What Governs Protein Content of Pollen: Pollinator Preferences, Pollen-Pistil Interactions, or Phylogeny?
Pollen ranges from 2.5% to 61% protein content. Most pollen proteins are likely to be enzymes that function during pollen tube growth and subsequent fertilization, but the vast range of protein quantity may not reflect only pollen-pistil interactions. Because numerous vertebrate and invertebrate flo...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ecological monographs 2000-11, Vol.70 (4), p.617-643 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 643 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 617 |
container_title | Ecological monographs |
container_volume | 70 |
creator | Roulston, T'ai H. Cane, James H. Buchmann, Stephen L. |
description | Pollen ranges from 2.5% to 61% protein content. Most pollen proteins are likely to be enzymes that function during pollen tube growth and subsequent fertilization, but the vast range of protein quantity may not reflect only pollen-pistil interactions. Because numerous vertebrate and invertebrate floral visitors consume pollen for protein, protein content may influence floral host choice. Additionally, many floral visitors pollinate their host plants. If protein content influences pollinator visitation, then pollinators are hypothesized to select for increased protein content of host plants. We analyzed or gleaned from the literature crude pollen protein concentrations of 377 plant species from 93 plant families. Using this database, we compared pollen protein concentration with (1) pollination mode, (2) pollen collection by bees, and (3) distance from stigma to ovule, after accounting for phylogeny through paired phylogenetic comparisons and a nested ANOVA including taxonomic rank. We found that pollen protein concentrations were highly conserved within plant genera, families, and divisions. We found that bees did not collect pollen that was unusually rich in protein, whether they pollinated or merely robbed their host plant. Plant species with vibratile pollination systems, which require visitation by pollen-collecting bees in order to transfer pollen, tended to have very protein-rich pollen, but it was not clear whether this was due to plant enhancement of pollinator rewards or to the possession of very small pollen grains. We found that zoophilous species were not statistically richer in pollen protein than anemophilous species after accounting for phylogeny, although the three most species-rich anemophilous clades surveyed were generally poor in protein. Plant genera hosting specialist pollen-collecting bees did not have particularly protein-rich pollen. Both mass of protein per pollen grain and pollen grain volume were correlated with stigma-ovule distance. We suggest that the need for growing pollen tubes probably plays a more important role in determining pollen protein content than rewarding pollinators. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1890/0012-9615(2000)070[0617:wgpcop]2.0.co;2 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17769941</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>2657188</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>2657188</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6417-59c5ece74f112499dcd4cff49e8fe87688b0100b0c7f8b5e492581513503efac3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqdkVFrFDEUhYMouK7-h0FFFJztvZnJJKkPIkNdC5UdROmDSMimSTvLNFmTWcv-ezNuqSL44tMlnO-eE-4h5AhhgULCEQDSUjbIXlIAeAUcvkKD_PjmcmvC9htdwMKEN_QemSFjvOSA7D6Z3W09JI9S2sD0lnJG-vMrPRbL8MNGn4ouhtH2vmiDH60fi-CKLgyD9ce_Zu_1GGKmrLPRemPT61u97Po09kNxmveiNmMffNYm9mo_hEvr928fkwdOD8k-uZ1z8uX9yef2Q3m2Wp62785K09TISyYNs8by2iHSWsoLc1Eb52pphbOCN0KsAQHWYLgTa2ZrSZlAhhWDyjptqjl5cfDdxvB9Z9Oorvtk7DBob8MuKeS8kbLGDD79C9yEXfT5b4pWFVIU2XJOnv0LQlFJAY3Mc06WB8rEkFI-j9rG_lrHvUJQU2tqurea7q-m1lRuTU2tqfNl1646RRWodpVzf-fpZPTgovamT3d2omokZ5n6dKBu-sHu_zdMnbQfJ4BDndVs-vxgukm55T9NaQVc0YZxFKL6CXGgvW8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>233121850</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What Governs Protein Content of Pollen: Pollinator Preferences, Pollen-Pistil Interactions, or Phylogeny?</title><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>JSTOR</source><creator>Roulston, T'ai H. ; Cane, James H. ; Buchmann, Stephen L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Roulston, T'ai H. ; Cane, James H. ; Buchmann, Stephen L.</creatorcontrib><description>Pollen ranges from 2.5% to 61% protein content. Most pollen proteins are likely to be enzymes that function during pollen tube growth and subsequent fertilization, but the vast range of protein quantity may not reflect only pollen-pistil interactions. Because numerous vertebrate and invertebrate floral visitors consume pollen for protein, protein content may influence floral host choice. Additionally, many floral visitors pollinate their host plants. If protein content influences pollinator visitation, then pollinators are hypothesized to select for increased protein content of host plants. We analyzed or gleaned from the literature crude pollen protein concentrations of 377 plant species from 93 plant families. Using this database, we compared pollen protein concentration with (1) pollination mode, (2) pollen collection by bees, and (3) distance from stigma to ovule, after accounting for phylogeny through paired phylogenetic comparisons and a nested ANOVA including taxonomic rank. We found that pollen protein concentrations were highly conserved within plant genera, families, and divisions. We found that bees did not collect pollen that was unusually rich in protein, whether they pollinated or merely robbed their host plant. Plant species with vibratile pollination systems, which require visitation by pollen-collecting bees in order to transfer pollen, tended to have very protein-rich pollen, but it was not clear whether this was due to plant enhancement of pollinator rewards or to the possession of very small pollen grains. We found that zoophilous species were not statistically richer in pollen protein than anemophilous species after accounting for phylogeny, although the three most species-rich anemophilous clades surveyed were generally poor in protein. Plant genera hosting specialist pollen-collecting bees did not have particularly protein-rich pollen. Both mass of protein per pollen grain and pollen grain volume were correlated with stigma-ovule distance. We suggest that the need for growing pollen tubes probably plays a more important role in determining pollen protein content than rewarding pollinators.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-9615</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1557-7015</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1890/0012-9615(2000)070[0617:wgpcop]2.0.co;2</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ECMOAQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: Ecological Society of America</publisher><subject>anemophilous ; Animal and plant ecology ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Autoecology ; Bees ; Biological and medical sciences ; Flowers & plants ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Genera ; Honey bees ; Insect ecology ; Insect pollination ; Insect proteins ; Plant reproduction ; Plants ; Plants and fungi ; Pollen ; pollen protein ; pollen volume ; Pollinating insects ; Pollination ; pollinator reward ; Proteins ; style length ; zoophilous</subject><ispartof>Ecological monographs, 2000-11, Vol.70 (4), p.617-643</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2000 Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>2000 by the Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>2001 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Ecological Society of America Nov 2000</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6417-59c5ece74f112499dcd4cff49e8fe87688b0100b0c7f8b5e492581513503efac3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6417-59c5ece74f112499dcd4cff49e8fe87688b0100b0c7f8b5e492581513503efac3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2657188$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/2657188$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,1417,27869,27924,27925,45574,45575,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=836975$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Roulston, T'ai H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cane, James H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buchmann, Stephen L.</creatorcontrib><title>What Governs Protein Content of Pollen: Pollinator Preferences, Pollen-Pistil Interactions, or Phylogeny?</title><title>Ecological monographs</title><description>Pollen ranges from 2.5% to 61% protein content. Most pollen proteins are likely to be enzymes that function during pollen tube growth and subsequent fertilization, but the vast range of protein quantity may not reflect only pollen-pistil interactions. Because numerous vertebrate and invertebrate floral visitors consume pollen for protein, protein content may influence floral host choice. Additionally, many floral visitors pollinate their host plants. If protein content influences pollinator visitation, then pollinators are hypothesized to select for increased protein content of host plants. We analyzed or gleaned from the literature crude pollen protein concentrations of 377 plant species from 93 plant families. Using this database, we compared pollen protein concentration with (1) pollination mode, (2) pollen collection by bees, and (3) distance from stigma to ovule, after accounting for phylogeny through paired phylogenetic comparisons and a nested ANOVA including taxonomic rank. We found that pollen protein concentrations were highly conserved within plant genera, families, and divisions. We found that bees did not collect pollen that was unusually rich in protein, whether they pollinated or merely robbed their host plant. Plant species with vibratile pollination systems, which require visitation by pollen-collecting bees in order to transfer pollen, tended to have very protein-rich pollen, but it was not clear whether this was due to plant enhancement of pollinator rewards or to the possession of very small pollen grains. We found that zoophilous species were not statistically richer in pollen protein than anemophilous species after accounting for phylogeny, although the three most species-rich anemophilous clades surveyed were generally poor in protein. Plant genera hosting specialist pollen-collecting bees did not have particularly protein-rich pollen. Both mass of protein per pollen grain and pollen grain volume were correlated with stigma-ovule distance. We suggest that the need for growing pollen tubes probably plays a more important role in determining pollen protein content than rewarding pollinators.</description><subject>anemophilous</subject><subject>Animal and plant ecology</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Autoecology</subject><subject>Bees</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Flowers & plants</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Genera</subject><subject>Honey bees</subject><subject>Insect ecology</subject><subject>Insect pollination</subject><subject>Insect proteins</subject><subject>Plant reproduction</subject><subject>Plants</subject><subject>Plants and fungi</subject><subject>Pollen</subject><subject>pollen protein</subject><subject>pollen volume</subject><subject>Pollinating insects</subject><subject>Pollination</subject><subject>pollinator reward</subject><subject>Proteins</subject><subject>style length</subject><subject>zoophilous</subject><issn>0012-9615</issn><issn>1557-7015</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqdkVFrFDEUhYMouK7-h0FFFJztvZnJJKkPIkNdC5UdROmDSMimSTvLNFmTWcv-ezNuqSL44tMlnO-eE-4h5AhhgULCEQDSUjbIXlIAeAUcvkKD_PjmcmvC9htdwMKEN_QemSFjvOSA7D6Z3W09JI9S2sD0lnJG-vMrPRbL8MNGn4ouhtH2vmiDH60fi-CKLgyD9ce_Zu_1GGKmrLPRemPT61u97Po09kNxmveiNmMffNYm9mo_hEvr928fkwdOD8k-uZ1z8uX9yef2Q3m2Wp62785K09TISyYNs8by2iHSWsoLc1Eb52pphbOCN0KsAQHWYLgTa2ZrSZlAhhWDyjptqjl5cfDdxvB9Z9Oorvtk7DBob8MuKeS8kbLGDD79C9yEXfT5b4pWFVIU2XJOnv0LQlFJAY3Mc06WB8rEkFI-j9rG_lrHvUJQU2tqurea7q-m1lRuTU2tqfNl1646RRWodpVzf-fpZPTgovamT3d2omokZ5n6dKBu-sHu_zdMnbQfJ4BDndVs-vxgukm55T9NaQVc0YZxFKL6CXGgvW8</recordid><startdate>200011</startdate><enddate>200011</enddate><creator>Roulston, T'ai H.</creator><creator>Cane, James H.</creator><creator>Buchmann, Stephen L.</creator><general>Ecological Society of America</general><general>Duke University Press</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>HFXKP</scope><scope>IZSXY</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>R05</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200011</creationdate><title>What Governs Protein Content of Pollen: Pollinator Preferences, Pollen-Pistil Interactions, or Phylogeny?</title><author>Roulston, T'ai H. ; Cane, James H. ; Buchmann, Stephen L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c6417-59c5ece74f112499dcd4cff49e8fe87688b0100b0c7f8b5e492581513503efac3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>anemophilous</topic><topic>Animal and plant ecology</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Autoecology</topic><topic>Bees</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Flowers & plants</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Genera</topic><topic>Honey bees</topic><topic>Insect ecology</topic><topic>Insect pollination</topic><topic>Insect proteins</topic><topic>Plant reproduction</topic><topic>Plants</topic><topic>Plants and fungi</topic><topic>Pollen</topic><topic>pollen protein</topic><topic>pollen volume</topic><topic>Pollinating insects</topic><topic>Pollination</topic><topic>pollinator reward</topic><topic>Proteins</topic><topic>style length</topic><topic>zoophilous</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Roulston, T'ai H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cane, James H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buchmann, Stephen L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 17</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 30</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>University of Michigan</collection><jtitle>Ecological monographs</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Roulston, T'ai H.</au><au>Cane, James H.</au><au>Buchmann, Stephen L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What Governs Protein Content of Pollen: Pollinator Preferences, Pollen-Pistil Interactions, or Phylogeny?</atitle><jtitle>Ecological monographs</jtitle><date>2000-11</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>70</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>617</spage><epage>643</epage><pages>617-643</pages><issn>0012-9615</issn><eissn>1557-7015</eissn><coden>ECMOAQ</coden><abstract>Pollen ranges from 2.5% to 61% protein content. Most pollen proteins are likely to be enzymes that function during pollen tube growth and subsequent fertilization, but the vast range of protein quantity may not reflect only pollen-pistil interactions. Because numerous vertebrate and invertebrate floral visitors consume pollen for protein, protein content may influence floral host choice. Additionally, many floral visitors pollinate their host plants. If protein content influences pollinator visitation, then pollinators are hypothesized to select for increased protein content of host plants. We analyzed or gleaned from the literature crude pollen protein concentrations of 377 plant species from 93 plant families. Using this database, we compared pollen protein concentration with (1) pollination mode, (2) pollen collection by bees, and (3) distance from stigma to ovule, after accounting for phylogeny through paired phylogenetic comparisons and a nested ANOVA including taxonomic rank. We found that pollen protein concentrations were highly conserved within plant genera, families, and divisions. We found that bees did not collect pollen that was unusually rich in protein, whether they pollinated or merely robbed their host plant. Plant species with vibratile pollination systems, which require visitation by pollen-collecting bees in order to transfer pollen, tended to have very protein-rich pollen, but it was not clear whether this was due to plant enhancement of pollinator rewards or to the possession of very small pollen grains. We found that zoophilous species were not statistically richer in pollen protein than anemophilous species after accounting for phylogeny, although the three most species-rich anemophilous clades surveyed were generally poor in protein. Plant genera hosting specialist pollen-collecting bees did not have particularly protein-rich pollen. Both mass of protein per pollen grain and pollen grain volume were correlated with stigma-ovule distance. We suggest that the need for growing pollen tubes probably plays a more important role in determining pollen protein content than rewarding pollinators.</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>Ecological Society of America</pub><doi>10.1890/0012-9615(2000)070[0617:wgpcop]2.0.co;2</doi><tpages>27</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0012-9615 |
ispartof | Ecological monographs, 2000-11, Vol.70 (4), p.617-643 |
issn | 0012-9615 1557-7015 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17769941 |
source | Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals; Periodicals Index Online; JSTOR |
subjects | anemophilous Animal and plant ecology Animal, plant and microbial ecology Autoecology Bees Biological and medical sciences Flowers & plants Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Genera Honey bees Insect ecology Insect pollination Insect proteins Plant reproduction Plants Plants and fungi Pollen pollen protein pollen volume Pollinating insects Pollination pollinator reward Proteins style length zoophilous |
title | What Governs Protein Content of Pollen: Pollinator Preferences, Pollen-Pistil Interactions, or Phylogeny? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T03%3A28%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20Governs%20Protein%20Content%20of%20Pollen:%20Pollinator%20Preferences,%20Pollen-Pistil%20Interactions,%20or%20Phylogeny?&rft.jtitle=Ecological%20monographs&rft.au=Roulston,%20T'ai%20H.&rft.date=2000-11&rft.volume=70&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=617&rft.epage=643&rft.pages=617-643&rft.issn=0012-9615&rft.eissn=1557-7015&rft.coden=ECMOAQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1890/0012-9615(2000)070%5B0617:wgpcop%5D2.0.co;2&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E2657188%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=233121850&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=2657188&rfr_iscdi=true |