Display options
Cite
Suchan T, Beauverd M, Trim N, et al. Asymmetrical nature of the Trollius-Chiastocheta interaction: insights into the evolution of nursery pollination systems. Ecol Evol. 2015;5(21):4766-77doi: 10.1002/ece3.1544.
Suchan, T., Beauverd, M., Trim, N., & Alvarez, N. (2015). Asymmetrical nature of the Trollius-Chiastocheta interaction: insights into the evolution of nursery pollination systems. Ecology and evolution, 5(21), 4766-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1544
Suchan, Tomasz, et al. "Asymmetrical nature of the Trollius-Chiastocheta interaction: insights into the evolution of nursery pollination systems." Ecology and evolution vol. 5,21 (2015): 4766-77. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1544
Suchan T, Beauverd M, Trim N, Alvarez N. Asymmetrical nature of the Trollius-Chiastocheta interaction: insights into the evolution of nursery pollination systems. Ecol Evol. 2015 Oct 08;5(21):4766-77. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1544. eCollection 2015 Nov. PMID: 26640658; PMCID: PMC4662325.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Ecol Evol. 2015 Oct 08;5(21):4766-77. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1544. eCollection 2015 Nov.

Asymmetrical nature of the Trollius-Chiastocheta interaction: insights into the evolution of nursery pollination systems.

Ecology and evolution

Tomasz Suchan, Mélanie Beauverd, Naïké Trim, Nadir Alvarez

Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolution University of Lausanne Biophore Building 1015 Lausanne Switzerland ; Institute of Environmental Biology University of Wroc?aw ul. Kanonia 6/8 50-328 Wroc?aw Poland.
  2. Department of Ecology and Evolution University of Lausanne Biophore Building 1015 Lausanne Switzerland.

PMID: 26640658 PMCID: PMC4662325 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1544

Abstract

The mutualistic versus antagonistic nature of an interaction is defined by costs and benefits of each partner, which may vary depending on the environment. Contrasting with this dynamic view, several pollination interactions are considered as strictly obligate and mutualistic. Here, we focus on the interaction between Trollius europaeus and Chiastocheta flies, considered as a specialized and obligate nursery pollination system - the flies are thought to be exclusive pollinators of the plant and their larvae develop only in T. europaeus fruits. In this system, features such as the globelike flower shape are claimed to have evolved in a coevolutionary context. We examine the specificity of this pollination system and measure traits related to offspring fitness in isolated T. europaeus populations, in some of which Chiastocheta flies have gone extinct. We hypothesize that if this interaction is specific and obligate, the plant should experience dramatic drop in its relative fitness in the absence of Chiastocheta. Contrasting with this hypothesis, T. europaeus populations without flies demonstrate a similar relative fitness to those with the flies present, contradicting the putative obligatory nature of this pollination system. It also agrees with our observation that many other insects also visit and carry pollen among T. europaeus flowers. We propose that the interaction could have evolved through maximization of by-product benefits of the Chiastocheta visits, through the male flower function, and selection on floral traits by the most effective pollinator. We argue this mechanism is also central in the evolution of other nursery pollination systems.

Keywords: Asymmetrical interactions; Chiastocheta; Trollius europaeus; brood‐site pollination; conditional outcomes; mutualism; plant–pollinator interactions; pollinator community; pollinator loss; reproductive ecology; reproductive success

References

  1. Ecol Evol. 2015 Oct 08;5(21):4766-77 - PubMed
  2. Oecologia. 1998 Apr;114(3):368-375 - PubMed
  3. Oecologia. 2013 Jun;172(2):437-47 - PubMed
  4. Science. 1981 Mar 27;211(4489):1390-6 - PubMed
  5. Trends Ecol Evol. 1994 Jun;9(6):214-7 - PubMed
  6. Ecology. 2006 Jan;87(1):103-12 - PubMed
  7. Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Apr;15(4):140-143 - PubMed
  8. Oecologia. 1989 Jan;78(1):53-59 - PubMed
  9. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Apr 29;100(9):5264-7 - PubMed
  10. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007 Oct;22(10):506-9 - PubMed
  11. J Theor Biol. 2002 Jul 21;217(2):219-34 - PubMed
  12. Am J Bot. 2000 Jan;87(1):124-32 - PubMed
  13. Oecologia. 2007 Mar;151(2):240-50 - PubMed
  14. Oecologia. 2012 Feb;168(2):439-48 - PubMed
  15. Am Nat. 2003 Oct;162(4 Suppl):S10-23 - PubMed
  16. J Evol Biol. 2009 Jun;22(6):1183-92 - PubMed
  17. New Phytol. 2006;169(4):667-80 - PubMed
  18. New Phytol. 2006;172(3):412-28 - PubMed
  19. J Plant Res. 2002 Jun;115(3):161-8 - PubMed
  20. Oecologia. 1999 Aug;120(3):427-436 - PubMed
  21. Oecologia. 2002 Dec;133(4):534-540 - PubMed
  22. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Aug 5;100(16):9383-7 - PubMed
  23. Ann Bot. 2009 Jun;103(9):1471-80 - PubMed
  24. Oecologia. 1986 Nov;70(4):486-494 - PubMed
  25. Oecologia. 2000 Nov;125(3):321-330 - PubMed
  26. Am Nat. 2003 Oct;162(4 Suppl):S24-39 - PubMed

Publication Types