title: Florivory and nectar-robbing perforations in flowers of pointleaf manzanitaArctostaphylos pungens(Ericaceae) and their effects on plant reproductive success.
abstract: Damage to petals may have varying effects on the reproductive success of the plant. The variation may depend on the kind of damage to the corolla. Whether the damage is limited to the corolla, as is usually the case with nectar-robbing perforations, or extending to the reproductive parts of the flower, as in the case of florivory holes, might determine the extent of the effect on the plant's reproduction. We examined the various perforations in the flowers ofArctostaphylos pungensand correlated their presence with fruiting success. We found that though florivory holes were highly associated with damage to reproductive parts, fruiting success did not differ significantly between flowers with the two kinds of damage. Although nectar-robbing perforations were not associated with reduced number of fruit produced, they were significantly correlated with reduced number of fruit that contained seemingly viable seeds. The implications of our findings are discussed in the context of pollination and antagonism.
authors.affiliation: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
authors.forename: Dorit
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Eliyahu
authors.affiliation: Department of Biology, Denison University, Granville, OH, USA.
authors.forename: Andrew C
authors.initials: AC
authors.lastname: McCall
authors.affiliation: Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
authors.forename: Marina
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Lauck
authors.affiliation: Division of Open Areas and Biodiversity, Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection, Jerusalem, Israel.
authors.forename: Ana
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Trakhtenbrot
keywords: Antagonism; Floral damage; Florivory; Nectar robbing; Pollination; Reproductive success
references.citation: Evolution. 2006 Mar;60(3):491-504
references.pmid: 16637495
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2006 Dec;9(12):1351-65
references.pmid: 17118009
references.citation: Ann Bot. 2009 Jun;103(9):1425-33
references.pmid: 19304813
references.citation: Ecology. 2010 Apr;91(4):937-43
references.pmid: 20462108
references.citation: Oecologia. 2010 Nov;164(3):713-20
references.pmid: 20607294
references.citation: Am J Bot. 2007 Dec;94(12):1935-43
references.pmid: 21636388
references.citation: Oecologia. 2012 Sep;170(1):147-57
references.pmid: 22349860
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2013 Mar;16(3):299-306
references.pmid: 23173705
references.citation: PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55914
references.pmid: 23418475
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 2014 Apr;40(4):325-30
references.pmid: 24692053
references.citation: PLoS One. 2014 Jul 18;9(7):e102607
references.pmid: 25036554
references.citation: J Pollinat Ecol. 2015;16:64-71
references.pmid: 26207155
references.citation: Oecologia. 1992 Aug;91(1):56-62
references.pmid: 28313374