Year of Pollination: Most Effective Pollinator Principle and Beyond, part two

“The most effective pollinator principle implies that floral characteristics often reflect adaptation to the pollinator that transfers the most pollen, through a combination of high rate of visitation to flowers and effective deposition of pollen during each visit.” – Mayfield, et al., Annals of Botany (2001) 88 (4): 591-596

In part one, I reviewed a chapter by Jose M. Gomez and Regino Zamora in the book Plant-Pollinator Interactions: From Specialization to Generalization that argues that the most effective pollinator principle (MEPP) “represents just one of multiple evolutionary solutions.” In part two, I summarize a chapter by Paul A. Aigner in the same book that further explains how floral characteristics can evolve without strictly adhering to the MEPP.

maximilian sunflower
Aigner is interested in how specialization develops in different environments and whether or not flowering plants, having adapted to interact with a limited number of pollinators, experience trade-offs. A trade-off occurs when a species or population adapts to a specific environmental state and, in the process, loses adaptation to another state. Or in other words, a beneficial change in one trait results in the deterioration of another. Trade-offs and specialization are often seen as going hand in hand, but Aigner argues that trade-offs are not always necessary for an organism to evolve towards specialization. Plant-pollinator interactions provide an excellent opportunity to test this.

“Flowers demand study of specialization and diversification,” Aigner writes, not only due to their ubiquity, “but because much of the remarkable diversity seen in these organisms is thought to have evolved in response to a single and conspicuous element of the environment – pollination by animals.” If pollinators have such a strong influence on shaping the appearance of flowers, pollination studies should be rife with evidence for trade-offs, but they are not. Apart from not being well-studied, Aigner has other ideas about why trade-offs are not often observed in this scenario.

Aigner is particularly interested in specialization occuring in fine-grained environments. A course-grained environment is “one in which an organism experiences a single environmental state for all of its life.” Specialization is well understood in this type of environment. A fine-grained environment is “one in which an organism experiences all environmental states within its lifetime,” such as “a flowering plant [being] visited by a succession of animal pollinators.” For specialization to develop in a fine-grained environment, a flowering plant must “evolve adaptations to a particular type of pollinator while other types of pollinators are also present.”

It’s important to note that the specialization that Aigner mainly refers to is phenotypic specialization. That is, a flower’s phenotype [observable features derived from genes + environment] appears to be adapted for pollination by a specific type of pollinator, but in fact may be pollinated by various types of pollinators. In other words, it is phenotypically specialized but ecologically generalized. Aigner uses a theoretical model to show that specialization can develop in a fine-grained environment with and without trade-offs. He also uses his model to demonstrates that a flower’s phenotype does not necessarily result from its most effective pollinator acting as the most important selection agent. Instead, specialization can evolve in response to a less-effective pollinator “when performance gains from adapting to the less-effective pollinator can be had with little loss in the performance contribution of the more effective pollinator.”

Essentially, Aigner’s argument is that the agents that are the most influential in shaping a particular organism are not necessarily the same agents that offer the greatest contribution to that organism’s overall fitness. This statement flies in the face of the MEPP, and Aigner backs up his argument with (among other examples) his studies involving the genus Dudleya.

Dudleya saxosa (panamint liveforever) - photo credit: wikimedia commons

Dudleya saxosa (panamint liveforever) – photo credit: wikimedia commons

Dudleya is ecologically generalized. Pollinators include hummingbirds, bumblebees, solitary bees, bee flies, hover flies, and butterflies. “Some Dudleya species and populations are visited by all of these taxa, whereas others seem to be visited by only a subset.” Aigner was curious to see if certain species or populations were experiencing trade-offs by adapting to a particular category of pollinators. Aigner found variations in flower characteristics among species and populations as well as differences in pollinator assemblages that visited the various groups of flowers over time but could not conclude that there were trade-offs “in pollination performance.”

In one study, he looked at pollination services provided by hummingbirds vs. bumblebees as corolla flare changed in size. In male flowers, bumblebees were efficient at removing pollen regardless of corolla flare size, while hummingbirds removed pollen more effectively as corolla flare decreased. Both groups deposited pollen more effectively as corolla flare decreased, but hummingbirds more strongly so. Ultimately, Aigner concluded that “the interactions did not take the form of trade-offs,” or, as stated in the abstract of the study, ” phenotypic specialization [for pollination by hummingbirds] might evolve without trading-off the effectiveness of bumblebees.”

Aigner goes on to explain why floral adaptations may occur without obvious trade-offs. One reason is that different groups of pollinators are acting as selective agents for different floral traits, “so that few functional trade-offs exist with respect to individual traits.” Pollinators have different reasons for visiting flowers and flowers use the pollination services of visitors differently. Another reason involves the “genetic architecture” of the traits being selected for. Results can differ depending on whether or not the genes being influenced are linked to other genes, and genetically based fitness trade-offs may not be observable phenotypically. Further studies involving the genetic architecure of specialized phenotypes are necessary.

And finally, as indicated in part one, pollinators are not the only floral visitors. In the words of Aigner, “if floral larcenists and herbivores select for floral traits in different directions than do pollinators, plants may face direct trade-offs in improving pollination service versus defending against enemies.” These “floral enemies” can have an effect on the visitation rates and per-visit effectiveness of pollinators, which can drastically alter their influence as selective agents.

Like pollination syndromes, the most effective pollinator principle seems to have encouraged and directed a huge amount of research in the field of pollination biology, despite not holding entirely true in the real world. As research continues, a more complete picture will develop. It doesn’t appear that it will conform to an easily digestible principle, but there is no question that, even in its complexity, it will be fascinating.

I will end as I began, with an excerpt from Thor Hanson’s book, The Triumph of Seeds: “The notion of coevolution implies that change in one organism can lead to change in another – if antelope run faster, then cheetahs must run faster still to catch them. Traditional definitions describe the process as a tango between familiar partners, where each step is met by an equal and elegant counter-step. In reality, the dance floor of evolution is usually a lot more crowded. Relationships like those between rodents and seeds [or pollinators and flowers] develop in the midst of something more like a square dance, with couples constantly switching partners in a whir of spins, promenades, and do-si-dos. The end result may appear like quid pro quo, but chances are a lot of other dancers influenced the outcome – leading, following, and stepping on toes along the way.”


Year of Pollination: Pollination Syndromes and Beyond

A discussion of pollination syndromes should begin with the caveat that they are a largely outdated way to categorize plant-pollinator interactions. Still, they are important to be aware of because they have informed so much of our understanding about pollination biology, and they continue to be an impetus for ongoing research. The concept of pollination syndromes exists in part because we are a pattern seeking species, endeavoring to place things in neat little boxes in order to make sense of them. This is relatively easy to do in a hypothetical or controlled environment where the parameters are selected and closely monitored and efforts are made to eliminate noise. However, the real world is considerably more dynamic than a controlled experiment and does not conform to black and white ways of thinking. Patterns are harder to unveil, and it takes great effort to ensure that observed patterns are genuine and not simply imposed by our pattern seeking brains.

That being said, what are pollination syndromes?  Pollination syndromes are sets of floral traits that are thought to attract specific types of pollinators. The floral traits are considered to have evolved in order to appeal to a particular group of pollinators – or in other words, selective pressures led to adaptations resulting in mutualistic relationships between plants and pollinators. Pollination syndromes are examples of convergent evolution because distantly related plant species have developed similar floral traits, presumably due to similar selection pressures. Pollination syndromes were first described by Italian botanist, Federico Delpino, in the last half of the 19th century. Over several decades his rudimentary ideas were fleshed out by other botanists, resulting in the method of categorization described (albeit briefly) below.

Honey bee on bee's friend (Phacelia tanacetifolia)

A honey bee getting friendly with bee’s friend (Phacelia tanacetifolia)

Pollination by bees (melittophily) – Flowers are blue, purple, yellow, or white and usually have nectar guides. Flowers are open and shallow with a landing platform. Some are non-symmetrical and tubular like pea flowers. Nectar is present, and flowers give off a mild (sometimes strong) sweet scent.

Pollination by butterflies (psychophily) – Flowers are pink, purple, red, blue, yellow, or white and often have nectar guides. They are typically large with a wide landing pad. Nectar is inside a long, narrow tube (or spur), and flowers have a sweet scent.

Pollination by hawkmoths and moths (sphingophily and phalaenophily) – Moth pollinated flowers open at night, have no nectar guides, and emit a strong, sweet scent. Flowers pollinated by hawkmoths are often white, cream, or dull violet and are large and tubular with lots of nectar. Those pollinated by other moths are smaller, not as nectar rich, and are white or pale shades of green, yellow, red, purple, or pink.

Pollination by flies (myophily or sapromyophily) – Flowers are shaped like a basin, saucer, or kettle and are brown, brown-red, purple, green, yellow, white, or blue.  Some have patterns of dots and stripes. If nectar is available, it is easily accessible. Their scent is usually putrid. A sapromyophile is an organism that is attracted to carcasses and dung. Flies that fall into this category visit flowers that are very foul smelling, offer no nectar reward, and essentially trick the fly into performing a pollination service.

Pollination by birds (ornithophily) –  Flowers are usually large, tubular, and red, orange, white, blue, or yellow. They are typically without nectar guides and are odorless since birds don’t respond to scent. Nectar is abundant and found at various depths within the flower.

Pollination by bats (chiropterophily) – Flowers are large, tubular or bell shaped, and white or cream colored with no nectar guides. They open at night, have abundant nectar and pollen, and have scents that vary from musty to fruity to foul.

Pollination by beetles (cantharophily) – Flowers are large and bowl shaped and green or white. There are no nectar guides and usually no nectar. The scent is strong and can be fruity, spicy, or putrid. Like flies, some beetles are sapromyophiles.

Locust borer meets rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa)

A locust borer meets rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa)

In addition to biotic pollination syndromes, there are two abiotic pollination syndromes:

Pollination by wind (anemophily) – Flowers are miniscule and brown or green. They produce abundant pollen but no nectar or odor. The pollen grains are very small, and the stigmas protrude from the flower in order to capture the windborne pollen.

Pollination by water (hydrophily) –  Most aquatic plants are insect-pollinated, but some have tiny flowers that release their pollen into the water, which is picked up by the stigmas of flowers in a similar manner to plants with windborne pollen.

This is, of course, a quick look at the major pollination syndromes. More complete descriptions can be found elsewhere, and they will differ slightly depending on the source. It’s probably obvious just by reading a brief overview that there is some overlap in the floral traits and that, for example, a flower being visited by a bee could also be visited by a butterfly or a bird. Such an observation explains, in part, why this method of categorizing plant-pollinator interactions has fallen out of favor. Studies have been demonstrating that this is not a reliable method of predicting which species of pollinators will pollinate certain flowers. A close observation of floral visitors also reveals insects that visit flowers to obtain nectar, pollen, and other items, but do not assist in pollination. These are called robbers. On the other hand, a plant species may receive some floral visitors that are considerably more effective and reliable pollinators than others. What is a plant to do?

Pollination syndromes imply specialization, however field observations reveal that specialization is quite rare, and that most flowering plants are generalists, employing all available pollinators in assisting them in their reproduction efforts. This is smart, considering that populations of pollinators fluctuate from year to year, so if a plant species is relying on a particular pollinator (or taxonomic group of pollinators) to aid in its reproduction, it may find itself out of luck. Considering that a flower may receive many types of visitors on even a semi-regular basis suggests that the selective pressures on floral traits may not solely include the most efficient pollinators, but could also include all other pollinating visitors and, yes, even robbers. This is an area where much more research is needed, and questions like this are a reason why pollination biology is a vibrant and robust field of research.

A bumble bee hugs Mojave sage (Salvia pachyphylla)

A bumble bee hugs the flower of a blue sage (Salvia pachyphylla)

Interactions between plants and pollinators is something that interests me greatly. Questions regarding specialization and generalization are an important part of these interactions. To help satiate my curiosity, I will be reading through a book put out a few years ago by the University of Chicago Press entitled, Plant-Pollinator Interactions: From Specialization to Generalization, edited by Nickolas M. Waser and Jeff Ollerton. You can expect future posts on this subject as I read through the book. To pique your interest, here is a short excerpt from Waser’s introductory chapter:

Much of pollination biology over the past few centuries logically focused on a single plant or pollinator species and its mutualistic partners, whereas a focus at the level of entire communities was uncommon. Recently we see a revival of community studies, encouraged largely by new tools borrowed from the theory of food webs that allow us to characterize and analyze the resulting patterns. For example, pollination networks show asymmetry – most specialist insects visit generalist plants, and most specialist plants are visited by generalist insects. This is a striking departure from the traditional implication of coevolved specialists!