Limited reproductive interference despite high rates of heterospecific pollen transfer among co‐occurring bat‐pollinated Burmeistera

• Published in: American journal of botany 2023-06, Vol.110 (6), p.e16199-n/a
• Main Authors: Moreira‐Hernández, Juan I., Ghai, Harmeet, Terzich, Nicholas, Zambrano‐Cevallos, Ricardo, Oleas, Nora H., Muchhala, Nathan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Allopatric populations; Animals; bat pollination; Bats; Burmeistera borjensis; Burmeistera ceratocarpa; Burmeistera glabrata; Campanulaceae; Chiroptera - physiology; Cross-pollination; Deposition; floral fitness; Flowers - physiology; Interference; Lobelioideae; Plant reproduction; Plants (botany); Pollen; Pollen - physiology; Pollination; Pollination - physiology; pollinator sharing; Pollinators; Population studies; Populations; Reproduction - physiology; reproductive isolation; seed production; Seeding; Seeds; Species; Sympatric populations; Sympatry; Tropical plants
• ISSN: 0002-9122; 1537-2197
• DOI: 10.1002/ajb2.16199

Premise Many tropical plants are bat‐pollinated, but these mammals often carry copious, multispecific pollen loads making bat‐pollinated plants susceptible to heterospecific pollen deposition and reproductive interference. We investigated pollen transfer between sympatric bat‐pollinated Burmeistera species and their response to heterospecific pollen deposition from each other. Methods We quantified conspecific and heterospecific pollen deposition for two populations of B. ceratocarpa, a recipient species in heterospecific pollen transfer interactions, that co‐occur with different donor relatives (B. borjensis and B. glabrata). We then used a cross‐pollination scheme using pollen mixtures to assess the species' responses to heterospecific pollen deposition in terms of fruit abortion and seed production. Results Burmeistera ceratocarpa received significantly more heterospecific pollen from its relatives at both sites than its own pollen was deposited on its relatives. However, heterospecific pollen deposition only affected seed production by B. borjensis and B. glabrata, but not by B. ceratocarpa, suggesting that early acting post‐pollination barriers buffer the latter against reproductive interference. Crosses between sympatric and allopatric populations suggest that the study species are fully isolated in sympatry, while isolation between allopatric populations is strong but incomplete. Conclusions We did not observe evidence of reproductive interference among our study species, because either heterospecific pollen deposition did not affect their seed production (B. ceratocarpa) or they receive heterospecific pollen only rarely (B. borjensis and B. glabrata). Frequent heterospecific pollen deposition might favor the evolution of barriers against foreign pollen (as in B. ceratocarpa) that alleviate the competitive costs of sharing low fidelity pollinators with co‐occurring species.