Limits...
Orchid-pollinator interactions and potential vulnerability to biological invasion.

Chupp AD, Battaglia LL, Schauber EM, Sipes SD - AoB Plants (2015)

Bottom Line: Our results are supported by historical data that suggest P. palamedes and P. sennae are important pollinators of P. ciliaris.Although P. sennae may provide supplemental pollination service, this is likely constrained by habitat preferences that do not always overlap with those of P. cilaris.Observed declines of P. palamedes due to LWD could severely limit the reproductive success and persistence of P. ciliaris and similar orchid species populations.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Plant Biology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA adam.chupp@gmail.com.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Relationship between nectar spur length of P. ciliaris (SL) and the proboscis lengths of P. palamedes (Pp) and P. sennae (Ps). The horizontal line is the median and the boxes and error bars represent the 10th, 25th, 75th and 90th percentiles. Black dots are outliers. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05).
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4584961&req=5

PLV099F4: Relationship between nectar spur length of P. ciliaris (SL) and the proboscis lengths of P. palamedes (Pp) and P. sennae (Ps). The horizontal line is the median and the boxes and error bars represent the 10th, 25th, 75th and 90th percentiles. Black dots are outliers. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05).

Mentions: Average spur length (±SE) estimated from 44 flowers (22 plants) was 29.10 ± 0.33 mm. Papilio palamedes and P. sennae were the only two species of visitor observed during our survey period, and thus, we measured proboscis length on these two species only. Average proboscis lengths of P. palamedes and P. sennae were 29.06 ± 0.30 and 29.12 ± 0.22 mm, respectively. Results of ANOVA suggested no significant differences in lengths among proboscises of P. palamedes and P. sennae and spurs of P. ciliaris (F2,59 = 0.01, P = 0.99) (Fig. 4). There was no influence of sex on proboscis length in P. palamedes (male: 29.58 ± 0.32 mm, female: 28.55 ± 0.47 mm) (t = 1.85, df = 18, P = 0.08) or P. sennae (male: 28.97 ± 0.27 mm, female: 29.27 ± 0.36 mm) (t = 0.69, df = 18, P = 0.50). The variance of nectar spur lengths did not differ from that of P. palamedes proboscis lengths (F20,19 = 1.37, P > 0.05). However, variance of P. sennae proboscis lengths was lower than for nectar spur lengths (F20,19 = 2.54, P < 0.05).Figure 4.


Orchid-pollinator interactions and potential vulnerability to biological invasion.

Chupp AD, Battaglia LL, Schauber EM, Sipes SD - AoB Plants (2015)

Relationship between nectar spur length of P. ciliaris (SL) and the proboscis lengths of P. palamedes (Pp) and P. sennae (Ps). The horizontal line is the median and the boxes and error bars represent the 10th, 25th, 75th and 90th percentiles. Black dots are outliers. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05).
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4584961&req=5

PLV099F4: Relationship between nectar spur length of P. ciliaris (SL) and the proboscis lengths of P. palamedes (Pp) and P. sennae (Ps). The horizontal line is the median and the boxes and error bars represent the 10th, 25th, 75th and 90th percentiles. Black dots are outliers. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05).
Mentions: Average spur length (±SE) estimated from 44 flowers (22 plants) was 29.10 ± 0.33 mm. Papilio palamedes and P. sennae were the only two species of visitor observed during our survey period, and thus, we measured proboscis length on these two species only. Average proboscis lengths of P. palamedes and P. sennae were 29.06 ± 0.30 and 29.12 ± 0.22 mm, respectively. Results of ANOVA suggested no significant differences in lengths among proboscises of P. palamedes and P. sennae and spurs of P. ciliaris (F2,59 = 0.01, P = 0.99) (Fig. 4). There was no influence of sex on proboscis length in P. palamedes (male: 29.58 ± 0.32 mm, female: 28.55 ± 0.47 mm) (t = 1.85, df = 18, P = 0.08) or P. sennae (male: 28.97 ± 0.27 mm, female: 29.27 ± 0.36 mm) (t = 0.69, df = 18, P = 0.50). The variance of nectar spur lengths did not differ from that of P. palamedes proboscis lengths (F20,19 = 1.37, P > 0.05). However, variance of P. sennae proboscis lengths was lower than for nectar spur lengths (F20,19 = 2.54, P < 0.05).Figure 4.

Bottom Line: Our results are supported by historical data that suggest P. palamedes and P. sennae are important pollinators of P. ciliaris.Although P. sennae may provide supplemental pollination service, this is likely constrained by habitat preferences that do not always overlap with those of P. cilaris.Observed declines of P. palamedes due to LWD could severely limit the reproductive success and persistence of P. ciliaris and similar orchid species populations.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Plant Biology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA adam.chupp@gmail.com.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus