:199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maruyama PK, Oliveira GM, Ferreira C, Dalsgaard B, Oliveira PE (2013) Pollination syndromes ignored: importance of non-ornithophilous flowers to neotropical savanna hummingbirds. Naturwissenschaften 100:1061–1068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moeller DA (2006) Geographic structure of pollinator communities, reproductiveassurance, and the evolution of self-pollination. Ecology 87:1510–1522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moody-Weis JM, Heywood JS (2001) Pollination limitation to reproductive success in the Missouri evening primrose, Oenothera macrocarpa (Onagraceae). Am J Bot 88:1615–1622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moré M, Sérsic AN, Cocucci AA (2007) Restriction of pollinator assemblage through flower length and width in three long-tongued hawkmoth-pollinated species of Mandevilla (Apocynaceae, Apocynoideae). Ann Mo Bot Gard 94:487–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moré M, Amorim FW, Benitez-Vieyra S, Medina AM, Sazima M, Cocucci AA (2012) Armament imbalances: match and mismatch in plant-pollinator traits of highly specialized long-spurred orchids. PLoS ONE 7:e41878. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041878 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Müller F (1866) Über die Befruchtung der Martha (Posoqueria?) fragrans. Bot Zeit 23:129–133Google Scholar
  48. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nilsson LA (1988) The evolution of flowers with deep corolla tubes. Nature 334:147–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nilsson LA, Jonsson L, Ralison L, Randrianjohany E (1987) Angraecoid orchids and hawkmoths in central Madagascar: specialized pollination systems and generalist foragers. Biotropica 19:310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Oliveira PE, Gibbs PE (2000) Reproductive biology of woody plants in a Cerrado community of central Brazil. Flora 195:311–329Google Scholar
  52. Oliveira PE, Gibbs PE, Barbosa AA (2004) Moth pollination of woody species in the Cerrados of Central Brazil: a case of so much owed to so few? Plant Syst Evol 245:41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ollerton J, Tarrant S, Winfree R (2011) How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos 120:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ortega-Baes P, Gorostiague P (2013) Extremely reduced sexual reproduction in the clonal cactus Echinopsis thelegona. Plant Syst Evol 299:785–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pedron M, Buzatto CR, Singer RB, Batista JAN, Moser A (2012) Pollination biology of four sympatric species of Habenaria (Orchidaceae: Orchidinae) from southern Brazil. Bot J Linn Soc 170:141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Puff CAI, Buchner R, Rohrhofer U (1995) The united stamens of Rubiaceae. Morphology, anatomy; their role in pollination ecology. Ann Mo Bot Gard 82:357–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ribeiro MC, Metzger JP, Martensen AC, Ponzoni FJ, Hirota MM (2009) Brazilian Atlantic forest: how much is left and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 142:1141–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rosas‐Guerrero V, Aguilar R, Martén‐Rodríguez S, Ashworth L, Lopezaraiza‐Mikel M, Bastida JM, Quesada M, Irwin R (2014) A quantitative review of pollination syndromes: do floral traits predict effective pollinators? Ecol Lett 17:388–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Silberbauer-Gottsberger I, Gottsberger G, Ehrendorfer F (1992) Hybrid speciation and radiation in the neotropical woody genus Tocoyena (Rubiaceae). Plant Syst Evol 181:143–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Taylor CM (1994) Revision of Hillia (Rubiaceae). Ann Mo Bot Gard 81:571–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vamosi JC, Knight TM, Steets JA, Mazer SJ, Burd M, Ashman TL (2006) Pollination decays in biodiversity hotspots. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:956–961PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Veloso HP, Rangel-Filho ALR, Lima JCA (1991) Classificação da vegetação brasileira, adaptada a um sistema universal. IBGE, Departamento de Recursos Naturais e Estudos AmbientaisGoogle Scholar
  63. Wasserthal LT (1997) The pollinators of the Malagasy star orchids Angraecum sesquipedale, A. sororium and A. compactum and the evolution of extremely long spurs by pollinator shift. Bot Acta 110:343–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wolowski M, Ashman T-L, Freitas L (2013) Community-wide assessment of pollen limitation in hummingbird-pollinated plants of a tropical montane rain forest. Ann Bot London 112:903–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wolowski M, Ashman T-L, Freitas L (2014) Meta-analysis of pollen limitation reveals the relevance of pollination generalization in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. PLoS ONE 9(2):e89498. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089498 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Zar JH (2010) Biostatistical analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhang Z-Q, Kress WJ, Xie W-J, Ren P-Y, Gao J-Y, Li Q-J (2011) Reproductive biology of two Himalayan alpine gingers (Roscoea spp., Zingiberaceae) in China: pollination syndrome and compensatory floral mechanisms. Plant Biol 13:582–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felipe W. Amorim
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Graham E. Wyatt
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marlies Sazima
    • 4
  1. 1.Departamento de Botânica, Instituto de BiociênciasUniversidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”BotucatuBrazil
  2. 2.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Vegetal, Instituto de BiologiaUniversidade Estadual de CampinasCampinasBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Plant BiologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  4. 4.Departamento de Biologia Vegetal, Instituto de BiologiaUniversidade Estadual de CampinasCampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations