Variation in rate of nectar production depends on floral display size: A pollinator manipulation hypothesis

Functional Ecology

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 125-129

  Biernaskie, J M ^a,b   Cartar, R V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE   (Canada)

^b SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Conditional strategy; Geitonogamy; Inflorescence size; Pollen discounting; Risk sensitive foraging

Indexed keywords

FLORAL TRAIT; FLOWER VISITING; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; GEITONOGAMY; NECTAR; PLANT-POLLINATOR INTERACTION;

ANIMALIA; MAGNOLIOPHYTA;

EID: 1342290129     PISSN: 02698463     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2004.00815.x     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Biernaskie, J.M., Cartar, R.V. & Hurly, T.A. (2002) Risk-averse inflorescence departure in hummingbirds and bumble bees: could plants benefit from variable nectar volumes? Oikos 98, 98-104.
2. Gross, M.R. (1996) Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within the sexes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11, 92-98.
3. Harder, L.D. (1990) Behavioural responses by bumble bees to variation in pollen availability. Oecologia 85, 41-47.
4. Harder, L.D. & Barrett, S.C.H. (1995) Mating cost of large floral displays in hermaphroditic plants. Nature 373, 512-515.
5. Harder, L.D. & Thomson, J.D. (1989) Evolutionary options for maximizing pollen dispersal in animal-pollinated plants. American Naturalist 133, 323-344.
6. Harder, L.D., Williams, N.M., Jordan, C.Y. & Nelson, WA. (2001 ) The effects of floral design and display on pollinator economics and pollen dispersal. Cognitive Ecology of Pollination (eds L. Chittka & J.D. Thomson), pp. 297-317. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
7. Iwasa, Y., de Jong, T.J. & Klinkhamer, P.G.L. (1995) Why pollinators visit only a fraction of the open flowers on a plant: the plant's point of view. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 8, 439-453.
8. de Jong, T.J., Waser, N.M. & Klinkhamer, P.G.L. ( 1993) Geitonogamy: the neglected side of selfing. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8, 321-325.
9. Klinkhamer, P.G.L. & de Jong, T.J. (1993) Attractiveness to pollinators: a plant's dilemma. Oikos 66, 180-184.
10. Klinkhamer, P.G.L., de Jong, T.J. & Metz, A.J. (1994) Why plants can be too attractive - a discussion of measures to estimate male fitness. Journal of Ecology 82, 191-194.
11. Lewontin, R.C. (1966) On the measurement of relative variability. Systematic Zoology 25, 141-142.
12. Moss, E.H. (1983) Flora of Alberta, 2nd edn. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
13. Ohashi, K. & Yahara, T. (2001) Behavioral responses of pollinators to variation in floral display size and their influences on the evolution of floral traits. Cognitive Ecology of Pollination (eds L. Chittka & J.D. Thomson), pp. 274-296. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
14. Pyke, G.H. (1978) Optimal foraging in bumblebees and coevolution with their plants. Oecologia 36, 281-293.
15. Rademaker, M.C.J., de Jong, T.J. & Klinkhamer, P.G.L. (1997) Pollen dynamics of bumble-bee visitation on Echium vulgare. Functional Ecology 11, 554-563.
16. Rathcke, B.J. (1992) Nectar distributions, pollinator behavior, and plant reproductive success. Effects of Resource Distribution on Animal - Plant Interactions (eds M. D. Hunter, T Ohgushi & P.W. Price), pp. 114-138. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
17. Real, L. & Rathcke, B.J. (1988) Patterns of individual variability in floral resources. Ecology 69, 728-735.
18. Sakai, S. (1993) A model for nectar secretion in animal-pollinated plants. Evolutionary Ecology 7, 394-400.
19. Shafir, S. (2000) Risk-sensitive foraging: the effect of relative variability. Oikos 88, 663-669.
20. Stephens, D.W. (1981) The logic of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. Animal Behaviour 29, 628-629.
21. Waser, N.M. (1983) The adaptive nature of floral traits: ideas and evidence. Pollination Biology (ed. L.A. Real), pp. 242-286. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.