Evaluation of Native and Nonnative Ornamentals as Pollinator Plants in Florida: II. Floral Resource Value

Consumer demand for novel, visually attractive ornamentals has often overshadowed the functional value plants may provide for flower-visiting insects. As native and nonnative species are hybridized for form, color, flowering, and disease resistance, it is important to assess whether some of these alterations influence plant nutrient quality for foraging insect pollinators. A study was conducted to ascertain the resource value of ornamental cultivars compared with their native congeners. The nectar volume and pollen quantity, viability, and protein content of 10 species of popular herbaceous flowering plants, commonly advertised as pollinator-friendly, were evaluated in northcentral Florida. Each genus encompassed a native and nonnative species, apart from pentas. Native species included blanket flower (Gaillardia pulchella), lanceleaf coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata), pineland lantana (Lantana depressa), and scarlet sage (Salvia coccinea). Nonnative species included Barbican™ yellow-red ring blanket flower (Gaillardia aristata ‘Gaiz005’), Bloomify™ rose lantana (Lantana camara ‘UF-1011-2’), mysty salvia (Salvia longispicata × farinacea ‘Balsalmysty’), Lucky Star® dark red pentas (Pentas lanceolata ‘PAS1231189’), ruby glow pentas (Pentas lanceolata ‘Ruby glow’) and UpTick™ Gold & Bronze coreopsis (Coreopsis × ‘Baluptgonz’). Floral rewards differed significantly across species. The native scarlet sage exhibited the largest nectar volume per flower in the summer (2.13 ± 0.17 µL), followed by the nonnative mysty salvia (1.26 ± 0.17 µL). In the fall, ruby glow pentas exhibited the largest nectar volume per flower (1.09 ± 0.17 µL) compared with all other ornamentals. The composite flowers of the native and nonnative blanket flower and coreopsis species had the lowest nectar volume per flower regardless of sampling date. Likewise, ruby glow pentas displayed the highest quantity of pollen grains (96.29 ± 0.12) per sample, followed by Lucky star pentas (52.33 ± 0.12), and Barbican blanket flower (50.98 ± 0.12). Pollen viability was similarly high (92% to 98%) among all species, apart from Bloomify rose lantana (20%) and pineland lantana (48%). Pollen protein content was highest in Uptick coreopsis (11.378 ± 1.860 μg/mg dry weight) and Lucky star pentas (10.656 ± 3.726 μg/mg dry weight), followed by lanceleaf coreopsis (7.918 ± 1.793 μg/mg dry weight). These results largely showed that the nonnative ornamentals selected provided resource-rich floral rewards, comparable to native congeners. Still, care should be taken in making similar assessments of other modern floral types.

Intraspecific relationships between floral signals and rewards with implications for plant fitness

Within-species variation in traits such as petal size or color often provides reliable information to pollinators about the rewards offered to them by flowers. In spite of potential disadvantages of allowing pollinators to discriminate against less-rewarding flowers, examples of informative floral signals are diverse in form and widely distributed across plant taxa, apparently having evolved repeatedly in different lineages. Although hypotheses about the adaptive value of providing reward information have been proposed and tested in a few cases, a unified effort to understand the evolutionary mechanisms favoring informative floral signals has yet to emerge. This review describes the diversity of ways in which floral signals can be linked with floral rewards within plant species and discusses the constraints and selective pressures on floral signal-reward relationships. It focuses particularly on how information about floral rewards can influence pollinator behavior and how those behavioral changes may, in turn, affect plant fitness, selecting either for providing or withholding reward information. Most of the hypotheses about the evolution of floral signal-reward relationships are, as yet, untested, and the review identifies promising research directions for addressing these considerable gaps in knowledge. The advantages and disadvantages of sharing floral reward information with pollinators likely play an important role in floral trait evolution, and opportunities abound to further our understanding of this neglected aspect of floral signaling.

Exploitation of Strobilanthes ixiocephala (Acanthaceae) flower buds by bees

Floral larceny by bees has been studied mostly in open flowers although it is also experienced in buds. Until now, only few studies have recorded larceny of unopened flowers. In this study, we present behavioural observations of Apis and non-Apis bees exploiting Strobilanthes ixiocephala (Acanthaceae) buds for floral rewards. The bees pierce open the anterior end of the unopened buds to access pollen and nectar.

Nectary and elaiophore work together in flowers of Xylopia aromatica (Annonaceae): structure indicates a role in pollination

Secretory structures that produce floral rewards have rarely been reported for Annonaceae. We identified a glandular region in Xylopia aromatica (Lam.) Mart., which consisted of a nectary and an elaiophore. This study aimed to describe the structure and secretory process of these glandular structures, which are highly correlated with the reproductive biology of this species. Anatomical and ultrastructural studies were performed prior to and during anthesis, focusing on the channel and pollination chamber. The floral nectary is placed in the roof of the chamber. It has a secretory epidermis and subglandular parenchyma and is immediately contiguous with the elaiophore, a portion that delimits the pollination channel and produces lipids. The release of nectar begins in the pistillate phase, while the elaiophore starts secreting prior to anthesis, both of which finishing during the staminate phase. Lipids form a sticky layer covering the channel surface, which provides access to the chamber. The cell machinery of the epidermis for both nectary and elaiophore is highly correlated with the exudates, despite their highly similar structure. Nectar attracts pollinators to the pollination chamber, whereas lipids seem to act in pollen adhesion to the body of pollinators. Both of exudates appear to act in complementary ways during pollination.

Tradeoffs in the evolution of plant farming by ants

Diverse forms of cultivation have evolved across the tree of life. Efficient farming requires that the farmer deciphers and actively promotes conditions that increase crop yield. For plant cultivation, this can include evaluating tradeoffs among light, nutrients, and protection against herbivores. It is not understood if, or how, nonhuman farmers evaluate local conditions to increase payoffs. Here, we address this question using an obligate farming mutualism between the ant Philidris nagasau and epiphytic plants in the genus Squamellaria that are cultivated for their nesting sites and floral rewards. We focused on the ants’ active fertilization of their crops and their protection against herbivory. We found that ants benefited from cultivating plants in full sun, receiving 7.5-fold more floral food rewards compared to shade-cultivated plants. The higher reward levels correlated with higher levels of crop protection provided by the ants. However, while high-light planting yielded the greatest immediate food rewards, sun-grown crops contained less nitrogen compared to shade-grown crops. This was due to lower nitrogen input from ants feeding on floral rewards instead of insect protein gained from predation. Despite this tradeoff, farming ants optimize crop yield by selectively planting their crops in full sun. Ancestral state reconstructions across this ant–plant clade show that a full-sun farming strategy has existed for millions of years, suggesting that nonhuman farmers have evolved the means to evaluate and balance conflicting crop needs to their own benefit.