Advertisement

Tracking Pollen Fates in Orchid Populations

  • Steven D. Johnson
  • Lawrence D. Harder
Protocol
Part of the Springer Protocols Handbooks book series (SPH)

Abstract

Pollination in most plants is mediated by complex interactions with animal pollinators. The fates of pollen, such as the rates of self-pollination and export to conspecific stigmas, can strongly influence components of reproductive success such as seed production and male siring success. Tracking pollen fates is therefore one of the key aims in plant reproductive biology. This chapter outlines the two main methods (pollen staining and microtagging) that have been developed to track pollen fates in orchids and discusses their advantages and disadvantages. We show that these tracking methods can be used to quantify the efficiency of pollen transfer in orchid populations, the rates of self-pollination and spatial patterns of pollen export. Finally, we outline some of the insights into orchid reproductive biology that have been revealed using these tracking methods.

Key words

Geitonogamy Gene flow Microtag Orchid Orchidaceae Paternity analysis Pollen Pollination Self-pollination 

References

  1. 1.
    Barrett SCH, Harder LD (2017) The ecology of mating and its evolutionary consequences in seed plants. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 48:135–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Willson MF (1979) Sexual selection in plants. Amer Nat 113:777–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aizen MA, Harder LD (2007) Expanding the limits of the pollen-limitation concept: effects of pollen quantity and quality. Ecology 88:271–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eckert CG (2000) Contributions of autogamy and geitonogamy to self-fertilization in a mass-flowering, clonal plant. Ecology 81:532–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barrett SCH (2002) Sexual interference of the floral kind. Heredity 88:154–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campbell DR (1989) Inflorescence size: test of the male function hypothesis. Amer J Bot 76:730–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Snow AA, Lewis PO (1993) Reproductive traits and male fertility in plants: empirical approaches. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 24:331–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Waser NM, Price MV (1982) A comparison of pollen and fluorescent dye carry-over by natural pollinators of Ipomopsis aggregata (Polemoniaceae). Ecology 63:1168–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thomson JD, Thomson BA (1989) Dispersal of Erythronium grandiflorum pollen by bumblebees: implications for gene flow and reproductive success. Evolution 43:657–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Massinga PH, Johnson SD, Harder LD (2005) Heteromorphic incompatibility and efficiency of pollination in two distylous Pentanisia species (Rubiaceae). Ann Bot 95:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harder LD, Johnson SD (2008) Function and evolution of aggregated pollen in angiosperms. Int J Plant Sci 169:59–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bernasconi G (2004) Seed paternity in flowering plants: an evolutionary perspective. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 6:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Isagi Y, Suyama Y (2011) Single-pollen genotyping. In. Springer, TokyoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harder LD (2000) Pollen dispersal and the floral diversity of monocotyledons. In: Wilson KL, Morrison DW (eds) Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, pp 243–257Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harder LD, Routley MB (2006) Pollen and ovule fates and reproductive performance by flowering plants. In: Harder LD, Barrett SCH (eds) Ecology and evolution of flowers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 61–80Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harder LD, Wilson WG (1998) A clarification of pollen discounting and its joint effects with inbreeding depression on mating system evolution. Amer Nat 152:684–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xu SQ, Schluter PM, Scopece G, Breitkopf H, Gross K, Cozzolino S, Schiestl FP (2011) Floral isolation is the main reproductive barrier among closely related sexually deceptive orchids. Evolution 65:2606–2620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Whitehead MR, Linde CC, Peakall R (2015) Pollination by sexual deception promotes outcrossing and mate diversity in self-compatible clonal orchids. J Evol Biol 8:1526–1541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Linhart YB (1973) Ecological and behavioral determinants of pollen dispersal in hummingbird-pollinated Heliconia. Amer Nat 107:511–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thomson JD, Price MV, Waser NM, Stratton DA (1986) Comparative studies of pollen and fluorescent dye transport by bumble bees visiting Erythronium grandiflorum. Oecologia 69:561–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johnson SD, Edwards TJ (2000) The structure and function of orchid pollinia. Plant Syst Evol 222:243–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peakall R (1989) A new technique for monitoring pollen flow in orchids. Oecologia 79:361–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johnson SD, Neal PR, Harder LD (2005) Pollen fates and the limits on male reproductive success in an orchid population. Biol J Linn Soc 86:175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walsh RP, Michaels HJ (2017) When it pays to cheat: examining how generalized food deception increases male and female fitness in a terrestrial orchid. PLoS One 12:e0171286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nilsson LA, Rabakonandrianina E, Pettersson B (1992) Exact tracking of pollen transfer and mating in plants. Nature 360:666–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alexandersson R (1999) Reproductive ecology of the deceptive orchid Calypso bulbosa. PhD Dissertation, Umea UniversityGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johnson SD, Peter CI, Agren J (2004) The effects of nectar addition on pollen removal and geitonogamy in the non-rewarding orchid Anacamptis morio. Proc Royal Soc London Series B-Biol Sci 271:803–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lukasiewicz MJ (1999) Maternal investment, pollination efficiency and pol1en:ovule ratios in Alberta orchids. MSc thesis. University of CalgaryGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harder LD (1990) Pollen removal by bumble bees and its implications for pollen dispersal. Ecology 71:1110–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jersáková J, Johnson SD (2007) Protandry promotes male pollination success in a moth-pollinated orchid. Funct Ecol 21:496–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jersáková J, Johnson SD (2006) Lack of floral nectar reduces self-pollination in a fly-pollinated orchid. Oecologia 147:60–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harder LD, Johnson SD (2005) Adaptive plasticity of floral display size in animal-pollinated plants. Proc Royal Soc B-Biol Sci 272:2651–2657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Johnson SD, Torninger E, Agren J (2009) Relationships between population size and pollen fates in a moth-pollinated orchid. Biol Lett 5:282–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hobbhahn N, Johnson SD, Harder LD (2017) The mating consequences of rewarding vs. deceptive pollination systems: is there a quantity–quality trade-off? Ecol Monogr 87:91–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Duffy KJ, Johnson SD (2014) Male interference with pollination efficiency in a hermaphroditic orchid. J Evol Biol 27:1751–1756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ellis AG, Johnson SD (2010) Gender differences in the effects of floral spur length manipulation on fitness in a hermaphrodite orchid. Int J Plant Sci 171:1010–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kropf M, Renner SS (2008) Pollinator-mediated selfing in two deceptive orchids and a review of pollinium tracking studies addressing geitonogamy. Oecologia 155:497–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eckert C, Samis K, Dart S (2006) Reproductive assurance and the evolution of uniparental reproduction in flowering plants. In: Harder LD, Barrett SCH (eds) The ecology and evolution of flowers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 183–203Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lloyd DG (1992) Self- and cross-fertilization in plants. II. The selection of self-fertilization. Int J Plant Sci 153:370–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Maad J, Reinhammar LG (2004) Incidence of geitonogamy differs between two populations in the hawkmoth-pollinated Platanthera bifolia (Orchidaceae). Can J Bot 82:1586–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Life SciencesUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalScottsvilleSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations