Flowering plants under global pollinator decline

Trends in Plant Science

Volumn 18, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 353-359

  Thomann, Michel ^a   Imbert, Eric ^b   Devaux, Céline ^b   Cheptou, Pierre Olivier ^a  

^a CNRS   (France)

^b INSTITUT DES SCIENCES DE L EVOLUTION   (France)

Author keywords

adaptation; demography; plant mating system; pollen limitation

Indexed keywords

MAGNOLIOPHYTA;

ADAPTATION; ANGIOSPERM; ANIMAL; FLOWER; PHYSIOLOGY; POLLINATION; POPULATION DYNAMICS; REVIEW;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANGIOSPERMS; ANIMALS; FLOWERS; POLLINATION; POPULATION DYNAMICS;

EID: 84880815823     PISSN: 13601385     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2013.04.002     Document Type: Review

References (79)

1. Potts S.G., et al. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25:345-353.
2. Klein A.M., et al. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc. R. Soc. B 2007, 274:303-313.
3. Winfree R., et al. Native pollinators in anthropogenic habitats. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2011, 42:1-22.
4. Biesmeijer J.C., et al. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 2006, 313:351-354.
5. Grixti J.C., et al. Decline of bumble bees (Bombus) in the North American Midwest. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142:75-84.
6. Bommarco R., et al. Drastic historic shifts in bumble-bee community composition in Sweden. Proc. R. Soc. B 2012, 279:309-315.
7. Cameron S.A., et al. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:662-667.
8. Rasmont P., et al. The faunistic drift of Apoidea in Belgium. Bees for Pollination 1993, 65-87. Commission of the European Communities. E. Bruneau (Ed.).
9. Kosior A., et al. The decline of the bumble bees and cuckoo bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombini) of Western and Central Europe. Oryx 2007, 41:79-88.
10. Anderson S.H., et al. Cascading effects of bird functional extinction reduce pollination and plant density. Science 2011, 331:1068-1071.
11. Pauw A., Hawkins J.A. Reconstruction of historical pollination rates reveals linked declines of pollinators and plants. Oikos 2011, 120:344-349.
12. Pauw A., Bond W.J. Mutualisms matter: pollination rate limits the distribution of oil-secreting orchids. Oikos 2011, 120:1531-1538.
13. Ashman T.L., et al. Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: ecological and evolutionary causes and consequences. Ecology 2004, 85:2408-2421.
14. Knight T.M., et al. Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: pattern and process. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2005, 36:467-497.
15. Aguilar R., et al. Plant reproductive susceptibility to habitat fragmentation: review and synthesis through a meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9:968-980.
16. Steffan-Dewenter I., Tscharntke T. Effects of habitat isolation on pollinator communities and seed set. Oecologia 1999, 121:432-440.
17. Garibaldi L.A., et al. Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecol. Lett. 2011, 14:1062-1072.
18. Winfree R., et al. A meta-analysis of bees' responses to anthropogenic disturbance. Ecology 2009, 90:2068-2076.
19. Gomez J.M., et al. Changes in pollinator fauna cause spatial variation in pollen limitation. J. Ecol. 2010, 98:1243-1252.
20. Eckert C.G., et al. Plant mating systems in a changing world. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25:35-43.
21. Waser N.M., Price M.V. Outcrossing distance effects in Delphinium nelsonii - pollen loads, pollen tubes, and seed set. Ecology 1991, 72:171-179.
22. Mitchell R.J. Effects of pollination intensity on Lesquerella fendleri seed set: variation among plants. Oecologia 1997, 109:382-388.
23. Lloyd D.G. Some reproductive factors affecting the selection of self-fertilization in plants. Am. Nat. 1979, 113:67-79.
24. Fisher R.A. Average excess and average effect of a gene substitution. Ann. Eugen. 1941, 11:53-63.
25. Lloyd D.G. Self-fertilization and cross-fertilization in plants. 2. The selection of self-fertilization. Int. J. Plant Sci. 1992, 153:370-380.
26. Lande R., Schemske D.W. The evolution of self-fertilization and inbreeding depression in plants. 1. Genetic models. Evolution 1985, 39:24-40.
27. Bell G. On the function of flowers. Proc. R. Soc. B 1985, 224:223-265.
28. Vamosi J.C., Otto S.P. When looks can kill: the evolution of sexually dimorphic floral display and the extinction of dioecious plants. Proc. R. Soc. B 2002, 269:1187-1194.
29. Haig D., Westoby M. On limits to seed production. Am. Nat. 1988, 131:757-759.
30. Elzinga J.A., et al. Time after time: flowering phenology and biotic interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22:432-439.
31. Devaux C., Lande R. Selection on variance in flowering time within and among individuals. Evolution 2010, 64:1311-1320.
32. Brys R., et al. Importance of autonomous selfing is inversely related to population size and pollinator availability in a monocarpic plant. Am. J. Bot. 2011, 98:1834-1840.
33. Brys R., Jacquemyn H. Effects of human-mediated pollinator impoverishment on floral traits and mating patterns in a short-lived herb: an experimental approach. Funct. Ecol. 2012, 26:189-197.
34. Gilbert F., et al. Spatial variation in selection in a plant-pollinator system in the wadis of Sinai, Egypt. Oecologia 1996, 108:479-487.
35. Bodbyl Roels S.A., Kelly J.K. Rapid evolution caused by pollinator loss in Mimulus guttatus. Evolution 2011, 65:2541-2552.
36. Groom M.J. Allele effects limit population viability of an annual plant. Am. Nat. 1998, 151:487-496.
37. Arceo-Gomez G., Ashman T.L. Heterospecific pollen deposition: does diversity alter the consequences?. New Phytol. 2011, 192:738-746.
38. Sargent R.D., Otto S.P. The role of local species abundance in the evolution of pollinator attraction in flowering plants. Am. Nat. 2006, 167:67-80.
39. Igic B., Kohn J.R. The distribution of plant mating systems: study bias against obligately outcrossing species. Evolution 2006, 60:1098-1103.
40. Reinartz J.A., Les D.H. Bottleneck-induced dissolution of self-incompatibility and breeding system consequences in Aster furcatus (Asteraceae). Am. J. Bot. 1994, 81:446-455.
41. Willi Y. Evolution towards self-compatibility when mates are limited. J. Evol. Biol. 2009, 22:1967-1973.
42. Winn A.A., et al. Analysis of inbreeding depression in mixed-mating plants provides evidence for selective interference and stable mixed mating. Evolution 2011, 65:3339-3359.
43. Cresswell J.E. Stabilizing selection and the structural variability of flowers within species. Ann. Bot. 1998, 81:463-473.
44. Ashman T.L., Majetic C.J. Genetic constraints on floral evolution: a review and evaluation of patterns. Heredity 2006, 96:343-352.
45. Falconer D.S. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics 1981, Longman Inc.
46. Walsh B., Blows M.W. Abundant genetic variation plus strong selection=multivariate genetic constraints: a geometric view of adaptation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2009, 40:41-59.
47. Agrawal A.F., Stinchcombe J.R. How much do genetic covariances alter the rate of adaptation?. Proc. R. Soc. B 2009, 276:1183-1191.
48. Harder L.D., Johnson S.D. Darwin's beautiful contrivances: evolutionary and functional evidence for floral adaptation. New Phytol. 2009, 183:530-545.
49. van Kleunen M., Burczyk J. Selection on floral traits through male fertility in a natural plant population. Evol. Ecol. 2008, 22:39-54.
50. Kulbaba M.W., Worley A.C. Selection on floral design in Polemonium brandegeei (polemoniaceae): female and male fitness under hawkmoth pollination. Evolution 2012, 66:1344-1359.
51. Young H.J., Stanton M.L. Influences of floral variation on pollen removal and seed production in wild radish. Ecology 1990, 71:536-547.
52. Ashman T.L., Morgan M.T. Explaining phenotypic selection on plant attractive characters: male function, gender balance or ecological context?. Proc. R. Soc. B 2004, 271:553-559.
53. Fishman L., Willis J.H. Pollen limitation and natural selection on floral characters in the yellow monkeyflower, Mimulus guttatus. New Phytol. 2008, 177:802-810.
54. Carvallo G.O., Medel R. Effects of herkogamy and inbreeding on the mating system of Mimulus luteus in the absence of pollinators. Evol. Ecol. 2010, 24:509-522.
55. Lande R., Arnold S.J. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 1983, 37:1210-1226.
56. Kelly J.K., Arathi H.S. Inbreeding and the genetic variance in floral traits of Mimulus guttatus. Heredity 2003, 90:77-83.
57. Bell G., Gonzalez A. Evolutionary rescue can prevent extinction following environmental change. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12:942-948.
58. Bell G., Gonzalez A. Adaptation and evolutionary rescue in metapopulations experiencing environmental deterioration. Science 2011, 332:1327-1330.
59. Gomulkiewicz R., Shaw R.G. Evolutionary rescue beyond the models. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 2013, 368:20120404.
60. Gomulkiewicz R., Holt R.D. When does evolution by natural-selection prevent extinction. Evolution 1995, 49:201-207.
61. Gomulkiewicz R., et al. Genetics, adaptation, and invasion in harsh environments. Evol. Appl. 2010, 3:97-108.
62. Lennartsson T. Extinction thresholds and disrupted plant-pollinator interactions in fragmented plant populations. Ecology 2002, 83:3060-3072.
63. Cheptou P.O. Allele effect and self-fertilization in hermaphrodites: reproductive assurance in demographically stable populations. Evolution 2004, 58:2613-2621.
64. Morgan M.T., et al. Plant population dynamics, pollinator foraging, and the selection of self-fertilization. Am. Nat. 2005, 166:169-183.
65. Hedrick P.W., Kalinowski S.T. Inbreeding depression in conservation biology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2000, 31:139-162.
66. Lande R. Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes. Am. Nat. 1993, 142:911-927.
67. Barrett S.C.H., Harder L.D. Ecology and evolution of plant mating. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1996, 11:A73-A79.
68. Kinnison M.T., Hairston N.G. Eco-evolutionary conservation biology: contemporary evolution and the dynamics of persistence. Funct. Ecol. 2007, 21:444-454.
69. Thompson J., et al. Evolution of a genetic polymorphism with climate change in a Mediterranean landscape. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013, 110:2893-2897.
70. Franks S.J., et al. Rapid evolution of flowering time by an annual plant in response to a climate fluctuation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104:1278-1282.
71. Sultan S.E., et al. A resurrection study reveals rapid adaptive evolution within populations of an invasive plant. Evol. Appl. 2013, 6:266-278.
72. Shaw R.G., Etterson J.R. Rapid climate change and the rate of adaptation: insight from experimental quantitative genetics. New Phytol. 2012, 195:752-765.
73. Kelly J.K., Williamson S. Predicting response to selection on a quantitative trait: a comparison between models for mixed-mating populations. J. Theor. Biol. 2000, 207:37-56.
74. Igic B., Busch J.W. Is self-fertilization an evolutionary dead end?. New Phytol. 2013, 198:386-397.
75. Goldberg E.E., et al. Species selection maintains self-incompatibility. Science 2010, 330:493-495.
76. Schoen D.J. The breeding system of Gilia achilleifolia - variation in floral characteristics and outcrossing rate. Evolution 1982, 36:352-360.
77. Galen C., Newport M.E.A. Bumble bee behavior and selection on flower size in the sky pilot, Polemonium viscosum. Oecologia 1987, 74:20-23.
78. Mitchell R.J., et al. The influence of Mimulus ringens floral display size on pollinator visitation patterns. Funct. Ecol. 2004, 18:116-124.
79. Holtsford T.P., Ellstrand N.C. Genetic and environmental variation in floral traits affecting outcrossing rate in Clarkia tembloriensis (Onagraceae). Evolution 1992, 46:216-225.