Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 65–77

How do plants balance multiple mutualists? Correlations among traits for attracting protective bodyguards and pollinators in cotton (Gossypium)

Original Paper

Abstract

Many species, both plants and animals, are simultaneously engaged in interactions with multiple mutualists. However, the extent to which separate traits that attract different mutualist guilds display negative or positive relationships remains largely unstudied. We asked whether correlations exist among extrafloral nectary traits to attract arthropod bodyguards and floral traits to attract pollinator mutualists. For 37 species in the cotton genus (Gossypium), we evaluated correlations among six extrafloral nectary traits and four floral traits in a common greenhouse environment, with and without correction for phylogenetic non-independence. Across Gossypium species, greater investment in extrafloral nectary traits was positively correlated with greater investment in floral traits. Positive correlations remained after accounting for the evolutionary history of the clade. Our results demonstrate that traits to maintain multiple mutualist guilds can be positively correlated across related species and build a more general understanding of the constraints on trait evolution in plants.

Keywords

Ant Extrafloral nectar Evolutionary constraint Floral nectar Mutualism Trade-off 

Supplementary material

10682_2011_9497_MOESM1_ESM.docx (156 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 157 kb)

References

  1. Agrawal AA (2011) Current trends in the evolutionary ecology of plant defense. Funct Ecol 25:420–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal A, Fishbein M (2006) Plant defense syndromes. Ecology 87:S132–S149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal AA, Fishbein M, Halitschke R, Hastings AP, Rabosky DL, Rasmann S (2009a) Evidence for adaptive radiation from a phylogenetic study of plant defenses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:18067–18072PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agrawal AA, Salminen JP, Fishbein M, Tiffin P (2009b) Phylogenetic trends in phenolic metabolism of milkweeds (Asclepias): evidence for escalation. Evolution 63:663–673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benitez-Vieyra S, Medina A, Glinos E, Cocucci A (2006) Pollinator-mediated selection on floral traits and size of floral display in Cyclopogon elatus, a sweat-bee pollinated orchid. Funct Ecol 20:948–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brody AK, Mitchell R (1997) Effects of experimental manipulation of inflorescence size on pollination and pre-dispersal seed predation in the hummingbird-pollinated plant Ipomopsis aggregata. Oecologia 110:86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bronstein JL (1994) Our current understanding of mutualism. Q Rev Biol 69:31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cahill JF, Elle E, Smith GR, Shore BH (2008) Disruption of a belowground mutualism alters interactions between plants and their floral visitors. Ecology 89:1791–1801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cavender-Bares J, Ackerly DD, Baum DA, Bazzaz FA (2004) Phylogenetic overdispersion in Floridian oak communities. Am Nat 163:823–843PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen ZJ et al (2007) Toward sequencing cotton (Gossypium) genomes. Plant Physiol 145:1303–1310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark KR, Gorley RN (2007) Primer, version 6.1.10, user manual and tutorial. Primer-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:117–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dejoode D, Wendel J (1992) Genetic diversity and origin of the Hawaiian Islands cotton, Gossypium tomentosum. Am J Bot 79:1311–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eckstein RL, Karlsson PS, Weih M (1999) Leaf life span and nutrient resorption as determinants of plant nutrient conservation in temperate-arctic regions. New Phytol 143:177–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Felsenstein J (2008) Comparative methods with sampling error and within-species variation: contrasts revisited and revised. Am Nat 171:713–725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fritz RS, Morse DH (1981) Nectar parasitism of Asclepias syriaca by ants: effect on nectar levels, pollinia insertion, pollinaria removal and pod production. Oecologia 50:316–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fryxell P (1979) The natural history of the cotton tribe (Malvaceae, tribe Gossypieae). Texas A&M University Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  18. Galen C, Geib JC (2007) Density-dependent effects of ants on selection for bumble bee pollination in Polemonium viscosum. Ecology 88:1202–1209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gange AC, Smith AK (2005) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi influence visitation rates of pollinating insects. Ecol Entomol 30:600–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gómez J, Bosch J, Perfectti F, Fernández J, Abdelaziz M, Camacho J (2008) Spatial variation in selection on corolla shape in a generalist plant is promoted by the preference patterns of its local pollinators. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 275:2241–2249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heil M, McKey D (2003) Protective ant-plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:425–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heil M, Fiala B, Baumann B, Linsenmair K (2000) Temporal, spatial and biotic variations in extrafloral nectar secretion by Macaranga tanarius. Funct Ecol 14:749–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heil M, Rattke J, Boland W (2005) Postsecretory hydrolysis of nectar sucrose and specialization in ant/plant mutualism. Science 308:560–563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70Google Scholar
  25. Hulshof CM, Swenson NG (2010) Variation in leaf functional trait values within and across individuals and species: an example from a Costa Rican dry forest. Funct Ecol 24:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ives AR, Midford PE, Garland T (2007) Within-species variation and measurement error in phylogenetic comparative methods. Syst Biol 56:252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klinkhamer P, de Jong T, de Bruyn G-J (1989) Plant size and pollinator visitation in Cynoglossum officinale. Oikos 54:201–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kubitzki K (ed) (2003) Flowering plants, dicotyledons, Malvales, Capparales and non-betalain Caryophyllales. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  29. Lach L (2007) A mutualism with a native membracid facilitates pollinator displacement by Argentine ants. Ecology 88:1994–2004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mack KML, Rudgers JA (2008) Balancing multiple mutualists: asymmetric interactions among plants, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, and fungal endophytes. Oikos 117:310–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mooney KA, Halitschke R, Kessler A, Agrawal AA (2010) Evolutionary trade-offs in plants mediate the strength of trophic cascades. Science 327:1642–1644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morris WF et al (2007) Direct and interactive effects of enemies and mutualists on plant performance: a meta-analysis. Ecology 88:1021–1029PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Motten AF, Stone JL (2000) Heritability of stigma position and the effect of stigma-anther separation on outcrossing in a predominantly self-fertilizing weed, Datura stramonium (Solanaceae). Am J Bot 87:339–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ness JH (2006) A mutualism’s indirect costs: the most aggressive plant bodyguards also deter pollinators. Oikos 113:506–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Omacini M, Eggers T, Bonkowski M, Gange AC, Jones TH (2006) Leaf endophytes affect mycorrhizal status and growth of co-infected and neighbouring plants. Funct Ecol 20:226–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poorter L et al (2008) Are functional traits good predictors of demographic rates? Evidence from five Neotropical forests. Ecology 89:1908–1920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  38. Rudgers JA (2004) Enemies of herbivores can shape plant traits: selection in a facultative ant-plant mutualism. Ecology 85:192–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rudgers JA, Gardener MC (2004) Extrafloral nectar as a resource mediating multispecies interactions. Ecology 85:1495–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rudgers JA, Strauss SY (2004) A selection mosaic in the facultative mutualism between ants and wild cotton. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 271:2481–2488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rudgers JA, Strauss SY, Wendel JE (2004) Trade-offs among anti-herbivore resistance traits: insights from Gossypieae (Malvaceae). Am J Bot 91:871–880PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rudgers JA, Savage AM, Rúa MA (2010) Geographic variation in a facultative mutualism: consequences for local arthropod composition and diversity. Oecologia 163:985–996PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rutter MT, Rausher MD (2007) Natural selection on extrafloral nectar production in Chamaecrista fasciculata: the costs and benefits of a mutualism trait. Evolution 58:2657–2668Google Scholar
  44. Schatz B, Proffit M, Rakhi BV, Borges RM, Hossaert McKey M (2006) Complex interactions on fig trees: ants capturing parasitic wasps as possible indirect mutualists of the fig–fig wasp interaction. Oikos 113:344–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stachowicz JJ, Whitlatch RB (2005) Multiple mutualists provide complementary benefits to their seaweed host. Ecology 86:2418–2427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Waser N, Chittka L, Price M, Williams N, Ollerton J (1996) Generalization in pollination systems, and why it matters. Ecology 77:1043–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wendel JF, Cronn RC (2003) Polyploidy and the evolutionary history of cotton. Adv Agron 78:139–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wendel JF, Brubaker C, Seelanan T (2010) The origin and evolution of Gossypium. In: Stewart JM, Oosterhuis D, Heitholt JJ (eds) Physiology of cotton. Springer, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  49. Whitney KD, Rudgers JA (2009) Constraints on plant signals and rewards to multiple mutualists? Plant Signal Behav 4:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wright IJ et al (2007) Relationships among ecologically important dimensions of plant trait variation in seven Neotropical forests. Ann Bot 99:1003–1015PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Young H (2008) Selection on spur shape in Impatiens capensis. Oecologia 156:535–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyRice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations