Breeding System and Response of the Pollinator to Floral Larceny and Florivory Define the Reproductive Success in Aerides odorata

Consumption of pollination reward by felonious means in a plant species can influence the foraging behavior of its pollinator and eventually the reproductive success. So far, studies on this aspect are largely confined to interaction involving plant-pollinators and nectar robbers or thieves. However, a foraging guild in such interactions may also include floral herbivores or florivores. There is a paucity of information on the extent to which nectar larcenists may influence the foraging behavior of the pollinator and reproductive fitness of plants in the presence of a florivore. We investigated various forms of larceny in the natural populations of Aerides odorata, a pollinator-dependent and nectar-rewarding orchid. These populations differed in types of foraging guild, the extent of larceny (thieving/robbing), which can occur with or without florivory, and natural fruit-set pattern. The nectariferous spur of the flower serves as an organ of interest among the foraging insects. While florivory marked by excision of nectary dissuades the pollinator, nectar thieving and robbing significantly enhance visits of the pollinator and fruit-set. Experimental pollinations showed that the species is a preferential outbreeder and experiences inbreeding depression from selfing. Reproductive fitness of the orchid species varies significantly with the extent of floral larceny. Although nectar thieving or robbing is beneficial in this self-compatible species, the negative effects of florivory were stronger. Our findings suggest that net reproductive fitness in the affected plant species is determined by the overarching effect of its breeding system on the overall interacting framework of the foraging guild.

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.

Nectar robbing in the trainbearers (Lesbia, Trochilidae)

Many flower visitors engage in floral larceny, a suite of so-called ’illegitimate’ visits in which foragers take nectar without providing pollination services. The data on prevalence of illegitimate visits among hummingbirds, as well as the total proportion of foraging and diet that such visits comprise is broadly lacking. Here, we report the occurrence of nectar larceny in the two currently recognized species of trainbearers and analyze the proportion of plant visits categorized by mode of interaction as: robbing, theft, and/or pollination. We augment our original field observations using a trove of data from citizen science databases. Although it is difficult to distinguish primary vs. secondary robbing and theft vs. pollination, we conservatively estimate that ca. 40% of the recorded nectar foraging visits involve nectar robbing. Males appear to engage in robbing marginally more than females, but further studies are necessary to confidently examine the multi-way interactions among sex, species, mode of visitation, and other factors. Our results also indicate that the suggested relationship between serrations on bill tomia and traits such as nectar robbing or territorial defense may be complicated. We discuss the significance of these findings in the context of recent developments in study of nectar foraging, larceny, and pollination from both avian and plant perspectives.

Nectar larceny in the trainbearers (Lesbia, Trochilidae)

ABSTRACTMany flower visitors engage in floral larceny, a suite of so-called ‘illegitimate’ visits in which foragers take nectar without providing pollination services. The data on prevalence of illegitimate visits among hummingbirds, as well as the total proportion of foraging and diet that such visits comprise is broadly lacking. Here, we report the occurrence of nectar larceny in both currently recognized species of trainbearers and analyze the proportion of plant visits categorized by mode of interaction as: primary robbing, secondary robbing, theft, and/or pollination. To the best of our knowledge, we provide the first published report identifying robbing in these species. We augment our original field observations using a trove of data from citizen science databases and literature. Although it is difficult to distinguish primary vs. secondary robbing and theft vs. pollination, we conservatively estimate that ca. 40% of the recorded nectar foraging visits involve nectar robbing. Males appear to engage in robbing marginally more than females, but further studies are necessary to confidently examine the multi-way interactions among sex, species, mode of visitation, and other factors. We discuss the significance of these findings in the context of recent developments in study of nectar foraging, larceny, and pollination from both avian and plant perspectives.

Morphofunctional Traits and Pollination Mechanisms ofCoronilla emerusL. Flowers (Fabaceae)

It is accepted that the papilionaceous corolla of the Fabaceae evolved under the selective pressure of bee pollinators. Morphology and function of different parts ofCoronilla emerusL. flowers were related to their role in the pollination mechanism. The corolla has a vexillum with red nectar lines, a keel hiding stamens and pistil, and two wing petals fasten to the keel with two notched folds. Pollinators land on the complex of keel and wings, trigger the protrusion of pollen and finally of the stigma from the keel tip. Data on pollen viability and stigma receptivity prove that flowers are proterandrous. The results of hand-pollination experiments confirmed that insects are fundamental to set seed. Interaction with pollinators allows not only the transport of pollen but also the rupture of the stigmatic cuticle, necessary to achieve both allogamy and autogamy. Field observations showed that Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, and Diptera visited the flowers. Only some of the Hymenoptera landed on the flowers from the front and elicited pollination mechanisms. Most of the insects sucked the nectar from the back without any pollen transfer. Finally, morphological and functional characteristics ofC. emerusflowers are discussed in terms of floral larceny and reduction in pollination efficiency.