Reproductive biology and pollination of the carnivorous Genlisea violacea (Lentibulariaceae).

Genlisea violacea is a Brazilian endemic carnivorous plant species distributed in the cerrado biome, mainly in humid environments, on sandy and oligotrophic soil or wet rocks. Studies on reproductive biology or pollination in the Lentibulariaceae are notably scarce; regarding the genus Genlisea, the current study is the first to show systematic and standardised research on reproductive biology from field studies to describe the foraging of visiting insects and determine the effective pollinators of Genlisea. We studied two populations of G. violacea through the observation of flower visitors for 4 months of the rainy and dry seasons. Stigmatic receptivity, pollen viability, and breeding system were evaluated together with histochemistry and morphological analyses of flowers. The flowers showed stigmatic receptivity of 100% in open buds and mature flowers, reducing to 80% for senescent flowers. Nearly 80% of pollen grains are viable, decreasing to 40-45% after 48 h. Nectar is produced by glandular trichomes inside the spur. Two bee species are effective pollinators: one of the genus Lasioglossum (subgenus Dialictus: Halictidae) and the other of the genus Ceratina (subgenus Ceratinula: family Apidae). Moreover, bee-like flies of the Syrphidae family may also be additional pollinators. Genlisea violacea is an allogamous and self-compatible species. The differences in flower-visiting fauna for both populations can be attributed to factors such as climate, anthropogenic effect, seasonal factors related to insects and plants, as well as the morphological variation of flowers in both populations.

Neither protogynous nor obligatory out-crossed: pollination biology and breeding system of the European Red List Fritillaria meleagris L. (Liliaceae).

For 4 years we studied pollination biology and breeding system of the critically endangered, Red List plant Fritillaria meleagris L. (Liliaceae), in the larger of the two remaining populations of the plant in SE Poland. Our observations indicated that, contrary to literature data, the species is not dichogamous nor is it obligatorily out-crossing. Selfing, although rare in natural populations, results in fully developed seeds. Flowers are visited by several insect species, mostly social and solitary bees. In spite of extremely low visitation rates to this early spring-flowering plant, the species is not pollen limited. Although the largest pollen loads are transferred by solitary bees, the key pollinators are bumblebees (mostly the most common species, Bombus terrestris and B. lapidarius) due to their seasonal and floral constancy, and tolerance of bad weather conditions. The current decline of the studied population seems not to be related to the species' pollination or breeding systems but to plant habitat loss. It is suggested, however, that in smaller populations, the species' dependence on generally rare pollinators and largely out-crossed breeding system may accelerate local extinction.

Nectar resorption and translocation in Cucurbita pepo L. and Platanthera chlorantha Custer (Rchb.).

Nectar resorption and sugar translocation were studied in Cucurbita pepo (Cucurbitaceae) and Platanthera chlorantha (Orchidaceae) by micro-autoradiography. In both species, nectar was resorbed in pollinated and unpollinated flowers and ovules developing into seeds were found to be the main sugar sink. In C. pepo, the mobility of resorbed sugars in pollinated female flowers was higher than in unpollinated ones; male flowers showed lower mobility of resorbed sugar. In P. chlorantha, radioactivity was detected in pollinated flowers below and above labelled unpollinated ones: the nearer the flower, the stronger the accumulation of label in developing fruits.

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.

Nectar-secreting floral stomata in Maxillaria anceps Ames & C. Schweinf. (Orchidaceae).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although it was generally assumed that Maxillaria spp. do not produce nectar, in recent years, nectar has been reported for a number of these orchids. Nevertheless, our current understanding of nectary structure and nectar secretion in Maxillaria is based solely on M. coccinea (Jacq.) L.O. Williams ex Hodge, which, since it shows many features characteristic of ornithophilous flowers, is atypical of this largely entomophilous genus. The aim of the present paper is to describe, for the first time, nectar secretion in a presumed entomophilous species of Maxillaria. METHODS: The structure of the nectary of M. anceps Ames & C. Schweinf., nectar composition and the process of nectar secretion were investigated using light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, histochemistry, refractometry and high performance liquid chromatography. KEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Nectar appears as droplets that are exuded by modified stomata borne upon the labellar callus and collects upon the labellum and at the base of the column-foot. Although such stomata are known to occur in a number of angiosperm families, this is the first time for them to be observed in orchids. The callus consists largely of parenchyma with raphides and is supplied by eight to ten collateral bundles. This tissue, together with the single-layered epidermis, seemingly contains terpenoids. During the bud stage, the callus cells contain an organelle complement consistent with secretory cells whereas by day 4 of anthesis, much of the cell is occupied by a vacuole. The nectar is sucrose-dominant but also contains low concentrations of glucose, fructose, free amino acids and possibly terpenoids. The high sugar concentration (approx. 66 %) is consistent with melittophily and may indicate that, like the majority of Maxillaria spp., M. anceps is visited by stingless bees (Meliponini).

Comparative account of nectary structure in Hexisea imbricata (Lindl.) Rchb.f. (Orchidaceae).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite the number of orchid species that are thought to be pollinated by hummingbirds, our knowledge of the nectaries of these orchids is based solely on a single species, Maxillaria coccinea (Jacq.) L.O. Williams ex Hodge. Nevertheless, it is predicted that such nectaries are likely to be very diverse and the purpose of this paper is to compare the nectary and the process of nectar secretion in Hexisea imbricata (Lindl.) Rchb.f. with that of Maxillaria coccinea so as to begin to characterize the nectaries of presumed ornithophilous Neotropical orchids. METHODS: Light microscopy, transmission electronmicroscopy and histochemistry were used to examine the histology and chemical composition of nectary tissue and the process of nectar secretion in H. imbricata. KEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The nectary of H. imbricata has a vascular supply, is bound by a single-layered epidermis with few stomata and comprises two or three layers of subepidermal secretory cells beneath which lie several layers of palisade-like parenchymatous cells, some of which contain raphides or mucilage. The secretory cells are collenchymatous and their walls have numerous pits with associated plasmodesmata. They contain the full complement of organelles characteristic of secretory cells as well as intravacuolar protein bodies but some of the secretory epidermal cells, following secretion, collapse and their anticlinal walls seem to fold. Nectar secretion is thought to be granulocrine and, following starch depletion, lipid droplets collect within the plastids. The nectar accumulates beneath the cuticle which subsequently forms swellings. Finally, nectar collects in the saccate nectary spur formed by the fusion of the margins of the labellum and the base of the column-foot. Thus, although the nectary of H. imbricata and M. coccinea have many features in common, they nevertheless display a number of important differences.

Nectary structure and nectar secretion in Maxillaria coccinea (Jacq.) L.O. Williams ex Hodge (Orchidaceae).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: It had previously been assumed that Maxillaria spp. produce no nectar. However, nectar has recently been observed in Maxillaria coccinea (Jacq.) L.O. Williams ex Hodge amongst other species. Furthermore, it is speculated that M. coccinea may be pollinated by hummingbirds. The aim of this paper is to investigate these claims further. METHODS: Light microscopy, histochemistry, scanning and transmission electron microscopy. KEY RESULTS: This is the first detailed account of nectar secretion in Maxillaria Ruiz & Pav. A 'faucet and sink' arrangement occurs in M. coccinea. Here, the nectary is represented by a small protuberance upon the ventral surface of the column and nectar collects in a semi-saccate reservoir formed by the fusion of the labellum and the base of the column-foot. The nectary comprises a single-layered epidermis and three or four layers of small subepidermal cells. Beneath these occur several layers of larger parenchyma cells. Epidermal cells lack ectodesmata and have a thin, permeable, reticulate cuticle with associated swellings that coincide with the middle lamella between adjoining epidermal cells. Nectar is thought to pass both along the apoplast and symplast and eventually through the stretched and distended cuticle. The secretory cells are collenchymatous, nucleated and have numerous pits with plasmodesmata, mitochondria, rough ER and plastids with many plastoglobuli but few lamellae. Subsecretory cells have fewer plastids than secretory cells. Nectary cells also contain large intravacuolar protein bodies. The floral morphology of M. coccinea is considered in relation to ornithophily and its nectary compared with a similar protuberance found in the entomophilous species M. parviflora (Poepp. & Endl.) Garay. CONCLUSIONS: Flowers of M. coccinea produce copious amounts of nectar and, despite the absence of field data, their morphology and the exact configuration of their parts argue strongly in favour of ornithophily.