Limited mate availability decreases reproductive success of fragmented populations of Linnaea borealis, a rare, clonal self-incompatible plant

Annals of Botany

Volumn 103, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 835-846

  Scobie, A R ^a   Wilcock, C C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clonal; Fragmented populations; Isolation; Linnaea borealis; Pollination; Reproductive failure; Self incompatible

Indexed keywords

DICOTYLEDON; FLORAL TRAIT; FRUIT SET; MATE LOCATION; POLLINATION; POLLINATOR; RARE SPECIES; REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEED PRODUCTION; SELF INCOMPATIBILITY; SEXUAL REPRODUCTION;

ANGIOSPERM; ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; INSECT; PHYSIOLOGY; POLLEN; REPRODUCTION;

ANGIOSPERMS; ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; INSECTS; POLLEN; REPRODUCTION;

EURASIA; EUROPE; SCOTLAND; UNITED KINGDOM; WESTERN EUROPE;

HEXAPODA; LINNAEA BOREALIS; MUSCIDAE; SYRPHIDAE;

EID: 64949184737     PISSN: 03057364     EISSN: 10958290     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcp007     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Aigner PA. 2004. Ecological and genetic effects on demographic processes: pollination, clonality and seed production in Dithyrea maritima. Biological Conservation 116: 27-34.
2. Andersson S. 1991. Floral display and pollination success in Achillea ptarmica (Asteraceae). Holarctic Ecology 14: 186-191.
3. Antos JA, Zobel DB. 1984. Ecological implications of belowground morphology of 9 coniferous forest herbs. Botanical Gazette 145: 508-517.
4. Araki K, Shimatani K, Ohara M. 2007. Floral distribution, clonal structure, and their effects on pollination success in a self-incompatible Convallaria keiskei population in northern Japan. Plant Ecology 189: 175-186.
5. Barrett SCH, Helenurm K. 1987. The reproductive biology of boreal forest herbs. I. Breeding systems and pollination. Canadian Journal of Botany 65: 2036-2046.
6. Barrett SCH, Kohn JR. 1991. Genetic and evolutionary consequences of small population size in plants: implications for conservation. In: Falk DA, Holsinger KE, eds. Genetics and conservation of rare plants. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 3-30.
7. Byers DL. 1995. Pollen quantity and quality as explanations for low seed set in small populations exemplified by Eupatorium (Asteraceae). American Journal of Botany 82: 1000-1006.
8. Byers DL, Meagher TR. 1992. Mate availability in small populations of plant species with homomorphic sporophytic self-incompatibility. Heredity 68: 353-359.
9. Campbell DR, Motten AF. 1985. The mechanism of competition for pollination between two forest herbs. Ecology 66: 554-563.
10. Charpentier A. 2002. Consequences of clonal growth for plant mating. Evolutionary Ecology 15: 521-530.
11. Charpentier A, Grillas P, Thompson JD. 2000. The effects of population size limitation on fecundity in mosaic populations of the clonal macrophyte Scirpus maritimus (Cyperaceae). American Journal of Botany 87: 502-507.
12. Chinery M. 1993. Insects of Britain and northern Europe. Collins field guide. London: HarperCollins.
13. Darvill B, Knight ME, Goulson D. 2004. Use of genetic markers to quantify bumblebee foraging range and nest density. Oikos 107: 471-478.
14. Demauro MM. 1993. Relationship of breeding system to rarity in the lakeside daisy (Hymenoxys acaulis var. glabra). Conservation Biology 7: 542-550.
15. Dramstad WE. 1996. Do bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) really forage close to their nests? Journal of Insect Behavior 9: 163-182.
16. Dramstad WE, Fry GLA, Schaffer MJ. 2003. Bumblebee foraging - is closer really better? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 95: 349-357.
17. Eckhart VM. 1991. The effects of floral display size on pollinator visitation vary among populations of Phacelia linearis (Hydrophyllaceae). Evolutionary Ecology 5: 370-384.
18. Edwards M, Jenner M. 2005. Field guide to the bumblebees of Great Britain and Ireland. Countryside and garden conservation series. Eastbourne: Ocelli.
19. Ellstrand NC. 1992. Gene flow by pollen: implications for plant conservation genetics. Oikos 63: 77-86.
20. Ellstrand NC, Elam DR. 1993. Population genetic consequences of small population size: Implications for plant conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 24: 217-242.
21. Ellstrand NC, Marshall DL. 1985. Interpopulation gene flow by pollen in wild radish, Raphanus sativus. The American Naturalist 126: 606-116.
22. Eriksson O, Bremer B. 1993. Genet dynamics of the clonal plant Rubus saxatilis. Journal of Ecology 81: 533-542.
23. Eriksson O, Ehrlén J. 1992. Seed and microsite limitation of recruitment in plant populations. Oecologia 91: 360-364.
24. Escaravage N, Wagner J. 2004. Pollination effectiveness and pollen dispersal in a Rhododendron ferrugineum (Ericaceae) population. Plant Biology 6: 606-615.
25. Fischer M, Matthies D. 1998. Effects of population size on performance in the rare plant Gentianella germanica. Journal of Ecology 86: 195-204.
26. Fischer M, Hock M, Paschke M. 2003. Low genetic variation reduces cross-compatibility and offspring fitness in populations of a narrow endemic plant with a self-incompatibility system. Conservation Genetics 4: 325-336.
27. Geber MA. 1985. The relationship of plant size to self-pollination in Mertensia ciliata. Ecology 66: 762-772.
28. Goodell K, Elam DR, Nason JD, Ellstrand NC. 1997. Gene flow among small populations of a self-incompatible plant: an interaction between demography and genetics. American Journal of Botany 84: 1362-1371.
29. Goulson D, Stout JC, Hawson SA, Allen JA. 1998. Floral display size in confrey, Symphytum officinale L. (Boraginaceae): relationships with visitation by three bumblebee species and subsequent seed set. Oecologia 113: 502-508.
30. Honnay O, Jacquemyn H, Roldan-Ruiz I, Hermy M. 2006. Consequences of prolonged clonal growth on local and regional genetic structure and fruiting success of the forest perennial Maianthemum bifolium. Oikos 112: 21-30.
31. Kéry M, Matthies D, Spillmann HH. 2000. Reduced fecundity and offspring performance in small populations of the declining grassland plants Primula veris and Gentiana lutea. Journal of Ecology 88: 17-30.
32. Klinkhamer PGL, de Jong TJ. 1990. Effects of plant size, plant density and sex differential nectar reward on pollinator visitation in the protandrous Echium vulgare (Boraginaceae). Oikos 57: 399-405.
33. Kohn D, Ennos R. 2000. Action plan research on twinflower. SNH contract R/ AC3/BAT/98/59, final report. Perth, UK: Scottish Natural Heritage.
34. Kreyer D, Oed A, Walther-Hellwig K, Frankl R. 2004. Are forests potential landscape barriers for foraging bumblebees? Landscape scale experiments with Bombus terrestris agg. and Bombus pascuorum (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Biological Conservation 116: 111-118.
35. Kunin WE. 1993. Sex and the single mustard: population density and pollinator behavior effects on seed set. Ecology 74: 2145-2160.
36. Kwak MJ, Velterop O, van Andel J. 1998. Pollen and gene flow in fragmented habitats. Applied Vegetation Science 1: 37-54.
37. Les DH, Reinartz JA, Esselman EJ. 1991. Genetic consequences of rarity in Aster furcatus (Asteraceae), a threatened, self-incompatible plant. Evolution 45: 1641-1650.
38. Luijten SH, Gerard J, Oostermeijer MJB, van Leeuwen NC, den Nijs HCM. 1996. Reproductive success and clonal genetic structure of the rare Arnica montana (Compositae) in The Netherlands. Plant Systematics and Evolution 201: 15-30.
39. Luijten SH, Dierick A, Oostermeijer JGB, Raijmann LEL, den Nijs HCM. 2000. Population size, genetic variation, and reproductive success in a rapidly declining, self-incompatible perennial (Arnica montana) in The Netherlands. Conservation Biology 14: 1776-1787.
40. Luijten SH, Kéry M, Oostermeijer JGB, den Nijs HCM. 2002. Demographic consequences of inbreeding and outbreeding in Arnica montana: a field experiment. Journal of Ecology 90: 593-603.
41. Lusby P. 1994. Linnaea borealis L. In: Stewart A, Pearman DA, Preston CD, eds. Scarce plants in Britain. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 243.
42. Morris WF, Price MV, Waser NM, Thomson JD, Thomson B, Stratton DA. 1994. Systematic increase in pollen carryover and its consequences for geitonogamy in plant populations. Oikos 71: 431-440.
43. Neiland MRM, Wilcock CC. 1997. Linnaea borealis: a study of its reproductive ecology in comparison with that of other rare pinewood herbs. Contract report for SNH. Perth, UK: Scottish Natural Heritage.
44. de Nettancourt D. 1977. Incompatibility in angiosperms: monograms on theoretical and applied genetics, Vol. 3. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
45. Nuortila C, Tuomi J, Laine K. 2002. Inter-parent distance affects reproductive success in two clonal dwarf shrubs, Vaccinium myrtillus and Vaccinium vitis-idaea (Ericaceae). Canadian Journal of Botany 80: 875-884.
46. Oostermeijer JGB, van Eijck MW, van Leeuwen NC, den Nijs JCM. 1995. Analysis of the relationship between allozyme heterozygosity and fitness in the rare Gentiana pneumonanthe L. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 8: 739-757.
47. Osborne JL, Clark SJ, Morris RJ, et al. 1999. A landscape-scale study of bumble bee foraging range and constancy, using harmonic radar. Journal of Applied Ecology 36: 519-533.
48. Powell AH, Powell GVN. 1987. Population dynamics of male euglossine bees in Amazonian forest fragments. Biotropica 19: 176-179.
49. Price MV, Wasser NM. 1979. Pollen dispersal and optimal outcrossing in Delphinium nesoni. Nature 277: 294-297.
50. Pyke GH. 1979. Optimal foraging in bumblebees: rule of movement between flowers within inflorescences. Animal Behavior 27: 1167-1181.
51. Reinartz JA, Les DH. 1994. Bottleneck-induced dissolution of self-incompatibility and breeding system consequences in Aster furcatus (Asteraceae). American Journal of Botany 81: 446-455.
52. Richards AJ. 1997. Plant breeding systems. London: Chapman and Hall.
53. Robertson AW. 1992. The relationship between floral display size, pollen carryover and geitonogamy in Myosotis colensoi (Kirk) Macbride (Boraginaceae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 46: 333-349.
54. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5: 18-32.
55. Schaal BA. 1980. Measurement of gene flow in Lupinus texensis. Nature 284: 450-451.
56. Schaal BA, Leverich WJ. 1996. Molecular variation in isolated plant populations. Plant Species Biology 11: 33-44.
57. Schemske DW, Husband BC, Ruckelshaus MH, Goodwillie C, Parker IM, Bishop JG. 1994. Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75: 585-606.
58. Schmitt J. 1980. Pollinator foraging behavior and gene dispersal in Senecio (Compositae). Evolution 34: 934-943.
59. Sih A, Baltus MS. 1987. Patch size, pollinator behavior, and pollinator limitation in catnip. Ecology 68: 1679-1690.
60. Somanathan H, Borges RM, Chakravarthy VS. 2004. Does neighborhood floral display matter? Fruit set in carpenter bee-pollinated Heterophragma quadriloculare and beetle-pollinated Lasiosiphon erioce-phalus. Biotropica 36: 139-147.
61. Stubbs AE, Falk SJ. 2002. British hoverflies: an illustrated identification guide. Reading: British Entomological and Natural History Society.
62. Totland Ø, Matthews I. 1998. Determinants of pollinator activity and flower preference in the early spring blooming Crocus vernus. Acta Oecologica 19: 155-165.
63. van Treuren R, Bijlsma R, van Delden W, Ouborg NJ. 1991. The significance of genetic erosion in the process of extinction. I. Genetic differentiation in Salvia pratensis and Scabiosa columbaria in relation to population size. Heredity 66: 181-190.
64. UK Biodiversity Group. 1999. Twinflower (Linnaea borealis). In: Tranche 2 Action Plans. Vol. 3. Plants and fungi. Peterborough: English Nature, 331.
65. Vekemans X, Schierup MH, Christiansen FB. 1998. Mate availability and fecundity selection in multi-allelic self-incompatibility systems in plants. Evolution 52: 19-29.
66. Waddington KD. 1981. Factors influencing pollen flow in bumblebee-pollinated Delphinium virescens. Oikos 37: 153-159.
67. Walther-Hellwig K, Frankl R. 2000. Foraging habitats and foraging distances of bumblebees, Bombus spp. (Hym., Apidae), in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Applied Entomology 124: 299-306.
68. Warburton CL, James EA, Fripp YJ, Trueman SJ, Wallace HM. 2000. Clonality and sexual reproductive failure in remnant populations of Santalum lanceolatum (Santalaceae). Biological Conservation 96: 45-54.
69. Westerbergh A, Saura A. 1994. Gene flow and pollinator behavior in Silene dioica populations. Oikos 71: 215-224.
70. Widén B, Widén M. 1990. Pollen limitation and distance-dependent fecundity in females of the clonal gynodioecious herb Glechoma hederacea (Lamiaceae). Oecologia 83: 191-196.
71. Wilcock CC. 2002. Maintenance and recovery of rare clonal plants: the case of the twinflower (Linnaea borealis L.). Botanical Journal of Scotland 54: 121-131.
72. Wilcock CC, Jennings SB. 1999. Partner limitation and restoration of sexual reproduction in the clonal dwarf shrub Linnaea borealis L. (Caprifoliaceae). Protoplasma 208: 76-86.
73. Wilcock CC, Neiland MRM. 2002. Pollination failure in plants: why it happens and when it matters. Trends in Plant Science 7: 270-277.
74. Willi Y, Fischer M. 2005. Genetic rescue in interconnected populations of small and large size of the self-incompatible Ranunculus reptans. Heredity 95: 437-443.
75. Willi Y, van Buskirk J, Fischer M. 2005. A threefold genetic allee effect: population size affects cross-compatibility, inbreeding depression and drift load in the self-incompatible Ranunculus reptans. Genetics 169: 2255-2265.
76. Willi Y, van Buskirk J, Hoffmann A. 2006. Limits to the adaptive potential of small populations. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37: 433-458.
77. Wolf AT, Harrison SP. 2001. Effects of habitat size and patch isolation on reproductive success of the serpentine morning glory. Conservation Biology 15: 111-121.
78. Young AG, Brown AHD. 1999. Paternal bottlenecks in fragmented populations of the grassland daisy Rutidosis leptorrhynchoides. Genetical Research 73: 111-117.
79. Young A, Boyle T, Brown T. 1996. The population genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation for plants. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 413-418.
80. Zimmerman M. 1979. Optimal foraging: a case for random movement. Oecologia 43: 261-267.