Shared pollinators and sequential flowering phenologies in two sympatric cactus species

Erika Arroyo-Pérez; Cecilia Jiménez-Sierra; J. Zavala Hurtado; Joel Flores

doi:10.5091/plecevo.2021.1544

Plant Ecology and Evolution 154(1): 28-38, doi: 10.5091/plecevo.2021.1544

Shared pollinators and sequential flowering phenologies in two sympatric cactus species

Erika Arroyo-Pérez^‡, Cecilia L. Jiménez-Sierra^§, J. Alejandro Zavala Hurtado^§, Joel Flores^|

‡ Doctorado en Ciencias Biológicas y de la Salud, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico§ Laboratorio de Ecología, Departamento de Biología, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Unidad Iztapalapa. Av. San Rafael Atlixco 186, Col. Vicentina, 04390, Mexico| Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica, División de Ciencias Ambientales, Camino a la presa San José No. 2055, Colonia Lomas 4a. Sección, San Luis Potosí, S.L.P., C.P. 78216, Mexico

Corresponding author: Cecilia Jiménez-Sierra ( ceci_jsierra@hotmail.com )

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Citation: Arroyo-Pérez E, Jiménez-Sierra CL, Zavala Hurtado JA, Flores J (2021) Shared pollinators and sequential flowering phenologies in two sympatric cactus species. Plant Ecology and Evolution 154(1): 28-38. https://doi.org/10.5091/plecevo.2021.1544

Abstract

Background and aims – The reproductive characteristics of sympatric Cactaceae are important because they help to understand interfering or facilitating mechanisms that allow their coexistence. Globose Cactaceae show melittophily flowers that may be attractive to a shared set of pollinators, and if the flowering events are not overlapping, flower resources could be present for the pollinators through time. Ariocarpus kotschoubeyanus and Neolloydia conoidea are two sympatric cactus species in the southern Chihuahuan Desert. The objective of this study is to describe and compare some reproductive characteristics of these species.

Material and methods – Individuals of Ariocarpus kotschoubeyanus and Neolloydia conoidea (n = 231 and 212, respectively) were marked and monitored during one year, recording for each species, the floral phenology, behaviour and morphology, flower visitors, breeding and mating systems (through pollination experiments).

Key results – The flowering periods of these species do not overlap. The flowers of both species are melittophily, with the same shape, colour, and similar behaviour; both are obligate xenogamous plants. The mating system of Neolloydia conoidea is outcrossing but mixed in Ariocarpus kotschoubeyanus. They share 75% of pollinators (solitary and social bees).

Conclusions – The temporal blooming separation of these species could be an important factor to facilitate coexistence within the xerophyte community since they share the same set of pollinators to achieve their reproductive success.

Keywords

bees, breeding systems, coexistence, mating systems, reproductive phenology

References

Anderson E.F. 2001. The cactus family. Timber Press, Inc, Portland, Oregon.

Augspurger C.K. 1981. Reproductive synchrony of tropical plants: experimental effects of pollinators and seed predators on Hybanthus prunifolius (Violaceae). Ecology 62(3): 775–788. https://doi.org/10.2307/1937745

Bayona C.A. 2016. Los suelos en el estado de Querétaro. In: Jones R.W. & Serrano C.V (eds) Historia Natural de Querétaro: 87–89. Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro Press, México.

Bravo-Hollis H. & Sánchez-Mejorada H. 1991. Las cactáceas de México. Vol. II. Universidad Autónoma de México Press, Mexico.

Bodbyl Roels S.A. & Kelly J.K. 2011. Rapid evolution caused by pollinator loss in Mimulus guttatus. Evolution 65(9): 2541–2552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01326.x

Campos-Navarrete M.J., Parra-Tabla V., Ramos-Zapata J., Díaz-Castelazo C. & Reyes-Novelo E. 2013. Structure of plant–hymenoptera networks in two coastal shrub sites in Mexico. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 7(6): 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-013-9280-1

Comisión Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA) 2010. Información climatológica por estado. Available from https://smn.conagua.gob.mx/es/informacion-climatologica-por-estado?estado=qro [accessed 25 Sep. 2017].

Conner J.K. & Rush S. 1996. Effects of flower size and number on pollinator visitation to wild radish, Raphanus raphanistrum. Oecologia 105: 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00330014

Crimmins T.B., Crimmins M.A. & Bertelsen C.D. 2010. Complex responses to climate drivers in Honest of spring flowering across a semi-arid elevation gradient. Journal of Ecology 98(5): 1042–1051. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01696.x

Cruden R.W. 1977. Pollen-ovule ratios: a conservative indicator of breeding systems in flowering plants. Evolution 31(1): 32–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/2407542

Díaz-Segura O., Jiménez-Sierra C.L. & Matías-Palafox M.L. 2017. Algunas características de la biología reproductiva del peyote queretano Lophophora diffusa (Croizat) Bravo, (Cactaceae). Cactáceas y Suculentas Mexicanas 62(4): 116–127.

Domínguez-Álvarez L.A. 2009. Fenología de las abejas de la Reserva Ecológica del Pedregal de San Ángel y su relación con la fenología floral. MD thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México.

Eggli U. & Giorgetta M. 2017. Flowering phenology and observations on the pollination biology of South American cacti. 3. Temporally robust sequential “Big Bang” flowering of two unrelated sympatric globular cacti in northern Argentina. Haseltonia 23: 97–109. https://doi.org/10.2985/026.023.0113

Eguiarte L.E., Nuñez-Farfan J., Domínguez C. & Cordero C. 1999. Biología evolutiva de la reproducción de las plantas. In: Núñez-Farfan J. & Eguiarte L.E. (eds) La evolución biológica: 69–86. Ciencias revista de difusión de la Facultad de Ciencias, Instituto de Ecología, UNAM, CONABIO, México.

Elzinga J.A., Atlan A., Biere A., Gigord L., Weis A.E. & Bernasconi G. 2007. Time after time: flowering phenology and biotic interactions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22(8): 432–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.05.006

Fenner M. 1998. The phenology of growth and reproduction in plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 1(1): 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1078/1433-8319-00053

Ferreira B.H.S., Gomes A.C., Souza C.S., Fabri J.R. & Sigrist M.R. 2018. Pollination and reproductive system of synchronopatric species of Cactaceae (Cactoideae) subject to interspecific flow of pollen: an example of ecological adaptation in the Brazilian Chaco. Plant Biology 20(1): 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.12641

Giorgis M.A., Cingolani A.M. & Gurvich D.E. 2015. Flowering phenology, fruit set and seed mass and number of five coexisting Gymnocalycium (Cactaceae) species from Cordoba Mountain, Argentina. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 142(3): 220–230. https://doi.org/10.3159/TORREY-D-14-00017.1

Gleeson S.K. 1981. Character displacement in flowering phenologies. Oecologia 51: 294–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00540618

Goettsch B., Hilton-Taylor C., Cruz-Piñón G., et al. 2015. High proportion of cactus species threatened with extinction. Nature Plants 1: 15142. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.142

Gómez-Hinostrosa C., Sotomayor M., Hernández H.M. & Smith M. 2017. Ariocarpus kotschoubeyanus (amended version of 2013 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-1.RLTS.T41217A2951984.en

Goodwillie C., Kalisz S. & Eckert C.G. 2005. The evolutionary enigma of mixed mating systems in plants: occurrence, theoretical explanations, and empirical evidence. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 36: 47–79. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.091704.175539

Guerrero P.C., Antinao C.A., Vergara-Meriño B., Villagra C.A. & Carvallo G.O. 2019. Bees may drive the reproduction of four sympatric cacti in a vanishing coastal mediterranean-type ecosystem. PeerJ 7: e7865. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7865

Guzmán U., Arias S. & Dávila P. 2003. Catálogo de cactáceas mexicanas. UNAM, CONABIO, México.

Jiménez-Sierra C.L., Segura-Venegas D., Rendón-Aguilar B., Valverde Valdés T. & Ballesteros-Barrera C. 2019. Fenología floral de Stenocactus obvallatus (DC) Hill (Cactaceae) en Guanajuato (México). Cactáceas y suculentas Mexicanas 64(2): 47–57.

Kay K.M. & Schemske D.W. 2003. Pollinator assemblages and visitation rates for 11 species of Neotropical Costus (Costaceae). Biotropica 35: 198–207. https://doi.org/10.1646/02159

Kingsolver J.G. 1983. Thermoregulation and flight in Colias butterflies: elevational patterns and mechanistic limitations. Ecology 64(3): 534–545. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939973

Koptur S. 1983. Flowering phenology and floral biology of Inga (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae). Systematic Botany 8(4): 354–368. https://doi.org/10.2307/2418355

Kudo G. & Kasagi T. 2005. Microscale variations in the mating system and heterospecific incompatibility mediated by pollination competition in alpine snowbed plants. Plant Species Biology 20(2): 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-1984.2005.00129.x

Lüthy J.M. 2001. The Cacti of CITES Appendix I. CITES identification manual. CITES, Federal Veterinary Office Switzerland, Botanical Garden of the University of Berne, IOS, & Sukulent-Sammlung, Zürich.

Mandujano M.C., Carrillo-Angeles I., Martínez-Peralta C. & Golubov J. 2010. Reproductive biology of Cactaceae. In: Ramawat K.G. (ed.) Desert plants: biology and biotechnology: 197–230. Springer, Berlin & Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02550-1_10

Martínez-Peralta C. & Mandujano M.C. 2012. Biología de la polinización y fenología reproductiva del género Ariocarpus Scheidweiler (Cactaceae). Cactáceas y Suculentas Mexicanas 54(4): 114–127.

Martínez-Peralta C. & Mandujano M.C. 2016. Pollen limitation in a rare cactus with synchronous mass flowering. Haseltonia 22(22): 2–8. https://doi.org/10.2985/026.022.0102

Martínez-Peralta C., Márquez-Guzmán J. & Mandujano M.C. 2014a. How common is self-incompatibility across species of the herkogamous genus Ariocarpus. American Journal of Botany 10(3): 530–538. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1400022

Martínez-Peralta C., Molina-Freaner F., Gulubov J., Vázquez-Lobo A. & Mandujano M.C. 2014b. Comparative study of the reproductive traits and floral morphology of a genus of geophytic cacti. International Journal of Plant Sciences 175(6): 663–680. https://doi.org/10.1086/676302

Martínez-Ramos L.M., Mejía R.M., Rojas-Aréchiga M. & Mandujano M.C. 2017. La hercogamia como indicador del sistema reproductivo de Thelocactus leucacanthus spp. schmollii. Cactáceas y suculentas mexicanas 62: 13–22.

Matías-Palafox M.L., Jiménez-Sierra C.L., Golubov J. & Mandujano M.C. 2017. Reproductive ecology of the threatened “star cactus” Astrophytum ornatum (Cactaceae): a strategy of continuous reproduction with low success. Botanical Sciences 95(2): 245–258. https://doi.org/10.17129/botsci.780

McIntosh M.E. 2002. Flowering phenology and reproductive output in two sister species of Ferocactus (Cactaceae). Plant Ecology 159: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015589002987

Michener C.D. 2007. The bees of the world. Second edition. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Moeller D.A. 2004. Facilitative interactions among plants via shared pollinators. Ecology 85(12): 3289–3301. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-0810

Nassar J.M. & Ramírez N. 2004. Reproductive biology of the melon cactus, Melocactus curvispinus (Cactaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 248(1): 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-004-0193-4

Natalis L.C. & Wesselingh R.A. 2012. Shared pollinators and pollen transfer dynamics in two hybridizing species, Rhinanthus minor and R. angustifolius. Oecologia 170: 709–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2346-4

Ollerton J., Price V., Armbruster W.S., et al. 2012. Overplaying the role of honey bees as pollinators: a comment on Aebi and Neumann (2011). Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27(3): 141–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.12.001

Paini D.R. 2004. Impact of the introduced honey bee: a review. Austral Ecology 29(4): 399–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2004.01376.x

QGIS Development Team 2020. QGIS Geographic Information System. Version 3.16. Open Source Geospatial Foundation. Available from https://qgis.org [accessed 3 Jun. 2020].

Ruíz-Zapata T. & Arroyo M.T.K. 1978. Plant reproductive ecology of a secondary deciduous tropical forest in Venezuela. Biotropica 10(3): 221–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/2387907

Scheinvar L. 2004. Flora cactológica del estado de Querétaro. Diversidad y riqueza. Fondo de Cultura Económica, México.

SEMARNAT 2010. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección ambiental-Especies nativas de México de la flora y fauna silvestre-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. Diario oficial de la Federación, 30 de diciembre de 2010.

Silvertown J. 2004. Plant coexistence and the niche. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(11): 605–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.09.003

Snelling R. & Danforth B. 1992. A review of Perdita subgenus Macrotera (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Contributions in Science 436: 1–12.

Stebbins G.L. 1970. Adaptive radiation of reproductive characteristics in angiosperms, I: pollination mechanisms. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1: 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.01.110170.001515

Sun S., Huang S. & Guo Y. 2013. Pollinator shift to managed honey bees enhances reproductive output in a bumblebee-pollinated plant. Plant Systematic and Evolution 299: 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-012-0711-8

Tauber C.A. & Tauber M.J. 1981. Insect cycles: genetics and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 12: 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.12.110181.001433

Valido A., Rodríguez-Rodríguez M.C. & Jordano P. 2014. Impacto de la introducción de la abeja doméstica (Apis mellifera, Apidae) en el Parque Nacional del Teide (Tenerife, Islas Canarias). Ecosistemas 23: 58–66. https://doi.org/10.7818/ECOS.2014.23-3.08

Valverde P.L., Jiménez-Sierra C., López-Ortega G., et al. 2015. Floral morphometry, anthesis, and pollination success of Mammillaria pectinifera (Cactaceae), a rare and threatened endemic species of Central Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments 116: 29–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.01.016

Van Der Kooi C.J., Pen I., Staal M., Stavenga D.G. & Elzenga J.T.M. 2016. Competition for pollinators and intra‐communal spectral dissimilarity of flowers. Plant Biology 18(1): 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.12328

Waser N.M. 1983. Competition for pollination and floral character differences among sympatric plant species: a review of evidence. In: Jones C.E. & Little R.J. (eds) Handbook of experimental pollination biology: 277–293. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Westerkamp C. 1991. Honeybees are poor pollinators – why? Plant Systematics and Evolution 177: 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00937827

Winfree R., Aguilar R., Vázquez D.P., LeBuhn G. & Aizen M.A. 2009. A meta-analysis of bees’ responses to anthropogenic disturbance. Ecology 90(8): 2068–2076. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1245.1

Zar J.H. 2010. Biostatistical analysis. Fifth edition. Pearson, New Jersey.