title: The design of trapping devices in pollination traps of the genusArum(Araceae) is related to insect type.
abstract: Pollinators have long been known to select for floral traits, but the nature of this relationship has been little investigated in trap pollination systems. We investigated the trapping devices of 15Arumspp. and compared them with the types of insects trapped. Most species shared a similar general design of trap chamber walls covered in downward-pointing papillate cells, lacunose cells in the chamber wall and elongated sterile flowers partially blocking the exit of the trap. However, there was significant variation in all these morphological features between species. Furthermore, these differences related to the type of pollinator trapped. Most strikingly, species pollinated by midges had a slippery epidermal surface consisting of smaller papillae than in species pollinated by other insects. Midge-pollinated species also had more elongated sterile flowers and tended to have a larger lacunose area. We conclude that pollination traps evolve in response to the type of insect trapped and that changes to the slippery surfaces of the chamber wall are an important and previously little recognized variable in the design of pollination traps.
authors.affiliation: Department of Structural and Functional Botany, University of Vienna Rennweg 14, 1030, Vienna, Austria.
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Bröderbauer
authors.affiliation: Department of Structural and Functional Botany, University of Vienna Rennweg 14, 1030, Vienna, Austria.
authors.forename: Anton
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Weber
authors.affiliation: School of Applied Sciences, Bournemouth University Dorset House, Talbot Campus, Fern-Barrow, Poole, BH12 5BB, UK.
authors.forename: Anita
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Diaz
keywords: deceptive pollination; epidermis; floral traits; morphology; natural selection
references.citation: Phytochemistry. 2011 Sep;72(13):1655-66
references.pmid: 21419464
references.citation: New Phytol. 2012 Aug;195(3):667-675
references.pmid: 22646058
references.citation: Taxon. 2012 Apr 13;61(2):281-292
references.pmid: 28904408
references.citation: Nature. 2007 Jun 7;447(7145):706-9
references.pmid: 17554306
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2010 Oct 26;20(20):1846-52
references.pmid: 20933425
references.citation: Am J Bot. 2009 Jan;96(1):166-82
references.pmid: 21628182
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Oct 7;275(1648):2241-9
references.pmid: 18544510
references.citation: New Phytol. 2009 Dec;184(4):988-1002
references.pmid: 19761495
references.citation: Ecology. 2012 Aug;93(8):1880-91
references.pmid: 22928416
references.citation: Ann Bot. 2009 Jun;103(9):1529-45
references.pmid: 19429671
references.citation: Oecologia. 2011 Dec;167(4):1075-83
references.pmid: 21792557
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Sep 16;100(19):10603-6
references.pmid: 12960386
references.citation: Evolution. 2011 Feb;65(2):350-64
references.pmid: 20874738
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Sep 28;101(39):14138-43
references.pmid: 15383667
references.citation: Arthropod Struct Dev. 2004 Jan;33(1):103-11
references.pmid: 18089026
references.citation: Am J Bot. 2002 Mar;89(3):527-34
references.pmid: 21665652
references.citation: PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28662
references.pmid: 22216104
references.citation: Oecologia. 1997 Oct;112(2):217-224
references.pmid: 28307573
references.citation: Evolution. 2008 Jul;62(7):1712-1737
references.pmid: 18410536
references.citation: Am J Bot. 2012 Oct;99(10):1666-79
references.pmid: 22965851
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Oct 12;96(21):11910-5
references.pmid: 10518550
references.citation: Evolution. 2000 Dec;54(6):1995-2006
references.pmid: 11209776
references.citation: New Phytol. 1995 Sep;131(1):41-50
references.pmid: 33863164
references.citation: New Phytol. 2007;176(4):883-890
references.pmid: 17897322
references.citation: Ann Bot. 2009 Jun;103(9):1501-14
references.pmid: 19339298