Pseudopollen in Eria Lindl. section Mycaranthes Rchb.f. (Orchidaceae)

Evidence of floral rewards in Brasiliorchis supports the convergent evolution of food-hairs in Maxillariinae

PREMISE

Angiosperms distributed over a large geographical area may display considerable phenotypic variation that can be recognized at morphological and micromorphological levels. Here, we investigate the pollination biology and the presence of floral rewards in Brazilian populations of the widely distributed orchid, Brasiliorchis picta. Based on the new data presented here this study investigates the evolution of floral rewards in Maxillariinae, and tests for the occurrence of convergent evolution of food-hairs in this subtribe.

METHODS

Micromorphological and histochemical analyses of the labellar tissues were conducted, together with chemical analysis of fragrance and experiments involving the use of chemical baits. The evolution of floral rewards in Maxillariinae were addressed.

RESULTS

Microscopy revealed that B. picta offers food-hairs as a reward. Fragrance is produced by abaxially located labellar epidermal papillae. The main compound present in our samples (2-phenylethanol) also occurs in the aggregation pheromone produced by the mandible glands of pollinators, Meliponini bees. Our analyses indicate a high diversity of flower rewards and pollinators displayed by members of Maxillariinae, and support that edible trichomes evolved independently five times in the subtribe.

CONCLUSIONS

The high diversity of floral rewards and pollinators displayed by members of Maxillariinae suggests that different pollinator pressures are involved in the evolution of this neotropical subtribe. In addition, the offering of food-hairs, which are generally infrequently encountered in Orchidaceae, arose by convergent evolution in Maxillariinae.

Cypripedium subtropicum (Orchidaceae) employs aphid colony mimicry to attract hoverfly (Syrphidae) pollinators

In Orchidaceae, pollination is mostly animal-mediated, and one-third of species have evolved a deceptive pollination mechanism without rewards. Cypripedium is a representative lineage of nonrewarding orchids restricted to temperate regions. Cypripedium subtropicum flowers are pollinated by hoverflies and have hairy tufts that visually resemble an aphid colony covered with honey dew. We recorded the behavior of hoverflies on the flowers, determined the breeding system of the species and the structure of hairy tufts, and investigated the roles of hairy tufts and floral volatiles in this specialized pollination by using pollination experiments, scanning electron microscopy, bioassays and chemical analyses. The white hairy tufts covering the sidelobes of the labellum provide edible rewards and serve as crucial visual lures for hoverflies. The flowers emit primarily (E)-β-farnesene and a smaller amount of β-pinene that were found to attract hoverflies. Our results suggest that C. subtropicum uses both visual mimicry of an aphid-colonized labellum with a reward and chemical mimicry of aphid alarm pheromones to attract hoverflies for pollination. This is the first described example of a rewarding mimicry system in plants, where the models are animals with their secretions and the reward is similar in nutrients to that of the model mimicked.

Labellar micromorphology of two euglossine-pollinated orchid genera; Scuticaria Lindl. and Dichaea Lindl

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Until recently, there was no consensus regarding the phylogenetic relationships of the Neotropical orchid genera Scuticaria Lindl. and Dichaea Lindl. However, recent evidence derived from both gross morphological and molecular studies supports the inclusion of Scuticaria and Dichaea in sub-tribes Maxillariinae and Zygopetalinae, respectively. The present paper describes the labellar micromorphology of both genera and seeks to establish whether labellar characters support the assignment of Scuticaria and Dichaea to these sub-tribes.

METHODS

The labella of four species of Scuticaria and 14 species of Dichaea were examined using light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy, and their micromorphology was compared with that of representative species of Maxillariinae sensu lato and Zygopetalinae (Huntleya clade).

KEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In most specimens of Scuticaria examined, the papillose labella bear uniseriate, multicellular, unbranched trichomes. However, in S. steelii (Lindl.) Lindl., branched hairs may also be present and some trichomes may fragment and form pseudopollen. Multicellular, leaf-like scales were also present in one species of Scuticaria. Similar, unbranched hairs are present in certain species of Maxillaria Ruiz & Pav. (Maxillariinae sensu stricto) and Chaubardia Rchb.f. (Huntleya clade). As yet, moniliform, pseudopollen-forming hairs have not been observed for Zygopetalinae, but their presence in Scuticaria steelii, Maxillaria and Heterotaxis Lindl. supports the placing of Scuticaria in Maxillariinae. As other genera are sampled, the presence of branched hairs, hitherto unknown for Maxillariinae sensu lato, may prove to be a useful character in taxonomy and phylogenetic studies. Euglossophily occurs in Dichaea, as well as Chondrorhyncha Lindl. and Pescatorea Rchb.f. (Huntleya clade), and all three genera tend to lack distinctive labellar features. Instead, lip micromorphology is relatively simple and glabrous or papillose. However, two of the Dichaea species examined bear unicellular, labellar trichomes very similar to those found in Bifrenaria Lindl. (pollinated by both euglossine bees and Bombus spp.), and this feature may have arisen by convergence in response to similar pollination pressures.

Micromorphology of the labellum and floral spur of Cryptocentrum Benth. and Sepalosaccus Schltr. (Maxillariinae: Orchidaceae)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gross vegetative and floral morphology, as well as modern molecular techniques, indicate that Cryptocentrum Benth. and Sepalosaccus Schltr. are related to Maxillaria Ruiz & Pav. However, they differ from Maxillaria in their possession of floral spurs and, in this respect, are atypical of Maxillariinae. The labellar micromorphology of Maxillaria, unlike that of the other two genera, has been extensively studied. In the present report, the labellar micromorphology of Cryptocentrum and Sepalosaccus is compared with that of Maxillaria and, for the first time, the micromorphology of the floral spur as found in Maxillariinae is described.

METHODS

Labella and dissected floral spurs of Cryptocentrum and Sepalosaccus were examined using light microscopy (LM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

KEY RESULTS

In each case, the labellum consists of a papillose mid-lobe (epichile), a cymbiform region (hypochile) and, proximally, a spur, which is pronounced in Cryptocentrum but short and blunt in Sepalosaccus. The inner epidermal surface of the spur of Cryptocentrum is glabrous or pubescent, and the bicellular hairs, where present, are unlike any hitherto described for Maxillariinae. Similar but unicellular hairs also occur in the floral spur of Sepalosaccus, whereas the glabrous epidermis lining the spur of C. peruvianum contains putative nectar pores.

CONCLUSIONS

The labellar micromorphology of Cryptocentrum and Sepalosaccus generally resembles that of Maxillaria. The floral spur of Cryptocentrum displays two types of organization in that the epidermal lining may be glabrous (possibly with nectar pores) or pubescent. This may have taxonomic significance and perhaps reflects physiological differences relating to nectar secretion. The trichomes found within the spurs of Cryptocentrum and Sepalosaccus more closely resemble the hairs of certain unrelated, nectariferous orchid taxa than those found in the largely nectarless genus Maxillaria, and this further supports the case for parallelism.

Labellar micromorphology of Bifrenariinae Dressler (Orchidaceae)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The two closely related subtribes Bifrenariinae Dressler and Maxillariinae Benth. are easily distinguished on morphological grounds. Recently, however, molecular techniques have supported the inclusion of Bifrenariinae within a more broadly defined Maxillariinae. The present paper describes the diverse labellar micromorphology found amongst representatives of Bifrenariinae (Bifrenaria Lindl., Rudolfiella Hoehne, Teuscheria Garay and Xylobium Lindl.) and compares it with that found in Maxillaria Pabst & Dungs and Mormolyca Fenzl (Maxillariinae).

METHODS

The labella of 35 specimens representing 22 species of Bifrenariinae were examined by means of light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy and their micromorphology compared with that of Maxillaria sensu stricto and Mormolyca spp. The labellar epidermis of representatives of Bifrenaria, Xylobium and Mormolyca was tested for protein, starch and lipids in order to ascertain whether this tissue is involved in the rewarding of pollinators.

KEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The labella of Bifrenaria spp. and Mormolyca spp. are densely pubescent but those of Xylobium, Teuscheria and Rudolfiella are generally papillose. However, whereas the trichomes of Bifrenaria and Mormolyca are unicellular, those found in the other three genera are multicellular. Hitherto, no unicellular trichomes have been described for Maxillaria, although the labella of a number of species secrete a viscid substance or bear moniliform, pseudopollen-producing hairs. Moniliform hairs and secretory material also occur in certain species of Xylobium and Teuscheria and these genera, together with Maxillaria, are thought to be pollinated by stingless bees (Meliponini). Differences in the labellar micromorphology of Bifrenaria and Mormolyca are perhaps related to Euglossine- and/ or bumble bee-mediated pollination and pseudocopulation, respectively. Although Xylobium and Teuscheria share a number of labellar features with Maxillaria sensu stricto, this does not necessarily reflect taxonomic relationships but may be indicative of convergence in response to similar pollinator pressures.

A Rudimentary labellar speculum in Cymbidium lowianum (Rchb.f.) Rchb.f. and Cymbidium devonianum Paxton (Orchidaceae)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The labellar 'hairs' of some Cymbidium spp. are said to be thin-walled and to contain 'plasma', oil and sugars and it has long been speculated that they may function as food-hairs. However, the present authors' preliminary studies showed that certain atypical papillae may have a different role and, by reflecting light, function as a speculum. The purpose of the paper is to test this hypothesis.

METHODS

Light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, histochemistry and ultraviolet photography were used to investigate the structure, food content and light-reflecting properties of these papillae.

KEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The labellum of Cymbidium lowianum (Rchb.f.) Rchb.f. is densely clothed with obconical to conical papillae with wide bases and pointed tips. However, on either side of the median axis of the lip occur silvery patches comprising papillae with truncated tips and it is thought that these reflect light and thereby attract insect pollinators. Similar patches are also found in Cymbidium devonianum Paxton, and in both species, they are set against a reddish background, which, since bees cannot perceive this colour, probably appears dark to the insect thus enhancing the visual impact of the light-reflecting patches. In Cymbidium tigrinum Parish ex Hook. and Cymbidium mastersii Griff. ex Lindl., however, the labellum is mainly white and no light-reflecting patches were observed. Instead, unlike C. lowianum and C. devonianum, these species are highly fragrant and the attraction of insects probably depends to a greater extent on olfactory cues. In C. lowianum both types of papillae contain protein, starch and lipid bodies but only protein is seemingly present at elevated concentrations. However, lipoidal material also occurs upon the surface of the labellum and it is possible that this may be gathered by insects as reported for C. iridifolium A. Cunn (syn. C. madidum Lindl.). The labellar papillae of C. lowianum, thus, have the potential to function as food-hairs, although direct evidence for this is lacking.

Mechanisms and evolution of deceptive pollination in orchids

The orchid family is renowned for its enormous diversity of pollination mechanisms and unusually high occurrence of non-rewarding flowers compared to other plant families. The mechanisms of deception in orchids include generalized food deception, food-deceptive floral mimicry, brood-site imitation, shelter imitation, pseudoantagonism, rendezvous attraction and sexual deception. Generalized food deception is the most common mechanism (reported in 38 genera) followed by sexual deception (18 genera). Floral deception in orchids has been intensively studied since Darwin, but the evolution of non-rewarding flowers still presents a major puzzle for evolutionary biology. The two principal hypotheses as to how deception could increase fitness in plants are (i) reallocation of resources associated with reward production to flowering and seed production, and (ii) higher levels of cross-pollination due to pollinators visiting fewer flowers on non-rewarding plants, resulting in more outcrossed progeny and more efficient pollen export. Biologists have also tried to explain why deception is overrepresented in the orchid family. These explanations include: (i) efficient removal and deposition of pollinaria from orchid flowers in a single pollinator visit, thus obviating the need for rewards to entice multiple visits from pollinators; (ii) efficient transport of orchid pollen, thus requiring less reward-induced pollinator constancy; (iii) low-density populations in many orchids, thus limiting the learning of associations of floral phenotypes and rewards by pollinators; (iv) packaging of pollen in pollinaria with limited carry-over from flower to flower, thus increasing the risks of geitonogamous self-pollination when pollinators visit many flowers on rewarding plants. All of these general and orchid-specific hypotheses are difficult to reconcile with the well-established pattern for rewardlessness to result in low pollinator visitation rates and consequently low levels of fruit production. Arguments that deception evolves because rewards are costly are particularly problematic in that small amounts of nectar are unlikely to have a significant effect on the energy budget of orchids, and because reproduction in orchids is often severely pollen-, rather than resource-limited. Several recent experimental studies have shown that deception promotes cross-pollination, but it remains unknown whether actual outcrossing rates are generally higher in deceptive orchids. Our review of the literature shows that there is currently no evidence that deceptive orchids carry higher levels of genetic load (an indirect measure of outcrossing rate) than their rewarding counterparts. Cross-pollination does, however, result in dramatic increases in seed quality in almost all orchids and has the potential to increase pollen export (by reducing pollen discounting). We suggest that floral deception is particularly beneficial, because of its promotion of outcrossing, when pollinators are abundant, but that when pollinators are consistently rare, selection may favour a nectar reward or a shift to autopollination. Given that nectar-rewardlessness is likely to have been the ancestral condition in orchids and yet is evolutionarily labile, more attention will need to be given to explanations as to why deception constitutes an 'evolutionarily stable strategy'.