4.5 Article

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE REPRODUCTIVE ECOLOGY OF MONOTROPA AND MONOTROPSIS: TWO MYCOHETEROTROPHIC GENERA IN THE MONOTROPOIDEAE (ERICACEAE)

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 96, 期 7, 页码 1337-1347

出版社

BOTANICAL SOC AMER INC
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.0800319

关键词

breeding system; Ericaceae; Monotropa; Monotropsis; mycoheterotroph; phenology; pollination; reproductive ecology

资金

  1. University Research Council Fellowship
  2. University of Cincinnati

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies of mycoheterotrophs, defined as plants that obtain carbon resources from associated mycorrhizal fungi, have fundamentally contributed to our understanding of the importance and complexity of symbiotic ecological interactions. However, to date, the reproductive ecology of these organisms remains empirically understudied, with existing literature presenting hypotheses about traits including a generalist pollination syndrome and autogamous self-pollination. To address this gap in our knowledge of the reproductive ecology of mycoheterotrophic plants, we comparatively analyzed three species of two monotropoid genera, Monotropa and Monotropsis. During three consecutive years of field observations and manipulations of four Populations of Monotropa uniflora, seven of M. hypopitys (both red and yellow color forms), and two of Monotropsis odorata, we investigated flowering phenology, pollination ecology, breeding system, floral herbivory, and reproductive effort and output. Contrary to previous predictions, our results revealed that taxa are largely outcross-pollinated and specialized toward Bombus pollinators. Additionally, species differ in breeding system, timing and duration of reproductive development, fluctuations in reproductive effort and output, and fitness impacts of herbivory. This Study is the first thorough investigation of the reproductive ecology of mycoheterotrophic species and provides insight into possible limitations in reproductive traits imposed by a mycoheterotrophic life history.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据