Variation in sexual reproduction in orchids and its ... interactions 2013/pollination/required...
Transcript of Variation in sexual reproduction in orchids and its ... interactions 2013/pollination/required...
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54. With 5 figures
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54 1
Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKBIJBiological Journal of the Linnean Society0024-4066The Linnean Society of London, 2005? 2005841154Original Article
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDSR. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]†Current address: HDR Engineering Inc., 2202 N. West Shore Blvd. Suite 250, Tampa, FL 33607, USA
Variation in sexual reproduction in orchids and its evolutionary consequences: a spasmodic journey to diversification
RAYMOND L. TREMBLAY1*, JAMES D. ACKERMAN2, JESS K. ZIMMERMAN3 and RICARDO N. CALVO4†
1Department of Biology, 100 carr. 908, University of Puerto Rico-Humacao, Humacao, Puerto Rico00971–43002Department of Biology, PO Box 23360, University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00931–33603Institute for Tropical Ecosystem Studies, University of Puerto Rico, PO Box 21910, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00931–19104Department of Biology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA
Received 8 April 2003; accepted for publication 1 April 2004
The great taxonomic diversity of the Orchidaceae is often attributed to adaptive radiation for specific pollinatorsdriven by selection for outcrossing. However, when one looks beyond the product to the process, the evidence for selec-tion is less than overwhelming. We explore this problem by discussing relevant aspects of orchid biology and askingwhich aspects of reproduction explain the intricate pollination mechanisms and diversification of this family. Wereaffirm that orchids are primarily pollination limited, the severity of which is affected by resource constraints. Fruitset is higher in temperate than in tropical species, and in species which offer pollinator rewards than those that donot. Reproductive success is skewed towards few individuals in a population and effective population sizes are oftensmall. Population structure, reproductive success and gene flow among populations suggest that in many situationsgenetic drift may be as important as selection in fostering genetic and morphological variation in this family.Although there is some evidence for a gradualist model of evolutionary change, we believe that the great diversityin this family is largely a consequence of sequential and rapid interplay between drift and natural selection. © 2005The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54.
ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: cost of reproduction – fruit set – gene flow – genetic drift – natural selection –Orchidaceae – pollinator limitations – resource limitation – speciation.
INTRODUCTION
Early in the history of evolutionary biology, orchidshad a prominent role in providing evidence for naturalselection. Their unusual pollination mechanismsattracted the attention of Darwin (1877), who arguedthat they offer strong evidence both for natural selec-tion and for the advantages of cross-pollination. Sincethen, much effort has been devoted to describing
orchid pollination mechanisms (e.g. van der Pijl &Dodson, 1966; van der Cingel, 1995). These reportscontribute to Darwin’s arguments, although it is notoften stated explicitly. Most agree that there is a linkbetween orchid pollination systems and orchid diver-sity, the distinction between cause and effect is oftennot clear. In this review we argue that the predomi-nance of pollination limitation has had a significanteffect on the evolution of the family and propose mech-anisms by which orchids may have diversified.
Natural selection should favour levels of reproduc-tive effort that yield optimal fruit and seed set. Manyhermaphroditic plants produce far more flowers than
2 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
fruits; orchids are superlative examples of this phe-nomenon. Low fruit-to-flower ratios in many plantsare believed to be the result of a paucity of resourcesavailable for fruit development. This assumptionforms the basis for the resource-limitation hypothesiswhereby consistently more flowers are pollinated thanfruits are matured (Stephenson, 1981; Lee, 1988).
Regulation of maternal investment occurs throughabortion of flowers and immature fruits (Lloyd, 1980;Stephenson, 1981) which may also be a mechanism forregulating seed quality (e.g. Lee & Bazzaz, 1982;Bookman, 1984; Stephenson & Winsor, 1986). Thehypothesis that resources are the ultimate limitingfactor in angiosperm reproduction has gained wide-spread acceptance because: (a) levels of fruit matura-tion remain unchanged following supplementarypollination, and (b) experimental reduction of resourceavailability causes elevated levels of fruit abortion(Stephenson, 1980, 1981; Bawa & Beach, 1981; Will-son & Burley, 1983). Thus, according to this view, vari-ation in reproductive success should be closely tied tothe severity of resource constraints.
Flowers that fail to become fruits are not alwayswasted as they may function to enhance plant fitnessthrough pollen donation (Willson & Rathcke, 1974).For example, in many milkweeds (Asclepias) fruit pro-duction is poorly correlated with the number of flowersin an inflorescence, but the amount of pollen removedby pollinators, an index of male fitness, is strongly cor-related with inflorescence size (Willson & Price, 1977;Bell, 1985; Queller, 1985). In fact, some researchersregard the corolla as primarily a ‘male’ organ (Bell,1985) because pollinator attractants influence fitnessthrough pollen donation to a much greater extent thanthrough seed production (Stanton, Snow & Handel,1986). However, some evidence suggests that largerinflorescences do not always result in proportionallyhigher male fitness (Campbell, 1989).
A common thread in these arguments is Bateman’sPrinciple (Bateman, 1948), which assigns the twoaspects of sexual selection (Darwin, 1871), intrasexualcompetition and mate choice, to the individual sexes.Noting the asymmetry in resource investment in off-spring between males and females, this principlestates that: (1) for males, reproduction is limited byaccess to mates, so that they must compete for oppor-tunities to mate with females, and (2) for females,reproduction is limited by resources and they shouldtherefore exercise a choice of mates to sire their rela-tively costly offspring.
Although Bateman (1948) and others mentioned thepossibility that sexual selection operated in plants aswell as in animals, it was much later before patternsof pollination and fruit maturation in plants wereinterpreted in this context (Janzen, 1977; Charnov,1979, 1982; Willson, 1979; Stephenson & Bertin,
1983). Despite the theoretical neatness and evidencefor resource constraints, variation in reproductive suc-cess in a number of species was found instead to becaused by low levels of pollination (Bierzychudek,1981a; Garwood & Horvitz, 1985; Hainsworth, Wolf &Mercier, 1985; Burd, 1994, and references therein),from which the pollinator limitation hypothesisemerged.
The evolutionary and ecological consequences of pol-linator limitation are likely to differ from those ofresource limitation. If reproduction is pollen limited,Bateman’s Principle is inapplicable (Stephenson &Bertin, 1983). Pollen-limited female reproduction isequivalent to saying that females are limited by accessto mates and therefore the potential for selective matechoice is reduced under these conditions (Willson &Burley, 1983). In fact, it would seem that any degree ofselectivity, not just that related to sexual selection, isof dubious value when the probability of a flowerreceiving pollen becomes small. While males may stillcompete amongst themselves for mates under pollen-limited reproduction (as do females), the intensity ofmale-male competition is restricted (Stephenson &Bertin, 1983; Tremblay, 1994).
The dichotomy of resource vs. pollination limitationmay be an oversimplification. Pollination limitedplants often show effects of resource constraints, so itmay be more realistic to say that such plants areaffected by both (Montalvo & Ackerman, 1987). Infact, the theoretical model of Calvo & Horvitz (1990),often cited as demonstrating pollination limitation,showed that the degree of limitation is affected by theseverity of resource constraints. Furthermore, therecan be substantial variations from year to year(Schemske & Horvitz, 1988; Vaughton, 1991).
The theoretical consequences of resource limitation,such as female choice, are not likely to be manifestedin combination with pollination constraints. Acker-man & Montalvo (1990) and Meléndez-Ackermanet al. (2000) noted that some plants are pollen limitedwithin a season but resource limited over their life-times. Under such conditions, the evolutionary conse-quences would be an optimization between increasedinvestment in pollinator attraction (and a reduction inallocation to ovules) and various aspects of life history,primarily longevity, age to first reproduction andreproductive effort within and across years (Ackerman& Montalvo, 1990).
Orchidaceae comprise c. one fifteenth of allangiosperms. While the intricate relationshipsbetween orchid flowers and their pollinators have longreceived a great deal of attention (Darwin, 1877; vander Pijl & Dodson, 1966; van der Cingel, 1995), rela-tively little consideration has been given to the factthat orchids often exhibit low fruit-to-flower ratios(Darwin, 1877; Ackerman, 1986a; Gill, 1989; Neiland
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 3
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
& Wilcock, 1998). Many studies in which researchershave performed supplemental pollination clearly indi-cate that these low ratios are best explained by polli-nator limitation (see Darwin, 1877; Ackerman, 1989;Zimmerman & Aide, 1989; Calvo & Horvitz, 1990).Thus, orchids provide an excellent illustration of theevolution of reproductive strategies under pollen-limitation. In this review we discuss the ecology andevolution of reproduction in orchids, pursuing ourprincipal argument that the predominance of pollina-tion limitation explains both their intricate pollinationmechanisms as well as the diversification of thefamily.
Following an overview of the essential details oforchid reproduction, we discuss the evidence thatreproductive success (both male and female) is polli-nation limited in orchids. We then summarize globalpatterns in orchid fruit reproduction, assembling datafrom almost 200 species of orchids. We then look at thecauses of pollinator limitation, resource constraintsand other ecological factors that have been shown tolimit orchid reproduction. We conclude with a discus-sion of the relationship between variation in reproduc-tive success, evolutionary processes, and the apparenthigh rates of speciation in the Orchidaceae.
OVERVIEW OF ORCHID FLORAL BIOLOGY
Darwin (1877) produced the first treatise on orchidpollination in order to corroborate his thesis that sex-ual reproduction (and cross-pollination in particular)is fundamental to organic evolution. He thoroughlydescribed the functional floral morphology of a num-ber of orchids. These essays provide indirect evidenceof selection for floral characteristics that enhance theprobability of cross-pollination. Much of the subse-quent literature has followed suit.
Three primary features, in combination, distinguishthe flowers of orchids from those of other families:
(1) The column, the fusion of male and female organswithin a single structure located at the centre ofthe flower.
(2) Pollinia, tightly packed masses of pollen found inmost orchids, transported as a unit by pollinators(Freudenstein & Rasmussen, 1997; Pacini &Hesse, 2002); a single visit is potentially sufficientto produce a full seed complement (e.g. Montalvo& Ackerman, 1987; Proctor & Harder, 1994; Naz-arov & Gerlach, 1997).
(3) Zygomorphy, whereby a labellum is often highlymodified to serve different functions (reviewed invan der Pijl & Dodson, 1966).
The diversity of floral shapes and functional modi-fications found across the family are largely the resultof variation in these three features.
Most orchids require an external pollinating agent(Dressler, 1981). Among non-autogamous species, wefind a wide variety of pollination systems: only abioticand mammalian pollination are absent. Animalgroups that pollinate orchids include birds, moths,butterflies, a wide variety of flies, numerous bees and,to a lesser extent, wasps. Hymenopterans aloneaccount for the pollination of around 60% of the family(van der Pijl & Dodson, 1966). There is also a widerange of levels of specificity in plant–pollinator inter-actions in the family (Tremblay, 1992). For example,the European Herminium monorchis was visited andpresumably pollinated by 69 insect species, includingmembers of four different orders: Lepidoptera,Coleoptera, Diptera and Hymenoptera (Nilsson,1979a). Epipactis palustris has as many as 103 speciesof potentially effective pollinators (Nilsson, 1978a;Tremblay, 1992). Nevertheless, high pollinator speci-ficity in orchid species is much more common: about60% of orchids have only one recorded pollinator(Tremblay, 1992). This relationship has been well doc-umented in a number of tropical orchids that are vis-ited by one or a few species of euglossine bee(Ackerman, 1983; Williams & Whitten, 1983; Roubik& Ackerman, 1987).
There are perhaps three kinds of floral rewardsamong orchids. The most common type is nutritional,consumed by the pollinators or their larvae. Nearly allsuch species are nectariferous, although some produceoils (Vogel, 1974; Steiner, 1989) and a handful offerpollen (Gregg, 1991b; Koryan & Endress, 2001) orpseudopollen (Dodson & Frymire, 1961; Goss, 1977;Davies, Winters & Turner, 2000). The second type ispeculiar to orchids pollinated by male euglossine bees.The bees are attracted by floral fragrances that theycollect for some as yet unknown aspect of mate attrac-tion (Dressler, 1981, 1982; Williams & Whitten, 1983;Eltz et al., 1999). A third type has not been well doc-umented. Some Maxillaria species produce waxes andresins (Dondon et al., 2002) that are collected bywasps and bees (Braga, 1977; M. Whitten, pers. comm.2002) and presumably used for nest construction.
Although most orchids offer some type of reward, anunusually high number of species offer no rewardwhatsoever. About a third of all Orchidaceae aredeceptive (van der Pijl & Dodson, 1966; Ackerman,1986a; Nilsson, 1992). Deception may be achieved bythe flowers’ resemblance to larval food, or to the nec-tariferous flowers of other families, or even to femaleindividuals of the insect pollinator (reviewed in Dafni,1984; Ackerman, 1986a; Nilsson, 1992).
Other distinguishing features of orchid reproductivebiology include delayed ovule development (Wirth &Withner, 1959), the large number (20 up to as many as4 million) of dust-like seeds contained in a single cap-sule (Arditti & Ghani, 2000), and their dependence on
4 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
fungal associations for germination and seedlingestablishment (Batty et al., 2001; McKendrick et al.,2002; Rasmussen & Whigham, 2002; Selosse et al.,2002).
POLLINATION LIMITATION IN ORCHIDS
Pollination limitation of sexual reproduction in plantsmay be detected experimentally when enhanced polli-nation elevates seed or fruit set above natural levels(Burd, 1994). Here, we consider three aspects of pollenlimitation: (1) frequency - when pollinator abundanceis low, some flowers or individual plants may never bevisited; (2) quantity - even when pollinator visits arefrequent, the amount of pollen actually reaching thestigmas or ovules may be low; (3) quality - the sourceof pollen (whether it arrives from the same plant or aclose relative, or from an unrelated donor) can influ-ence fruit and seed set and even the vigour of offspring(Charlesworth & Charlesworth, 1987).
To test for pollen limitation on fruit and seed set onemust increase pollen availability to flowers in natu-rally occurring populations. Supplemental pollinationis best done by using all the flowers on an individual.This reveals whether or not the plant becomesstressed by eliminating the possibility that it shuntsresources away from less intensely pollinated flowers
in favour of the experimentally pollinated ones[Stephenson, 1981; but see Zimmerman & Pyke(1988)].
The source of pollen used in supplemental pollina-tion can be problematic because of the potential forinbreeding and outbreeding depression of fruit andseed set (Waser & Price, 1991). We distinguishbetween cross- and self-pollination because rese-archers rarely note how supplementary crossed pollenwas collected (e.g. at what distance from targetplants).
EVIDENCE FROM THE LITERATURE
Data for this analysis and that presented in subse-quent sections were gleaned from an exhaustivereview of the literature (including Biological Abstractsand the Science Citation Index). Data were availablefor 15 species of non-autogamous orchids in whichresearchers tested for pollination limitation of fruit setby cross-pollinating all the flowers on individualplants growing in field populations (Table 1), compar-ing natural levels of fruit set with those obtained fromsupplemental cross-pollination. As researchers rarelystated which plants were used for pollen sources,these data do not control for variation in pollen qualityother than that self-pollen was not used. However, the
Table 1. Natural fruit set and hand cross-pollination of non-autogamous orchids. In all studies included here, theexperiments were performed by cross-pollinating all flowers on individual plants in field populations. Differences betweennatural and experimental groups are statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed rank test, tied Z-value 3.180, P = 0.002)
Natural fruit Cross-pollinationSpecies set (%) fruit set (%) References
Aspasia principissa Rchb. f. 8.4–10.6 61.2 Zimmerman & Aide, 1989Calopogon tuberosus (L.) Britton,
Sterns & Poggenb.12.4–39.9 83.0 Firmage & Cole, 1988
Calypso bulbosa var. occidentalis (L.)Oakes
11 100 Ackerman, 198121–48 50–100 Alexandersson & Ågren, 1996
Cyclopogon cranichoides (Griseb.) Schltr. 26.4–61.6 96.5–97.5 Calvo, 1990aCypripedium acaule Ait. 0–12.9 75.0–100 Davis, 1986; Gill, 1989; Primack &
Hall, 1990; O’Connell & Johnston,1998
Dendrobium toressae (Bailey) Dockrill 19.0 88.0 Bartareau, 1994Encyclia cordigera (Humb., Bonpl. &
Kunth) Dressler6.8 85.8 Janzen et al., 1980
Epidendrum ciliare L. 4.5–15.0 32.9–49.2 Ackerman & Montalvo, 1990Isotria vertcilata Muhl. ex Willd. 10.0 25.0 Mehrhoff, 1983Orchis boryi Rchb. f. 26.3–50.2 98.8 Gumbert & Kunze, 2001Platanthera blephariglottis (Willd.) Lindl. 30.7–80.6 98.6 Cole & Firmage, 1984Stelis argentata Lindl. 2.2 29.2 Christensen, 1992Tipularia discolor (Pursh) Nutt. 18.0–25.0 47.0–89.0 Snow & Whigham, 1989Tolumnia variegata (Sw.) Braem 4.0 88.0 Ackerman & Montero Oliver, 1985Mean (SE) 23.1 (6.6) 71.2 (8.5)
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 5
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
evidence for pollination limitation of fruit set isunequivocal. In all cases studied, orchids given sup-plemental pollination produced higher levels of fruitset than those pollinated naturally (Wilcoxon sign-rank test, Z = 3.180, P = 0.002). These differences wereoften quite substantial. Levels of fruit set between twoand ten times those seen with natural pollination
were common when plants were hand pollinated. Inthe case of Tolumnia variegata, hand pollinations pro-duced a 50-fold increase compared with natural polli-nation (Ackerman & Montero Oliver, 1985; Calvo,1993).
In studies on 42 additional orchid species (Table 2),researchers performed experimental hand pollination
Table 2. Additional studies of non-autogamous orchids that suggest pollen limitation of fruit set. These studies includethose in which not all flowers on an individual were experimentally pollinated or in which hand-pollination was notperformed on field populations
Species Reference
Aspidogyne argentea (Vell.) Garay Singer & Sazima, 2001bAspidogyne longicornu (Cogn.) Garay Singer & Sazima, 2001bAerangis ellisii (Rchb. f.) Schltr. Nilsson & Rabakonandrianina, 1988Brassavola nodosa (L.) Lindl. Schemske, 1980Catasetum viridiflavum Hook. Zimmerman, Roubik & Ackerman,1989Cleistes divaricata (L.) Ames Gregg, 1989Comparettia falcata Poepp. & Endl. Rodríguez-Robles, Meléndez & Ackerman, 1992Dactylorhiza sambucina (L.) Soó Nilsson, 1980D. incarnata (L.) Soó M. T. Kuitunen, pers. comm.Disa uniflora Berg Johnson & Bond, 1992Diuris maculata R. Br. Beardsell et al., 1986Goodyera oblongifolia Raf. Ackerman, 1975; Kallunki, 1976Ionopsis utricularioides (Sw.) Lindl. Montalvo & Ackerman, 1987Isotria verticillata Muhl. ex Willd. Mehrhoff, 1983Liparis lilifolia (L.) Rich. ex Lindl. Whigham & O’Neil, 1991Listera cordata (L.) R. Br. Ackerman & Mesler, 1979L. ovata (L.) R. Br. Nilsson, 1981Malaxis massonii Ridl. Aragón & Ackerman, 2001Myrosmodes cochleare Garay Berry & Calvo, 1991Orchis collina Sol. ex Russ Dafni & Ivri, 1979O. coriophora L. Dafni & Ivri, 1979O. laxifolia Lam. A. Fritz, pers. comm.O. mascula L. Nilsson, 1983bO. morio L. Nilsson, 1984O. spectabilis (L.) Raf. Dieringer, 1982O. spitzelli Saut. ex Koch Fritz, 1990Paphiopedilum virens (Rchb. f.) Pfitz. Atwood, 1985P. volonteanum (Sand.) Stein Atwood, 1985Platanthera bifolia (L.) Rich. Nilsson, 1983aP. chlorantha (Custer) Rchb. Nilsson, 1983aP. ciliaris (L.) Lindl. Robertson & Wyatt, 1990P. okuboi Makino Inoue, 1985P. stricta Lindl. Patt et al., 1989Prescottia densiflora Lindl. Singer & Sazima, 2001aP. plantaginea Lindl. Singer & Sazima, 2001aP. stachyodes Lindl. Singer & Sazima, 2001aPogonia japonica Rchb. f. Matsui, Ushimaru & Fujita, 2001Prosthechea cochleata (L.) W. E. Higgins J. K. Zimmerman & J. D. Ackerman, unpubl. dataPsychilis krugii (Bello) Sauleda Ackerman, 1989Schomburgkia tibicinis Bateman Rico-Gray & Thien, 1987Thelymitra epipactoides F. Muell. Cropper & Calder, 1990Thelymitra antennifera (Lindl.) Hook. f. Dafni & Calder, 1987
6 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
without specifying whether: (1) it was applied to allthe flowers on an individual; (2) they had used plantsnot growing under normal field conditions, or (3) theyhad used pollen from the same plant. While thesestudies are not unequivocal demonstrations of polli-nation limitation, all but one indicate that fruit set inthese orchids may be pollen-limited in the field. Thesingle exception is Inoue’s (1985) study of Platantheramandarinorum spp. hachijoensis, in which naturallevels of fruit set often approached 100% and couldnot therefore be raised through supplementalpollination.
While representing only a tiny proportion of the20 000 or so species, these results were obtained fromtaxa across the taxonomic spectrum of the family andstrongly suggest that pollination limitation of fruit setis a common characteristic of non-autogamousorchids.
GLOBAL PATTERNS OF FRUIT SET
In addition to summarizing data on pollination limi-tation, we compiled a larger data set on patterns offruit set (Table 3). This was done in order to comparelevels of fruit set among temperate and tropical local-ities, compare different pollinator types, explore thecontrasts between deceptive and rewarding plants andto contrast different inflorescence sizes. The globalpatterns of fruit set provide a framework for discus-sion of the ecological and evolutionary implications oforchid reproduction.
Data on natural levels of fruit set and results ofhand pollination were compiled from the literature for216 non-autogamous species (92 genera). These spe-cies are representative of the diversity of geographicaldistribution, habitat and pollination systems in theOrchidaceae. There are species from all continentswhere orchids are known, including 123 temperateand 93 tropical species. Both terrestrial and epiphyticspecies, as well as rewarding (N = 84) and deceptive(N = 132) species were considered. Most pollinatorgroups are also included.
In compiling the data, we had to accommodate dif-ferences among studies in scope, sample size, numberof populations and years, and ways of reporting fruitset. For each species, one value of natural and exper-imental fruit set was sought. For studies that includedmore than one population and/or year, and for speciesthat have been studied by more than one author, themedian of all reported fruit set values was used. Fruitset was reported either as the ratio between the totalnumber of fruit and the total number of flowers in thesample or as the average of all individuals in the sam-ple. For hand pollination, the largest value reportedwas included in order to denote the highest fruit setachievable.
Because data on inflorescence size are not consis-tently reported, we assigned each species a qualitativeindex according to the range of sizes most frequentlyrepresented. Species that had an average of less thanten flowers per inflorescence were assigned a value of0, and species with more than ten flowers had a valueof 1. In this paper, inflorescence size is broadly definedas the total number of flowers produced throughoutthe reproductive season. To facilitate comparison, pol-linators were grouped in broad categories: bees,wasps, moths, butterflies, ants, flies, birds, beetles andgeneralist.
A three-way non-parametric ANOVA with interac-tion (Iman, 1974; Zar, 1996) was used to determinewhether latitude (tropical and temperate), presence orabsence of pollinator reward, and inflorescence size(less than vs. more than ten flowers/inflorescence),had a significant effect on median fruit set. Valueswere ranked before analysis.
Pollinator reward and latitude had a significanteffect on median fruit set (Table 4). Median fruit set intemperate species (34.6 ± 2.3; N = 123) is more thantwice that of tropical species (17.0 ± 2.1; N = 91);deceptively pollinated species have a per cent fruit set(20.7 ± 1.7; N = 130) half that of rewarding species(37.1 ± 3.2; N = 84). Inflorescence size and none of theinteractions were significant (Table 4). In general,most species have low fruit set (Fig. 1).
FRUITING FAILURE OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
Species vary in the percentage of flowering plants thatfail to set fruit (Table 3). Sample size for this analysisis limited because few surveys have reported fruitingfailure (temperate N = 18, tropical N = 18; deceptiveN = 28, rewarding N = 8). A two-way non-parametricANOVA with interaction of geographical area and pol-lination mechanism was performed on the ranked
Figure 1. Frequency distribution of median fruit set of216 orchids using data from Table 3.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Freq
uenc
y
0 20 40 60 80 100Per cent fruit set
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 7
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Tab
le 3
.R
epro
duct
ive
succ
ess
of n
on-a
uto
gam
ous
orch
ids.
PR
, per
cen
t po
llin
aria
rem
oved
. PF
S, p
er c
ent
fru
it s
et (
open
an
d h
and
poll
inat
ion
). I
S, i
nfl
ores
cen
cesi
ze: 0
, les
s th
an t
en fl
ower
s; 1
, mor
e th
an t
en fl
ower
s. F
F, p
er c
ent
nu
mbe
r of
pla
nts
wh
ich
do
not
set
fru
its
(fru
itin
g fa
ilu
re).
PG
, pol
lin
ator
gro
ups
: 0, m
oth
s; 1
,be
es;
2, w
asps
; 3,
flie
s; 4
, ge
ner
alis
t; 5
, bu
tter
flie
s; 6
, an
ts;
7, b
irds
; 8,
bee
tles
.
PF
S
Spe
cies
PR
open
han
dIS
FF
PG
Ref
eren
ces
TE
MP
ER
AT
E, D
EC
EP
TIV
E
An
acam
ptis
pyr
amid
alis
(L
.) R
ich
.–
35.6
–1
–1
Nei
lan
d &
Wil
cock
, 199
8A
noe
ctoc
hil
us
form
osan
us
Hay
ata
––
86.7
––
–S
hia
u e
t al
., 20
02A
plec
tru
m h
yem
ale
(Mu
lh. e
x W
illd
.) T
orr.
–56
.986
.70
–1
Hog
an, 1
983
Are
thu
sa b
ulb
osa
L.
–15
.4–
084
.61
Th
ien
& M
arck
s, 1
972
Ble
till
a st
riat
a (T
hu
nb.
) R
chb.
f.
–23
.8–
020
.04
Su
giu
ra, 1
995
Cal
aden
ia t
enta
cula
ta S
chlt
dl.
40.0
29.0
100.
00
–2
Pea
kall
& B
eatt
ie, 1
996
Cal
opog
on t
ube
rosu
s (L
.) B
ritt
on, S
tern
s–
19.3
88.0
0–
1F
irm
age
& C
ole,
198
8; T
hie
n &
Mar
cks,
197
2 &
Pog
gen
b.C
alyp
so b
ulb
osa
(L.)
Oak
es v
ar. a
mer
ican
a(R
. Br.
) L
uer
–1.
010
0.0
099
.01
Boy
den
, 198
2
Cal
ypso
bu
lbos
a (L
.) O
akes
var
. occ
iden
tali
s(H
olz.
) C
alde
r &
Tay
lor
27.0
11.0
100.
00
89.0
1A
cker
man
, 198
1
Cep
hal
anth
era
lon
gifo
lia
(L.)
Fri
tsch
–30
.2–
1–
1D
afn
i &
Ivr
i, 19
81b
Cep
hal
ante
ra r
ubr
a (L
.) R
ich
.–
5.5
–0
–1
Nil
sson
, 198
3cC
erat
and
ra g
ran
difl
ora
Lin
dl.
–55
.697
.71
–8
Ste
iner
, 199
8C
hlo
raea
lam
ella
te L
indl
.–
15.6
76.0
1–
4L
ehn
ebac
h &
Riv
eros
, 200
3C
leis
tes
div
aric
ata
(L.)
Am
es–
57.9
95.0
040
.01
Gre
gg, 1
989,
199
1a, b
Cor
ysan
thes
tri
loba
Hoo
k. f
.–
2.5
–0
–0
Fit
zger
ald,
(ci
ted
in D
arw
in, 1
877)
Cyc
lopo
gon
cra
nic
hoi
des
(G
rise
b.)
Sch
ltr.
–39
.0–
0–
–C
alvo
, 199
0bC
ypri
ped
ium
aca
ule
Ait
.13
.15.
410
0.0
096
.81
Pri
mac
k &
Hal
l, 19
90; G
ill,
1989
;D
avis
, 198
6; O
’Con
nel
l &
Joh
nst
on, 1
998
Cyp
ripe
diu
m c
alce
olu
s L
.–
10.5
–0
93.0
1N
ilss
on, 1
979b
; Ku
ll &
Ku
ll, 1
991;
Ku
ll, 1
998
–33
.096
.00
–1
Bli
von
a, 2
002
Cyp
ripe
diu
m c
alif
orn
icu
m A
. Gra
y–
76.0
–0
7.2
1K
ippi
ng,
197
1C
ypri
ped
ium
can
did
um
Mu
hl.
ex W
illd
.–
11.6
–0
––
Car
roll
, Mil
ler
& W
hit
son
, 198
4;C
urt
is, 1
954
Cyp
ripe
diu
m f
asci
cula
tum
Kel
logg
ex
S.W
atso
n–
47.0
–0
–2
Kip
pin
g, 1
971
–28
.963
.20
–2
Lip
ow, B
ern
har
dt &
Van
ce, 2
002
Cyp
ripe
diu
m m
acra
nth
os S
w. v
ar.
rebu
nen
se (
Ku
do)
Miy
abe
& K
udo
Sit
e 1
–8.
325
.00
91.7
1S
ite
2–
1.2
–0
98.8
1S
ugi
ura
et
al.,
2001
8 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Cyp
ripe
diu
m m
onta
nu
m D
ougl
asex
Lin
dl.
–62
.5–
0–
1C
olem
an, 1
995
Cyp
ripe
diu
m r
egin
ae W
alte
r–
15.9
100.
00
–3
Pro
ctor
, 199
8–
29.0
–0
–3
K. B
. Gre
gg, u
npu
bl. d
ata
Dac
tylo
rhiz
a fu
sch
ii (
Dru
ce)
Ver
m.
–39
.1–
0–
1D
afn
i &
Woo
dell
, 198
6; N
eila
nd
& W
ilco
ck,
1998
; Wai
te, H
opki
ns
& H
itch
ings
, 199
1D
acty
lorh
iza
inca
rnat
a (L
.) S
oó–
42.0
–1
–1
Lam
mi
& K
uit
un
en, 1
995
Mat
tila
& K
uit
un
en, 2
000
Dac
tylo
rhiz
a la
ppon
ica
(Lae
st. e
x H
artm
an)
Soó
–16
.3–
1–
1N
eila
nd
& W
ilco
ck, 1
998
Dac
tylo
rhiz
a m
acu
lata
(L
.) S
oó–
34.5
–1
–1
Nei
lan
d &
Wil
cock
, 199
8D
acty
lorh
iza
purp
ure
lla
(T. &
T. A
.S
teph
enso
n)
Soó
–32
.6–
––
1N
eila
nd
& W
ilco
ck, 1
998
Dac
tylo
rhiz
a sa
mbu
cin
a (L
.) S
oó–
8.0
100.
01
–1
Nil
sson
, 198
0; P
ette
rsso
n &
Nil
sson
, 198
3D
isa
atri
capi
lla
(Th
un
b.)
Sw
.–
64.7
–0
–2
Ste
iner
, Wh
iteh
ead
& J
ohn
son
, 199
4D
isa
biva
lvat
a (L
. f.)
Du
ran
d &
Sch
inzl
.–
56.5
–0
–2
Ste
iner
, Wh
iteh
ead
& J
ohn
son
, 199
4D
isa
ferr
ugi
nea
(T
hu
nb.
) S
w.
–69
.5–
0–
5Jo
hn
son
, 199
4D
isa
gran
difl
ora
L.
–6.
4–
0–
–D
arw
in, 1
877
Dis
a ra
cem
osa
L. f
.23
.030
.310
0.0
1–
1Jo
hn
son
et
al.,
1998
Dis
a te
nu
ifol
ia (
Th
un
b.)
Lin
der
39.6
43.3
81.1
0–
1Jo
hn
son
& S
tein
er, 1
994
Dis
a ve
nos
a S
w.
49.1
13.6
100.
00
–1
Joh
nso
n e
t al
., 19
98D
iuri
s m
acu
lata
R. B
r.36
.519
.010
0.0
1–
1B
eard
sell
et
al.,
1986
Dra
kaea
gly
ptod
on F
itz
–13
.9–
0–
2P
eaka
ll, 1
990
Gal
eari
s sp
ecta
bili
s (L
.) R
af.
–2.
8–
–D
ieri
nge
r, 19
82H
ersc
hel
ian
thes
gra
min
ifol
ia (
Spr
eng.
)D
ura
nd
& S
chin
zl.
52.3
63.0
–0
–1
Joh
nso
n, 1
993
Isot
ria
vert
icil
lata
Mu
hl.
ex W
illd
.–
5.5
43.0
094
.71
Meh
rhof
f, 19
83L
epor
ella
fim
bria
ta (
Lin
dl.)
A. S
. Geo
rge
–17
.8–
0–
6P
eaka
ll, 1
989a
; Pea
kall
, Bea
ttie
& J
ames
, 198
7L
ipar
is l
ilif
olia
(L
.) R
ich
. ex
Lin
dl.
–1.
662
.81
–3
Wh
igh
am &
O’N
eill
, 199
1O
phry
s ar
anif
era
Hu
ds.
–0.
03–
––
–D
elph
ino
in D
arw
in, 1
877
Oph
rys
bom
byli
flor
a L
ink
–21
.4–
0–
1N
eila
nd
& W
ilco
ck, 1
998
Oph
rys
inse
ctif
era
L.
–8.
7–
0–
1N
eila
nd
& W
ilco
ck, 1
998
Oph
rys
sph
egod
es M
ill.
–21
.1–
0–
1N
eila
nd
& W
ilco
ck, 1
998
Oph
rys
ten
thre
din
ifer
a W
illd
.–
55.5
–0
–1
Nei
lan
d &
Wil
cock
, 199
8
PF
S
Spe
cies
PR
open
han
dIS
FF
PG
Ref
eren
ces
Tab
le 3
.C
onti
nu
ed
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 9
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Oph
rys
vern
ixia
Bro
t.–
7.6
–0
–2
Nei
lan
d &
Wil
cock
, 199
8O
rch
is b
oryi
Rch
b. f
.43
.648
.595
.81
–1
Gu
mbe
rt &
Ku
nze
, 200
1O
rch
is c
aspi
a T
rau
tv.
–48
.2–
1–
1D
afn
i, 19
83O
rch
is c
olli
na
Sol
. ex
Ru
ss–
30.0
100.
01
–1
Daf
ni
& I
vri,
1979
Orc
his
gal
ilae
a (B
orn
m. &
M. S
chu
lze)
Sch
ltr.
–30
.0–
1–
1B
ino,
Daf
ni
& M
eeu
se, 1
982
Orc
his
isr
aeli
tica
H. B
aum
ann
& D
afn
i–
38.1
–0
–1
Daf
ni
& I
vri,
1981
aO
rch
is i
tali
ca P
oir.
–14
.3–
1–
1N
eila
nd
& W
ilco
ck, 1
998
Orc
his
lax
iflor
a L
am. s
sp. p
alu
stri
s(J
acq.
) A
sch
. & G
raeb
n.
–23
.010
0.0
1–
1A
.-L
. Fri
tz, p
ers.
com
m.
Orc
his
mas
cula
L.
52.0
7.8
100.
01
50.0
1N
ilss
on 1
983b
, Joh
nso
n &
Nil
sson
, 199
9O
rch
is m
ilit
aris
L.
–13
.6–
1–
1Fa
rrel
l 19
85, S
pren
gel
(cit
ed i
n D
arw
in, 1
877)
–21
.5–
1–
1K
isse
leva
& T
imon
in, 2
001
Orc
his
mor
io L
.–
20.2
100.
01
55.0
1N
ilss
on, 1
984
Orc
his
pal
len
s L
.–
13.0
–1
–1
Vöt
h, 1
982
(cit
ed i
n v
an d
er C
inge
l, 19
95)
Orc
his
pap
ilio
nac
ea L
.–
50.0
–0
–1
Vog
el, 1
972
(cit
ed i
n D
afn
i, 19
87)
Orc
his
pu
rpu
rea
Hu
ds.
–5.
5–
0–
1N
eila
nd
& W
ilco
ck, 1
998
Orc
his
spi
tzel
ii S
aut.
ex
Koc
h–
20.4
100.
01
24.8
1F
ritz
, 199
0P
ogon
ia o
phio
glos
soid
es (
L.)
Ker
–28
.610
0.0
071
.41
Bol
and
& S
cott
, 199
1; P
roct
or, 1
998
Sep
apia
s co
rdig
era
L.
–64
.5–
0–
1N
eila
nd
& W
ilco
ck, 1
998
Ser
apia
s pa
rvifl
ora
Par
l.–
58.6
–0
–1
Nei
lan
d &
Wil
cock
, 199
8S
erap
ias
vom
erac
ea B
riq.
–63
.8–
0–
1D
afn
i, Iv
ri &
Bra
ntj
es, 1
981
Ste
ven
iell
a sa
tyro
ides
(S
teve
n)
Sch
ltr.
69.0
––
––
Naz
arov
, 199
5T
hel
ymit
ra e
pipa
ctoi
des
F. M
uel
l.–
35.0
––
–4
Cro
pper
, Cal
der
& T
omki
nso
n, 1
989
Th
elym
itra
ixi
oid
es S
w.
10.8
28.0
––
–4
Syd
es &
Cal
der,
1993
Tri
phor
a tr
ian
thop
hor
a (S
w.)
Ryd
b.–
5.0
90.0
0–
1W
illi
ams,
199
4
TE
MP
ER
AT
E, R
EW
AR
D
Aci
anth
us
sin
clai
rii
Hoo
k. f
.–
81.6
––
––
Ch
eese
man
, cit
ed i
n D
arw
in, 1
877
Are
thu
sa b
ulb
osa
L.
–5.
0–
0–
1T
hie
n &
Mar
cks,
197
2C
rem
astr
a ap
pen
dic
ula
ta D
. Don
–1.
795
.51
–1
Ch
un
g &
Ch
un
g, 2
003
var.
vari
abil
is B
lum
e–
1.8
–1
–1
Su
giu
ra, 1
996a
Cym
bid
ium
goe
rin
gii
(Rch
b. f
.) R
chb.
f.
–0.
5–
1–
?C
hu
ng
& C
hu
ng,
200
3D
acty
lorh
iza
fuch
sii
(Dru
ce)
Soó
–53
.7–
1–
1D
afn
i &
Woo
dell
, 198
6D
isa
un
iflor
a B
erg
52.0
45.5
–0
–5
Joh
nso
n &
Bon
d, 1
992
Val
ley
–20
.069
.50
–5
Gor
ge–
71.0
78.5
0–
5E
pipa
ctis
con
sim
ilis
D. D
on–
15.5
–1
–3
Ivri
& D
afn
i ,1
977
Epi
pact
is h
elle
bori
ne
(L.)
Cra
ntz
41.0
––
1–
3P
iper
& W
aite
, 198
8
PF
S
Spe
cies
PR
open
han
dIS
FF
PG
Ref
eren
ces
10 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Epi
pact
is p
alu
stri
s (L
.) C
ran
tz64
.062
.3–
0–
4N
ilss
on, 1
978a
Epi
pact
is t
hu
nbe
rgii
A. G
ray
–54
.7–
1–
3S
ugi
ura
, 199
6bG
ood
yera
fol
iosa
(K
un
tze)
Ben
th. e
x H
ook.
f. v
ar. m
axim
owic
zian
a M
akin
o17
.557
.1–
0–
1S
ugi
ura
& Y
amag
uch
i, 19
97
Goo
dye
ra o
blon
gifo
lia
Raf
. –
52.6
100.
01
0.0
1A
cker
man
197
5; K
allu
nki
, 197
6G
ood
yera
pro
cera
Ker
-Gaw
l.75
.092
1–
1W
ong
& S
un
, 199
9G
ood
yera
rep
ens
(L.)
R. B
r.–
68.3
–1
–1
Nei
lan
d &
Wil
cock
, 199
8G
ood
yera
rep
ens
(L.)
R. B
r. va
r.op
hio
ides
Fer
nal
d–
49.7
–1
–1
Kal
lun
ki, 1
981
Goo
dye
ra t
esse
lata
Lod
d.–
41.0
–1
–1
Kal
lun
ki, 1
981
Gym
nad
enia
con
opse
a (L
.) R
. Br.
–63
.3–
1–
–N
eila
nd
& W
ilco
ck, 1
998
Her
min
ium
mon
orch
is (
L.)
R. B
r.59
.083
.0–
1–
4N
ilss
on, 1
979a
Lip
aris
ku
mok
iri
Mae
k.–
11.2
–1
––
Oh
et
al.,
2001
Lip
aris
mak
inoa
ma
Sch
ltr.
–0.
1–
1–
–O
h e
t al
., 20
01L
ipar
is r
eflex
a (R
. Br.
) L
indl
.–
22.3
–1
–3
Wal
lace
, 197
4L
iste
ra c
ord
ata
(L.)
R. B
r.–
69.5
85.0
1–
4A
cker
man
& M
esle
r, 19
79–
20.7
100.
01
–4
Mel
énde
z-A
cker
man
& A
cker
man
, 200
1L
iste
ra o
vata
(L
.) R
. Br.
–1.
010
0.0
1–
4N
ilss
on, 1
981
Mic
roti
s pa
rvifl
ora
R. B
r.86
.096
.6–
1–
6P
eaka
ll &
Bea
ttie
, 198
9M
onad
enia
oph
ryd
ea L
indl
.94
.093
.010
0.0
1–
0Jo
hn
son
, 199
5O
rch
is c
orio
phor
a L
.–
78.0
100.
01
–1
Daf
ni
& I
vri,
1979
Orc
his
spe
ctab
ilis
L.
–5.
010
0.0
0–
1D
ieri
nge
r, 19
82O
reor
chis
pat
ens
Lin
dl.
90.7
32.9
–1
0.0
4S
ugi
ura
, Oka
jim
a &
Mae
ta, 1
997
Pla
tan
ther
a bi
foli
a (L
.) R
ich
.60
.159
.410
0.0
1–
1N
ilss
on, 1
983a
; Mat
tila
, 200
0P
lata
nth
era
blep
har
iglo
ttis
(W
illd
.)L
indl
.–
46.8
100.
01
2.0
0S
mit
h &
Sn
ow 1
976;
Col
e &
Fir
mag
e, 1
984
Pla
tan
ther
a ch
lora
nth
a (C
ust
.) R
chb.
49.3
51.8
100.
01
–1
Nil
sson
197
8b, 1
983a
Pla
tan
ther
a ci
liar
is (
L.)
Lin
dl.
27.3
–1
–0
Sm
ith
& S
now
197
6; R
ober
tson
& W
yatt
, 199
0;91
.0–
1–
0G
regg
, 199
0P
lata
nth
era
inte
gril
abia
(C
orre
ll)
Lu
er4.
913
.6–
––
–Z
ettl
er &
Fai
rey,
199
0P
lata
nth
era
lace
ra (
Mic
hx.
) G
. Don
–70
.291
.01
––
Gre
gg, 1
990
Pla
tan
ther
a m
and
arin
oru
m R
chb.
f. s
sp.
hac
hij
oen
sis
(Hon
da)
Mu
rata
81.5
90.0
–1
–0
Inou
e, 1
986b
Pla
tan
ther
a m
etab
ifol
ia F
. Mae
k.–
11.3
–1
40.0
0In
oue,
198
6aP
lata
nth
era
obtu
sata
(B
anks
ex
Pu
rsh
)L
indl
.–
14.5
–1
50.0
4T
hie
n &
Ute
ch, 1
970
PF
S
Spe
cies
PR
open
han
dIS
FF
PG
Ref
eren
ces
Tab
le 3
.C
onti
nu
ed
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 11
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Pla
tan
ther
a ok
ubo
i M
akin
o–
26.5
–1
–0
Inou
e, 1
985
Pla
tan
ther
a st
rict
a L
indl
.67
.552
.098
.01
–1
Pat
t et
al.
, 198
9P
ogon
ia j
apon
ica
Rch
b. f
.17
.520
.275
.00
–1
Mat
sui,
Ush
imar
u &
Fu
jita
, 200
111
.75.
0–
0–
1U
shim
aru
& N
akat
a, 2
001
Pog
onia
oph
iogl
osso
ides
(L
.) K
er-G
awl.
–55
.010
0.0
0–
1T
hie
n &
Mar
cks
1972
; Pro
ctor
, 199
8P
raso
phyl
um
od
orat
um
R. B
r.75
.052
.0–
1–
3B
ern
har
t &
Bu
rns-
Bal
ogh
, 198
6P
raso
phyl
lum
rom
anzo
ffia
Ch
am.
–>7
5.0
–1
–1
Lar
son
& L
arso
n, 1
987
Pte
rogl
ossa
psis
ru
wen
zori
ensi
s (R
endl
e)R
olfe
–54
.8–
1–
8S
inge
r &
Coc
ucc
i, 19
97a
Sat
yriu
m b
icor
ne
Th
un
b.
20.1
84.7
100.
01
–7
Ell
is &
Joh
nso
n, 1
999
Sat
yriu
m c
orii
foli
um
Sw
.38
.041
.810
0.0
1–
7E
llis
& J
ohn
son
, 199
9S
atyr
ium
ere
ctu
m S
w.
56.0
68.2
100.
01
–7
Ell
is &
Joh
nso
n, 1
999
Spi
ran
thes
lac
era
(Raf
.) R
af. v
ar. l
acer
a–
57.0
100
1–
1C
atli
ng,
198
2S
pira
nth
es l
uci
da
(H. H
. Eat
on)
Am
es–
0.0
100
1–
1C
atli
ng,
198
2S
pira
nth
es o
chro
leu
ca (
Ryd
b.)
Ryd
b.–
0.0
100
1–
1C
atli
ng,
198
2S
pira
nth
es r
oman
zoffi
ana
Ch
am.
–0.
010
01
–1
Cat
lin
g, 1
982
Spi
ran
thes
ver
nal
is E
nge
lm. &
Gra
y–
0.0
100
1–
1C
atli
ng,
198
2T
ipu
lari
a d
isco
lor
(Pu
rsh
) N
utt
.–
23.0
91.3
111
.00
Wh
igh
am &
McW
eth
y, 1
980;
Sn
ow &
Wh
igh
am, 1
989
TR
OP
ICA
L, D
EC
EP
TIV
E
Asp
asia
pri
nci
piss
a R
chb.
f.
58.1
9.5
60.8
077
.31
Zim
mer
man
& A
ide,
198
9B
leti
a pa
tula
Gra
ham
17.3
27.6
–1
6.3
1A
cker
man
199
5; J
. D. A
cker
man
&C
arro
mer
o, u
npu
bl. d
ata
Bra
ssav
ola
nod
osa
(L.)
Lin
dl.
38.3
13.2
67.0
082
.60
Sch
emsk
e, 1
980;
Mu
rren
& E
llis
son
199
6B
ulb
oph
yllu
m i
nvo
lutu
m B
orba
, Sem
ir &
F. B
arro
s39
.33.
850
.01
–3
Bor
ba &
Sem
ir, 1
998;
Bor
ba
& S
emir
199
9b;
Bor
ba, S
hep
pard
& S
emir
, 199
9B
ulb
oph
yllu
m i
pan
emen
se H
oeh
ne
92.3
3.8
70.0
1–
3B
orba
& S
emir
, 199
8; B
orba
&
Sem
ir 1
999b
;B
orba
, Sh
eppa
rd &
Sem
ir, 1
999
Bu
lbop
hyl
lum
war
min
gian
um
Cog
n.
–0.
033
.01
–3
Saz
ima,
197
8B
ulb
oph
yllu
m w
edd
elli
i (L
indl
.) R
chb.
f.
51.5
4.5
20.6
1–
3B
orba
& S
emir
, 199
8; B
orba
&
Sem
ir 1
999b
;B
orba
, Sh
eppa
rd &
Sem
ir, 1
999
Coc
hle
anth
es l
ipsc
ombi
ae (
Rol
fe)
Gra
y–
15.0
–0
83.0
1A
cker
man
, 198
3C
orya
nth
es e
lega
nti
um
Lin
den
& R
chb.
f.
–25
.0–
0–
1D
odso
n, 1
965
Cor
yan
thes
leu
coco
rys
Rol
fe–
0.0
–0
–1
Dod
son
, 196
5C
orya
nth
es m
acra
nth
a (H
ook.
) H
ook.
–21
.0–
0–
1D
odso
n, 1
965
Cor
yan
thes
rod
rigu
esii
Hoe
hn
e–
43.0
–0
–1
Dod
son
, 196
5C
orya
nth
es t
rifo
liat
a C
. Sch
wei
nf.
–40
.0–
0–
1D
odso
n, 1
965
Cor
ymbo
rkis
for
cipi
gera
L. O
. Wil
liam
s–
9.1
–1
––
Ack
erm
an, 1
995
Cyc
lopo
gon
cra
nic
hoi
des
(G
rise
b.)
Sch
ltr.
–29
.597
.51
38.5
–C
alvo
, 199
0aC
ymbi
die
lla
flab
ella
ta (
Th
ou.)
Rol
fe52
.25.
0–
1–
2N
ilss
on e
t al
., 19
86
PF
S
Spe
cies
PR
open
han
dIS
FF
PG
Ref
eren
ces
12 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Cyr
topo
diu
m b
road
way
i A
mes
–1.
0–
1–
1Q
ues
nel
et
al.,
1982
Den
dro
biu
m i
nfu
nd
ibu
lum
Lin
dl.
5.5
6.5
–1
91.0
1K
jell
sson
, Ras
mu
ssen
& D
upu
y, 1
985
Den
dro
biu
m m
onop
hyl
lum
F. M
uel
l.79
.56.
6–
110
.21
Bar
tare
au, 1
995
Den
dro
biu
m s
peci
osu
m S
m.
–10
.0–
1–
4C
alde
r, A
dam
s &
Sla
ter,
1982
Den
dro
biu
m t
ores
sae
(Bai
ley)
Doc
kril
l72
.019
.088
.00
37.5
1B
arta
reau
, 199
4D
ilom
ilis
mon
tan
a (S
w.)
Su
mm
erh
.I.
Rod
rígu
ez-C
olón
& J
. D. A
cker
man
,u
npu
bl. d
ata
Sit
e 1
–6.
1–
092
.21?
Sit
e 2
–14
.3–
070
.31?
Ell
ean
thu
s cf
. bre
nes
ii–
29.0
–1
–7
B. G
rabo
wsk
i, pe
rs c
omm
.E
ncy
clia
cor
dig
era
(Hu
mb.
, Bon
pl. &
Ku
nth
) D
ress
ler
–7.
097
.00
78.0
1Ja
nze
n e
t al
., 19
80
Epi
den
dru
m c
ilia
re L
.21
.97.
749
.20
–0
Ack
erm
an &
Mon
talv
o, 1
990
Epi
den
dru
m e
xasp
erat
um
Rch
b. f
.–
2.0
–1
40.0
5C
alvo
, 199
0bIo
nop
sis
utr
icu
lari
oid
es (
Sw
.) L
indl
.–
6.1
19.1
1–
7M
onta
lvo
& A
cker
man
, 198
7L
aeli
a sp
ecio
sa (
Hu
mb.
, Bon
pl. &
Ku
nth
.)
Sch
ltr.
–14
.966
.70
–1
Her
nán
dez-
Apo
lin
ar, 1
992
Lep
anth
es c
arit
ensi
s T
rem
blay
&A
cker
man
4.3
0.0
–1
100.
03
Tre
mbl
ay, 1
997b
; Tre
mbl
ay e
t al
., 19
98
Lep
anth
es e
ltor
oen
sis
Sti
mso
n19
.11.
8–
188
.53
Tre
mbl
ay, 1
996
Lep
anth
es r
ubr
ipet
ala
Sti
mso
n11
.75.
0–
175
.93
Tre
mbl
ay, 1
996
Lep
anth
es r
upe
stri
s S
tim
son
12.6
4.9
–1
50.7
3T
rem
blay
, 199
6L
epan
thes
san
guin
ea H
ook.
–5.
9–
171
.43
Ack
erm
an &
Zim
mer
man
(ci
ted
inC
hri
sten
sen
, 199
2)L
epan
thes
wen
dla
nd
ii R
chb.
f.
–12
.0–
134
.0–
Cal
vo, 1
990b
Lep
anth
es w
ood
bury
ana
Sti
mso
n–
9.1
–0
62.5
–J.
D. A
cker
man
& J
. K. Z
imm
erm
an,
un
publ
. dat
aM
alax
is m
asso
nii
(R
idl.)
Ku
ntz
e14
.32.
429
.01
––
Ara
gón
& A
cker
man
, 200
1M
orm
odes
tu
xtle
nsi
s S
alaz
ar–
3.3
–1
30.0
1S
osa
& R
odrí
guez
-An
gulo
, 200
0M
yrm
ecop
hil
a ti
bici
nis
(B
atem
an)
Rol
fe–
2.4
92.0
069
.31
Ric
o-G
ray
& T
hie
n, 1
987
Ner
vili
a bi
cari
nat
a (B
l.) S
chlt
r.14
.6–
–0
–2
Pet
ters
son
, 198
9N
ervi
lia
hu
mil
is S
chlt
r.21
.6–
–0
–1
Pet
ters
son
, 198
9N
ervi
lia
shir
ensi
s (R
olfe
) S
chlt
r.–
10.0
–0
–2
Pet
ters
son
, 198
9N
ervi
lia
stol
zian
a S
chlt
r.25
.950
.0–
0–
2P
ette
rsso
n, 1
989
PF
S
Spe
cies
PR
open
han
dIS
FF
PG
Ref
eren
ces
Tab
le 3
.C
onti
nu
ed
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 13
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
On
cid
ium
alt
issi
mu
m (
Jacq
.) S
w.
–2.
0–
1–
1A
cker
man
, 199
5O
nci
diu
m a
scen
den
s L
indl
.F
ores
t20
.06.
8–
1–
1P
arra
-Tab
la e
t al
., 20
00P
asto
ral
fiel
d6.
53.
1–
1–
1P
arra
-Tab
la e
t al
., 20
00O
nci
diu
m s
tipi
tatu
m L
indl
.–
1.8
–1
–1
J. K
. Zim
mer
man
, un
publ
. dat
aP
aph
iope
dil
um
vil
losu
m (
Lin
dl.)
Ste
in–
7.8
–0
–1
Bän
zige
r, 19
96P
olys
tach
ya c
oncr
eta
(Jac
q.)
Gar
ay &
Sw
eet
24.5
10.0
–1
–1
Gos
s, 1
977
Ple
uro
thal
lis
adam
anti
nen
sis
Bra
de–
–80
.81
–3
Bor
ba, S
emir
& S
hep
her
d, 2
001;
Bor
ba &
Sem
ir 2
001
Ple
uro
thal
lis
fabi
obar
rosi
i B
orba
&S
emir
––
78.6
1–
3B
orba
, Sem
ir &
Sh
eph
erd,
200
1;
Bor
ba &
Sem
ir 2
001
Ple
uro
thal
lis
joh
ann
ensi
s B
arb.
Rod
r.–
39.0
59.0
1–
3B
orba
, Sem
ir &
Sh
eph
erd,
200
1; B
orba
&S
emir
200
1P
rost
hec
hea
coc
hle
ata
(L.)
W. E
.H
iggi
ns
–4.
654
.50
76.3
1J.
D. A
cker
man
& J
. K. Z
imm
erm
an,
un
publ
. dat
aP
sych
ilis
kru
gii
(Bel
lo)
Sau
leda
21.3
4.0
8.0
090
.0–
Ack
erm
an, 1
989
Ste
lis
arge
nta
ta L
indl
.58
.72.
229
.21
––
Ch
rist
ense
n, 1
992
Ste
lis
sp. 1
–15
.0–
0–
–C
hri
sten
sen
, 199
2S
teli
s sp
. 2–
8.0
–1
––
Ch
rist
ense
n, 1
992
Ste
lis
sp. 3
–12
.0–
0–
8C
hri
sten
sen
, 199
2S
teli
s sp
. 4–
2.0
–0
––
Ch
rist
ense
n, 1
992
Tet
ram
icra
can
alic
ula
ta (
Au
bl.)
Urb
.–
6.0
80.0
0–
–P
agán
, Mar
tín
ez &
Ack
erm
an (
cite
d in
Ack
erm
an, 1
995)
Tol
um
nia
var
iega
ta (
Sw
.) B
raem
3.9
2.3
77.8
098
.01
Ack
erm
an &
Mon
tero
Oli
ver,
198
5;A
cker
man
, Mel
énde
z-A
cker
man
&S
algu
ero-
Far
ía, 1
997;
Cal
vo, 1
990b
Van
illa
bar
bell
ata
Rch
b. f
.5.
318
.210
0.0
0–
1I.
Pan
etto
& J
. D. A
cker
man
, u
npu
bl.
data
;L
. R. N
iels
en &
J. D
. Ack
erm
an, u
npu
bl. d
ata
Van
illa
cla
vicu
lata
(W
. Wri
ght)
Sw
.17
.915
.010
0.0
0–
1I.
Pan
etto
& J
. D. A
cker
man
, u
npu
bl.
data
;L
. R. N
iels
en &
J. D
. Ack
erm
an, u
npu
bl. d
ata
Van
illa
dil
lon
ian
a C
orre
ll5.
514
.510
0.0
0–
1I.
Pan
etto
& J
. D. A
cker
man
, u
npu
bl.
data
;L
. R. N
iels
en &
J. D
. Ack
erm
an, u
npu
bl. d
ata
Van
illa
pla
nif
olia
An
drew
s–
1.0
–0
–1
Ack
erm
an, 1
995
Van
illa
poi
taei
Rch
b. f
.–
6.4
100.
00
–1
I. P
anet
to &
J. D
. Ack
erm
an, u
npu
bl. d
ata
TR
OP
ICA
L, R
EW
AR
D
Aer
angi
s el
lisi
i (R
chb.
f.)
Sch
ltr.
–22
.250
.00
14.0
0N
ilss
on &
Rab
akon
andr
ian
ina,
198
8A
ngr
aecu
m a
rach
nit
es S
chlt
r.A
spid
ogyn
e ar
gen
tea
(Vel
l.) G
aray
– –41
.011
.1– 86
.10 1
– –0 5
Nil
sson
, 198
5; N
ilss
on e
t al
., 19
85,
Sin
ger
& S
azim
a, 2
001b
PF
S
Spe
cies
PR
open
han
dIS
FF
PG
Ref
eren
ces
14 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Asp
idog
yne
lon
gico
rnu
(C
ogn
.) G
aray
–18
.010
0.0
10.
01
Sin
ger
& S
azim
a, 2
001b
Cat
aset
um
mac
roca
rpu
m R
ich
. ex
Ku
nth
–7.
1–
0–
1C
arva
lho
& M
ach
ado,
200
2C
atas
etu
m v
irid
iflav
um
Hoo
k.–
12.0
95.8
171
.21
Zim
mer
man
, Rou
bik
& A
cker
man
, 198
9;Z
imm
erm
an, 1
991
Com
pare
ttia
fal
cata
Poe
pp. &
En
dl.
29.1
15.7
86.5
0–
7R
odrí
guez
-Rob
les,
Mel
énde
z &
Ack
erm
an,
1992
; A
cker
man
,Rod
rígu
ez-R
oble
s &
Mel
énde
z,19
94; S
algu
ero-
Far
ía &
Ack
erm
an, 1
999
Cyc
lopo
gon
con
gest
us
(Vel
l.) H
oeh
ne
–0.
098
.01
–1
Sin
ger
& S
azim
a, 1
999
Den
dro
chil
um
lon
gbra
ctea
tum
Pfi
tzer
–0.
02–
1–
3P
eder
sen
, 199
5E
ryth
rod
es a
riet
ina
(Rch
b. f
. & W
arm
.)A
mes
–22
.6–
10.
01
Sin
ger
& S
azim
a, 2
001b
Hab
enar
ia g
ourl
iean
a L
indl
.15
.419
.2–
133
.30
Sin
ger
& C
occu
ci, 1
997b
Hab
enar
ia h
iero
nym
i K
raen
zl.
67.1
81.0
–1
8.3
0S
inge
r &
Coc
cuci
, 199
7bH
aben
aria
mon
tevi
den
sis
Spr
eng.
49.4
61.0
–1
0.0
0S
inge
r &
Coc
cuci
, 199
7bH
aben
aria
par
vifl
ora
Lin
dl.
–0.
096
.71
–3
Sin
ger,
2001
Hab
enar
ia r
upi
cola
Bar
b. R
odr.
69.5
79.3
–1
0.0
0S
inge
r &
Coc
cuci
, 199
7bL
eoch
ilu
s sc
ript
us
(Sch
eidw
.) R
chb.
f.
–60
.086
.50
–2
Ch
ase,
198
6M
yros
mod
es c
och
lear
e G
aray
–21
.545
.01
–2
Ber
ry &
Cal
vo, 1
991
Mys
taci
diu
m v
enos
um
Lin
dl.
–0.
065
.00
–0
Lu
yt &
Joh
nso
n, 2
001
Not
ylia
nem
oros
a B
arb.
Rod
r.–
64.8
–1
–1
Sin
ger
& K
oeh
ler,
2002
Pel
exia
oes
trif
era
(Rch
b. f
. & W
arm
.)S
chlt
r.–
0.0
100.
01
–1
Sin
ger
& S
azim
a, 1
999
Ple
uro
thal
lis
och
reat
a L
indl
.–
12.5
39.4
1–
3B
orba
, Sem
ir &
Sh
eph
erd,
200
1; B
orba
&S
emir
, 200
1P
leu
roth
alli
s ra
cem
iflor
a L
indl
. ex
Hoo
k.–
17.3
–1
44.4
–A
cker
man
, 199
5
Ple
uro
thal
lis
tere
s L
indl
.–
7.0
44.3
1–
3B
orba
, Sem
ir &
Sh
eph
erd,
200
1; B
orba
&S
emir
, 200
1P
resc
otti
a d
ensi
flor
a L
indl
.–
52.5
100.
01
0.0
1S
inge
r &
Saz
ima,
200
1aP
resc
otti
a pl
anta
gin
ea L
indl
.–
30.0
48.1
1–
0S
inge
r &
Saz
ima,
200
1aP
resc
otti
a st
ach
yod
es (
Sw
.) L
indl
.–
78.6
95.9
10.
00
Sin
ger
& S
azim
a, 2
001a
Sar
cogl
otti
s fa
cicu
lata
(V
ell.)
Sch
ltr.
–0.
095
.01
0.0
1S
inge
r &
Saz
ima,
199
9S
auro
glos
sum
ela
tum
Lin
dl.
–33
.498
.11
0.0
0S
inge
r, 20
02S
ten
orrh
ych
os l
ance
olat
us
(Au
bl.)
L. C
.R
ich
.74
.783
.2–
10.
07
Sin
ger
& S
azim
a, 2
000
Xyl
obiu
m s
qual
ens
Lin
dl.
–27
.090
.00
–1
Pin
taú
di, S
tort
& M
arin
-Mor
ales
, 199
0
PF
S
Spe
cies
PR
open
han
dIS
FF
PG
Ref
eren
ces
Tab
le 3
.C
onti
nu
ed
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 15
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
data set. No difference was detected between tropicaland temperate species; mean fruiting failure was inthe range of 50–60% of plants from both areas(F1,32 = 0.18, P = 0.67; Fig. 2). However, failuredepended on the pollination mechanism: in deceptivespecies, most plants do not set fruit (66.5%); reward-ing species have much lower failure rates (29.1%;F1,32 = 8.28, P = 0.007).
Per cent fruiting failure was significantly higher forspecies with less than ten flowers per inflorescence(68.0% ± 6.4; mean ± SE) than for those with morethan ten (42.8% ± 8.2; mean ± SE; Mann–Whitney U-test, Z = 2.353; P < 0.02; N = 46).
Moreover, median fruit set and per cent fruitingfailure were significantly negatively correlated(Spearman’s rank correlation, corrected for ties,rho = -0.655; P < 0.0001; N = 44). Thus, deceptive spe-cies with low overall fruit set and small inflorescencesize are most likely to exhibit high levels of fruitingfailure.
POLLINATOR GROUP EFFECT
Per cent median fruit set varies according to pollinatorgroup (Kruskal–Wallis H, corrected for ties = 24.82,P = 0.0004; Table 5). We tested the difference betweenthe median fruit set of orchids pollinated by moths,bees, wasps, flies, butterflies and birds (beetles andants were excluded because of small sample size) aswell as generalist orchid species. Fruit set was lowestfor species pollinated by flies and highest for those pol-linated by birds and for generalists. However, the pat-tern may be confused by the fact that all the generalistspecies with fruit set higher than 50% are temperate,nectariferous species, while of the species pollinatedby bees, many with fruit set below 10% are tropical.
GENERAL PATTERNS OF POLLINATOR LIMITATION
Our data demonstrate that fruit production in non-autogamous orchids is pollen-limited. For almost allspecies where data are available for natural and handpollination, the minimum fruit set difference of thelatter was 10% larger (mean and SE; open pollination,26.6 ± 1.7 (N = 210); cross hand-pollination, 80.0 ± 2.6(N = 98); Table 3). Median natural fruit set in temper-ate species is approximately twice that of tropical spe-cies (mean and SE: tropical 17.0 ± 2.1 (N = 91);temperate 34.6 ± 2.3 (N = 123). It is not evident whythe former should be more efficient at setting fruit. Apossible explanation (further research is required) isthat it may be a result of population size or population
Table 4. Results of three-way non-parametric ANOVAwith interactions for ranked median fruit set. Data of openpollination only, from Table 3. Distribution: temperate vs.tropical. Reward: deceit or reward. Inflorescence size: Inflo-rescence smaller than ten flowers or equal to or larger thanten flowers
Source d.f. MS F P
Distribution 1 61707.9 19.19 <0.0001Reward 1 36862.3 11.46 0.0008Inflorescence size 1 1367.1 0.43 0.51Distribution ¥ reward 1 8698.1 2.71 0.10Distribution ¥
inflorescence1 1382.1 0.43 0.51
Reward ¥ inflorescence 1 20.4 0.01 0.94Three-way interaction 1 844.7 0.20 0.61Residual 206 3215.4
Figure 2. The frequency of deceptive and rewardingplants that fail to set fruits. Data are from Table 3. Means+ SE; N = 44.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
00
Temperate
Tropical
RewardDeceptive
Per
cent
fru
iting
fai
lure
Table 5. Median per cent fruit set and standard error (SE)of naturally pollinated orchids by pollinator types. Medianfruit set is significantly distinct among pollinator groups(Kruskal-Wallis H, corrected for ties = 24.82, P = 0.0004).Beetles and ants excluded because of low sample size
Pollinator N Fruit set SE
Bees 108 25.8 2.2Birds 6 53.8 11.9Butterflies 5 36.7 12.6Generalist 8 37.7 9.3Flies 29 11.9 2.7Moths 22 41.8 6.5Wasps 9 34.2 7.9
16 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
dispersion. Tropical species are frequently organizedin small groups of individuals separated by large dis-tances (Ackerman, 1986b; Tremblay, 1997c). Hyper-dispersed populations are perhaps more commonamong tropical epiphytes because they are immersedin a tangled canopy.
Data are generally lacking on population dispersionin orchids. However, an alternative explanation fordifferences among temperate and tropical orchidsmight be that they are due to taxonomic differencesand phylogenetic constraints. An approach to testingthis hypothesis would be to investigate fruit set in spe-cies of the same genus that are in both regions. If fruitproduction is phylogenetically constrained amongregions, then we would expect fruit set within a genusto be more similar than among genera.
Our results are similar to those of Neiland & Wil-cock (1998), who observed that fruit set in temperatespecies is about three times as successful as that oftropical species (38.2% vs. 13.6%). We found just a two-fold difference, which may simply be a consequence ofdifferent sample sizes: Neiland & Wilcock (1998)included 96 species while this survey has 216.
CAUSES OF POLLINATION LIMITATION
Pollinator effectivenessOrchids are visited by a number of different insects orbirds, but not all visitors are pollinators (Ackerman &Mesler, 1979; Nilsson, 1979a, b). The relative fre-quency of effective visits is not often quantified butvariation in visitor performance can be substantial.For example, the most frequent visitors to Herminiummonorchis were rarely effective pollinators and eventhe best carried pollinaria only about 70% of the time(Nilsson, 1979a).
Pollinarium removal and depositionThe frequency of effective visits, quantified as polli-narium removals and pollinations, is often very low.Although the data show substantial variation amongpopulations and species, usually just under half theflowers fail to export their pollen (Table 3).
Pollinaria removals usually exceed pollinations, soone can express efficiency as a ratio of the former tothe latter and this can be used as an index of efficiency.Mean ratio is 1.7 : 1 in Tolumnia variegata (Acker-man, Meléndez-Ackerman & Salguero-Faría, 1997),1.35 : 1 in Comparettia falcata (Salguero-Faría & Ack-erman, 1999), 2.5 : 1 in Epidendrum ciliare (Acker-man & Montalvo, 1990), and 1.96 : 1 in Ionopsisutricularioides (Montalvo & Ackerman, 1987. Therange of per cent removals to per cent fruit set is large(0.24 : 1–26.7 : 1). The most effective systems arethose of Satyrium bicorne, Vanilla barbellata(< 0.30 : 1), while the most inefficient are those of Ste-
lis argentata and Bulbophyllum ipanemense (> 24.0;Table 3; ratios not shown). Pollinarium deposition effi-ciency among species is approximately divided equallybetween efficient (< 1 : 1) and inefficient (> 1 : 1;Fig. 3). We expect pollinaria removals to depositions tobe greater than 1 unless the pollen masses can be bro-ken unto subunits. For example, in Herminiummonorchis the number of removals per depositionranged from 0.74 to 0.94 (Nilsson, 1979a). We testedthe hypothesis that removal to fruit set ratio is moreefficient in mealy pollen orchid species and found it tobe true (Mann–Whitney U-test, Z = 5.443, P = 0.001;Table 3). Orchids with mealy pollen have a mean ratioof 1.1 ± 0.19 : 1 (N = 36) whereas those with hard pol-linia have a mean of 6.97 ± 1.56 : 1 (N = 21).
Pollinator abundance and diversityFruit set within and among populations may be influ-enced by pollinator activity and diversity. In severalSwedish populations of Listera ovata it variedbetween 13 and 70% and was positively correlatedwith visitation rates (Nilsson, 1981). Visitation fre-quencies to two populations of the epiphytic Comp-arettia falcata were related to the abundance of itshummingbird pollinator (Rodríguez-Robles et al.,1992). Ackerman et al. (1997) observed the effect ofpollinator abundance and floral fragrance on fruit setin the deceptive orchid Tolumnia variegata and foundthat the main cause of fruit production among popu-lations could be attributed to pollinator abundance.Moreover, flower production often needs to be synchro-
Figure 3. Frequency distribution of pollinaria removal tofruit set ratio. Values below 1 represent species that setmore then one fruit per pollinarium removal (mainlyorchids with mealy pollen) while values larger than 1 rep-resent species that remove more than one pollinarium perfruit set.
25
20
15
10
5
0<1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 <20 <30
Pollinaria removal per fruit set
Freq
uenc
y
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 17
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
nized with the pollinator emergence for effective fruitproduction (Nilsson, 1980, 1983b; Ackerman, 1981,1983; but see Zimmerman, Roubik & Ackerman,1989). Another source of variation is the compositionof the pollinator fauna. Robertson & Wyatt (1990)quantitatively studied the pollination system of Pla-tanthera ciliaris in two disjunct populations in thesouth-eastern United States. They found that boththe primary pollinator and fruit set were differentin the two populations.
Pollen quantityWhat proportions of ovules are fertilized during thedevelopment of orchid fruits? While pollinia can obvi-ously contain many thousands of pollen grains, is thequantity of pollen deposited more than enough to fer-tilize all ovules? Variation is to be expected as polli-naria contain groups of two, four, six or eight pollinia,not all of which are necessarily deposited in a singlepollination event. Moreover, orchid pollen is notalways deposited as indivisible pollinia. Pollinia maybe ‘sectile’ or ‘mealy’, that is, soft enough to be brokenapart into chunks during pollen deposition (Dressler,1981; see Pacini & Hesse, 2002; for a review of pollendispersal units in orchids).
There are indications that increasing the number ofpollinia applied to orchid stigmas causes increasedseed set in orchids. In Cattleya trianaei Linden &Rchb. f., fruit size was found to increase with the num-ber of pollinia applied to stigmas (Duncan & Curtis,1943). No difference in fruit set was observed in Epi-dendrum ciliare following hand pollination with twoor four pollinia (Ackerman & Montalvo, 1990) and inIonopsis utricularioides with one or two pollinia (Mon-talvo & Ackerman, 1987). Gregg (1991a) experimen-tally investigated the effect of variable deposition onseed development in Cleistes divaricata. As expected,seed production declined with reduced deposition,while seed fertility (per cent of seeds with embryos)was unaffected.
Pollen qualityCross- and self-pollination: Low pollination fre-quency and pollen quantity may limit seed productionin orchids, but in self-compatible plants poor qualitypollen resulting from self-pollination can also reduceseed production; this is not always reflected in fruitset. We have self- and cross-pollination data for 69 spe-cies and in 29% of these fruit set was the same. In theremainder, fruit set from outcross pollinations wasslightly higher (81%) than from self-pollinations (72%;Wilcoxon sign-rank test, tied Z = 3.425, N = 52,P = 0.0006, Table 6). In general, it appears that self-pollination does not greatly affect fruit set in orchidsin the absence of a self-incompatibility mechanism.
Self-pollination has been observed to reduce seedproduction in orchids. Most available data report thepercentage of mature seeds bearing embryos in fruitsfrom plants which have been artificially cross- andself-pollinated. Stort & Martins (1980) measuredembryo formation in 14 non-autogamous species ofCattleya in Brazil. Comparing fruit produced usingself-pollination and cross-pollination, they observedan average of 15.3% of seeds with embryos in theformer and 47.5% in the latter. Although seed set fromnatural pollination is often better than of hand-polli-nation, it rarely reaches 100% (Stort, 1973; Stort &Pavanelli, 1986; Pintaúdi, Stort & Marin-Morales,1990).
Similar results were obtained from a compilation ofthe literature involving 76 species (Table 7). Embryoformation ranged from 24% to 99% (average 64.8%)from cross-pollination and from zero to 99%(average 40.8%) from self-pollination. These differ-ences were not always apparent (e.g. Ionopsis utricu-lariodes; Montalvo & Ackerman, 1987). Variance inembryo formation within treatments is significantlylarger in fruit from cross-pollinated plants (equality ofvariance test F71,75 = 1.987, P = 0.004). This suggeststhat species that are primarily cross-pollinated areadversely affected by inbreeding whereas others areat least insensitive to self-pollination at embryoformation.
Three indices of seed production have been mea-sured for a few non-autogamous orchids in order tocompare the influence of self- and cross-pollination:weight of mature fruits, total seed mass and seed pro-duction. The weight of mature ovaries of selfed flowersof Diuris maculata was 77% of that of crossed flowers(Beardsell et al., 1986). Total seed mass of fruits fromself-pollination in Platanthera ciliaris was about 70%of that of fruits from cross-pollination (Robertson &Wyatt, 1990). Seed production of selfed flowers in Lep-orella fimbriata was 76% of that of crossed flowers(Peakall, 1989a), while in Isotria verticillata it wasapproximately the same (Mehrhoff, 1983). In general,seed production from self-pollination is less than orequal to that of cross-pollination.
Given the apparent costs of self-pollination in mostorchids, mechanisms that promote outcrossing are tobe expected. What is unusual is that in orchids theseare often structural (movement of rostellum, move-ment of column, stigmatic maturity) and not the resultof genetic self-incompatibility, dichogamy, or unisexu-ality (although examples of all of these mechanismsexist in orchids). These structural mechanisms ofteninvolve changes in size or the movement of pollinariain a way that prevents the placement on the stigma forup to several minutes of pollinator foraging, throughdifferential drying of opposing surfaces of structuresbearing the pollinia (Dressler, 1981; Borba & Semir,
18 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Table 6. Comparison of fruit set following artificial cross- and self-pollination. Self-incompatible plants are excluded.Cross-pollination produced higher fruit set than self pollination. Significant differences in production were noted, althoughthe mean differences were not large (Wilcoxon signed rank test Z-value 3.425, P < 0.0006, N = 44, N0 = 16, N ties = 6).Values in parentheses are number of pollinations performed
Per cent fruit set
Species Self Cross References
Aerangis ellisii (Rchb. f.) Schltr. 50.0 (26) 50.0 (26) Nilsson & Rabakonandrianina,1988
Aspasia principissa Rchb. f. 60.0 (20) 61.0 (49) Zimmerman & Aide, 1989Aspidogyne argentea (Vell.) Garay 47.1 (51) 86.1 (36) Singer & Sazima, 2001bAspidogyne longicornu (Cogn.) Garay 97.3 (37) 100.0 (30) Singer & Sazima, 2001bBrassavola nodosa (L.) Lindl. 100 (20) 67.0 (60) Schemske, 1980Bulbophyllum warmingianum Cogn. 25.0 (12) 33.0 (12) Sazima, 1978Caladenia tentactulata Tate 100 (4) 100 (4) Peakall & Beattie, 1996Catasetum viridiflavum Hook. 93.3 (15) 95.8 (71) J. K. Zimmerman, unpubl. dataCleistes divaricata (L.) Ames 100 (20) 100 (7) Gregg, 1989Comparettia falcata Poepp. & Endl.
Site 1 53.8 (13) 86.4 (66) Rodriguez-Robles, Meléndez &Ackerman, 1992
Site 2 64.3 (14) 86.7 (45)Cyclopogon congestus (Vell.) Hoenhe 88.0 (49) 98.0 (47) Singer & Sazima, 1999Cynorkis uniflora Lindl. 100 (20) 90.0 (20) Nilsson, Rabakonandrianina &
Pettersson, 1992Cypripedium acaule Ait. 70.0 (10) 74.7 (75) Davis, 1986
90.0 (20) 100 (20) Primack & Hall, 1990100 (18) 100 (11) O’Connell & Johnston, 1998
Cypripedium fasciculatum Kellogg ex S. Watson 78.0 (100) 82.4 (108) Lipow, Bernhardt & Vance, 2002Cypripedium macranthos Sw. var. rebunense 50.0 (4) 25.0 (4) Sugiura et al., 2001
(Kudo) Miyabe & KudoDactylorhiza incarnata (L.) Soó 98.1 (48) 95.2 (21) M. T. Kuitunen, pers. comm.Dactylorhiza sambucina (L.) Soó 96.7 (30) 100 (29) Nilsson, 1980Encyclia cordigera (Humb., Bonpl. & Kunth)
Dressler69.9 (119) 91.0 (211) Janzen et al., 1980
Epidendrum ciliare L. 95.8 (48) 93.5 (31) Ackerman & Montalvo, 1990Epipactis consimilis Don (Druce) Soó 100 (27) 100 (27) Ivri & Dafni, 1977Galearis spectabilis (L.) Raf. 65.4 (26) 64.6 (48) J. K. Zimmerman, unpubl. dataGoodyera procera Ker-Gawl. 92 94 Wong & Sun, 1999Habenaria parviflora Lindl. 93.3 (30) 96.7 (30) Singer, 2001Ionopsis utricularioides (Sw.) Lindl. 88.7 (55) 89.7 (61) Montalvo & Ackerman, 1987Isotria medeoloides (Pursh) Raf. 82 (11) 82 (11) Vitt & Campbell, 1997Isotria verticillata Muhl. ex Willd. 32.5 (40) 36.8 (19) Mehrhoff, 1983Lepanthes rubripetala Stimson 0.0 (11) 30.0 (44) G. Pomales & R. L. Tremblay,
unpubl. dataLepanthes rupestris Stimson 0.0 (25) 31.0 (78) G. Pomales & R. L. Tremblay,
unpubl. dataLepanthes woodburyana Stimson 0.0 (50) 60.9 (92) M. Mendez & R. L. Tremblay,
unpubl. dataLiparis loeselii (L.) C. Rich. 100 (70) 94 (34) Catling, 1980Listera cordata R. Br. 100 (14) 100 (14) Meléndez-Ackerman & Ackerman,
2001Listera ovata (L.) R. Br. 100 (27) 100 (27) Nilsson, 1981Myrosmodes cochleare Garay 51.0 (105) 39.7 (63) Berry & Calvo, 1991Mystacidium venosum Lindl. 40.0 (20) 65.0 (20) Luyt & Johnson, 2001Orchis boryi Rchb. f. 97.9 (90) 98.8 (139) Gumbert & Kunze, 2001Orchis laxifora spp. Palustris Lam. 100 (20) 100 (20) A. Fritz, pers. comm.
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 19
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Orchis mascula L. 100 (30) 100 (30) Nilsson, 1983bOrchis morio L. 90.0 (10) 100 (10) Nilsson, 1984Orchis spitzelii Sauter ex Koch 95.0 (20) 100 (20) Fritz, 1990Pelexia oestrifera (Rchb. f. & Warm.) Schltr. 81.0 (42) 100 (34) Singer & Sazima, 1999Platanthera bifolia (L.) Rich. 100 (27) 100 (52) Nilsson, 1983aPlatanthera blephariglottis (Willd.) Lindl. 90.9 (44) 98.6 (146) Cole & Firmage, 1984Platanthera chlorantha (Cust.) Rchb. 100 (12) 100 (12) Nilsson, 1983aPlatanthera ciliaris (L.) Lindl.
Site 1 90.9 (33) 84.8 (33) Robertson & Wyatt, 1990Site 2 71.9 (32) 79.4 (34)
Platanthera lacera (Michx.) G. Don 91 96 Gregg, 1990Platanthera leucophaea (Nutt.) Lindl. 63 100 Bowles, 1985 in Gregg 1990Pleurothallis adamantinensis Brade 4.2 80.6 Borba, Semir & Shepherd, 2001Pleurothallis fabiobarrosii Borba & Semir 5.3 78.6 Borba, Semir & Shepherd, 2001Pleurothallis johannensis Barb. Rodr. 12.4 59.0 Borba, Semir & Shepherd, 2001Pleurothallis ochreata Lindl. 12.4 39.4 Borba, Semir & Shepherd, 2001Pleurothallis teres Lindl. 12.6 44.3 Borba, Semir & Shepherd, 2001Pogonia japonica Rchb. f. 80.0 (20) 75.0 (20) Matsui, Ushimaru & Fujita, 2001Prescottia densiflora Lindl. 69.2 (26) 100.0 (20) Singer & Sazima, 2001aPrescottia plantaginea Lindl. 48.0 (102) 48.1 (52) Singer & Sazima, 2001aPrescottia stachyodes Lindl. 93.7 (223) 95.9 (218) Singer & Sazima, 2001aProsthechea cochleata (L.) W. Higgins
Site 1 88 (16) 88 (16) Ortiz-Barney & Ackerman, 1999Site 2 82 (16) 82 (16)
Sacoila lanceolata (Aubl.) Garay var.lanceolata
100 (6) 100 (6) Catling, 1987
Sarcoglottis fasciculate (Vell.) Schltr. 98.0 (43) 95.0 (42) Singer & Sazima, 1999Sauroglossum elatum Lindl. 94.9 (158) 98.1 (162) Singer, 2002Schomburgkia tibicinia Bateman 71.2 (59) 67.4 (46) Rico-Gray & Thien, 1987Spiranthes lacera (Raf.) Raf. var. lacera 100 (15) 100 (17) Catling, 1982Spiranthes lucida (H. H. Eaton) Ames 100 (12) 100 (12) Catling, 1982Spiranthes ochroleuca (Rydb.) Rydb. 100 (20) 100 (17) Catling, 1982Spiranthes romanzoffiana Cham. 64 (7) 100 (12) Catling, 1982Spiranthes spiralis (L.) Chevall. 75.0 35.0 Willems & Lahtinen, 1997Spiranthes vernalis Engelm. & Gray 100 (30) 100 (30) Catling, 1982Stelis argentata Lindl. 1.9 (54) 29.3 (185) Christensen, 1992Tetramicra canaliculata (Aubl.) Urb. 10-14 80 J. D. Ackerman, unpubl. dataTipularia discolor (Pursh) Nutt. 91.3 (133) 69.1 (156) Whigham & McWethy, 1980Mean and SE 71.6 (4.0) 80.8 (2.9)
Per cent fruit set
Species Self Cross References
1999a; Johnson & Edwards, 2000). This provides aquestion for future research: is it the very existence ofpollinaria and column that has promoted the relianceof orchids on structural mechanisms that promote out-crossing?
Self-incompatibility: While most orchids appear to beself-compatible (Table 6), self-incompatibility hasbeen reported in orchids of diverse lineages (Table 8).It is common in Epidendroideae, although with such a
small sample size and the limited literature on thesubject it is premature to reach a conclusion. In tem-perate orchids, self-incompatibility has been reportedin Galearis spectabilis (Dieringer, 1982) although apopulation in Maryland has been found to be self-compatible (J. K. Zimmerman, unpubl. data). To date,no one has attempted to describe the self-incompati-bility mechanism in any of these orchids.
Fruit set is often extremely low in self-incompatibleorchids. In Tolumnia variegata it is often less than 2%
Table 6. Continued
20 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Table 7. Per cent embryos formed (EF) following pollination (self vs. outcross). Results are those of artificial pollination(results from natural pollination in parentheses). Seeds from cross-pollinated plants have significantly more embryos(Wilcoxon signed rank test tied Z-value 6.50, P < 0.0001, N = 72, N0 = 3, N ties = 8). The variance in embryo formation issignificantly larger in self-pollinated plants (s2 = 905.0) than in cross-pollinated ones(s2 = 455.5; equality of variance testF76,75 = 1.987, P = 0.004). Autogamous species have higher (mean and SE; 68.6 ± 11.3) selfing fruit set than non-autogamousspecies (38.0 ± 3.5; Mann–Whitney U with ties, Z-value 2.49, P = 0.001, N = 76). No differences in fruit set between cross-pollinated autogamous and non-autogamous species (Mann–Whitney U with ties, Z-value 1.484, P = 0.14; mean and SE;autogamous 77.3 ± 8.0; non-autogamous, 63.8 ± 2.6)
Species Autogamy
EF (%)
ReferenceSelf Cross
Bulbophyllum weddellii (Lindl.) Rchb. f. N 68.3 40.0 Borba, Sheppard & Semir, 1999Bulbophyllum ipanemense Hoehne N 44.4 51.8 Borba, Sheppard & Semir, 1999Bulbophyllum involutum Borba, Semir &
F. BarrosN 52.7 48.1 Borba, Sheppard & Semir, 1999
Caladenia tentactulata Tate N 74.0 73.7 Peakall & Beattie, 1996Catasetum viridiflavum Hook. N 67.8 98.3 J. K. Zimmerman, unpubl. dataCattleya amethystoglossa Linden &
Rchb. f. ex WarnerN 5.9 70.3 Stort & Martins, 1980
Cattleya aurantiaca (Bateman) P. N. Don Y 79.4 62.8 Stort & Martins, 1980Cattleya bicolor Lindl. N 32.8 35.5 Stort & Martins, 1980Cattleya dormaniana (Rchb. f.) Rchb. f. N 25.2 42.5 Stort & Martins, 1980Cattleya elongata Barb. Rodr. N 36.3 57.6 Stort & Martins, 1980Cattleya forbesii Lindl. N 6.4 57.0 Stort & Martins, 1980Cattleya gaskelliana Rchb. f. N 7.7 24.5 Stort & Martins, 1980Cattleya guttata Lindl. N 25.2 54.6 Stort & Martins, 1980Cattleya harrisoniana Bateman ex Lindl. N 2.3 36.3 Stort & Martins, 1980Cattleya labiata Lindl. N 9.3 30.1 Stort & Martins, 1980Cattleya leopoldii Verschaff. ex Lem. N 20.8 48.6 Stort & Martins, 1980Cattleya loddigesii Lindl. N 11.7 76.1 Stort & Martins, 1980Cattleya measuresiana (Willd.) Blumensch. N 23.2 65.9 Stort & Martins, 1980Cattleya schofeldiana Rchb. f. N 7.7 28.2 Stort & Martins, 1980Cattleya warneri Moore N 0.0 36.7 Stort & Martins, 1980Cleistes divaracata (L.) Ames N 64.0 89.0 Gregg, 1989Comparettia uspida Poepp. & Endl. N 97.2 95.8 Salguero-Faría & Ackerman,
1999Cynorchis uniflora Lindl. N 36.0 61.0 Nilsson et al., 1992Dactylorhiza sambucina (L.) Ames N 43.0 75.0 Nilsson, 1980Disa atricapilla (Lindl.) Bolus N 82.2 94.7 Steiner, Whitehead & Johnson,
1994Disa ferruginea (Thunb.) Sw. N 36.4 86.4 Johnson, 1994Diuris maculata R. Br. N 94.0 82.0
Beardsell et al., 1986Epidendrum ciliare L. N 79.3 74.5 Ackerman & Montalvo, 1990Epidendrum nocturnum Jacq. Y 20.9 48.7 Stort & dos Santos Pavanelli,
1986Epidendrum rigidum Jacq. Y 51.5 -- Iannotti, Stort & Morales, 1987Epidendrum tridens Poepp. & Endl. Y 44.2 71.5 Stort & dos Santos Pavanelli,
1986Goodyera oblongifolia Raf. N 40.0 60.0 Kallunki, 1981
N 52.7 83.8 Ackerman, 1975Goodyera pubescens (Willd.) R. Br. N 77.0 64.5 Kallunki, 1981Goodyera repens (L.) R. Br. var. ophioides
FernaldN 36.0 63.5 Kallunki, 1981
Goodyera tesselata Lodd. N 88.0 79.0 Kallunki, 1981Ionopsis utricularioides (Sw.) Lindl. N 99.0 99.0 Montalvo & Ackerman, 1987
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 21
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Laelia caulescens Lindl. N 33.5 66.6 Stort & de Lima Galdino, 1984Laelia cinnabarina Bateman N 59.9 70.5 Stort & de Lima Galdino, 1984Laelia crispa Rchb. f. N 8.7 42.1 Stort & de Lima Galdino, 1984Laelia crispilabia A. Rich. ex R. Warner N 16.6 54.0 Stort & de Lima Galdino, 1984Laelia flava Lindl. N 12.7 39.3 Stort & de Lima Galdino, 1984Laelia grandis Lindl. & Paxton N 9.4 41.5 Stort & de Lima Galdino, 1984Laelia longipes Rchb. f. N 0.2 29.3 Stort & de Lima Galdino, 1984Laelia millerii Blum N 0.0 26.6 Stort & de Lima Galdino, 1984Laelia mixta Hoehne N 14.4 48.1 Stort & de Lima Galdino, 1984Laelia ostermayerii Hoehne N 0.7 52.5 Stort & de Lima Galdino, 1984Laelia perrinii Rchb. f. N 42.2 69.7 Stort & de Lima Galdino, 1984Laelia pumila Rchb. f. N 33.0 52.6 Stort & de Lima Galdino, 1984Laelia tenebrosa Rolfe N 12.9 46.5 Stort & de Lima Galdino, 1984Laelia xanthyna Lindl. ex Hook. N 8.5 38.1 Stort & de Lima Galdino, 1984Leporella fimbriata (Lindl.) A. S. George N 40.3 50 Peakall, 1989aListera cordata R. Br. N 88.5 94.2 Meléndez-Ackerman & Ackerman,
2001Liparis loeselii (L.) ex Lindl. Y 95.0 95.0 Catling, 1980Listera ovata (L.) R. Br. N 89.3 97.7 Nilsson, 1981Oeceoclades maculata (Lindl.) Lindl. Y 92.0 88.0 González-Díaz & Ackerman, 1988Orchis mascula L. N 59.8 75.1 Nilsson, 1983aOrchis morio L. N 10.1 35.2 Nilsson, 1984Orchis spitzelii Saut. ex Koch N 54.0 86.9 Fritz, 1990Platanthera bifolia (L.) Rich. N 43.8 84.2 Nilsson, 1983bPlatanthera chlorantha (Cust.) Rchb. N 23.9 73.5 Nilsson, 1983bPlatanthera ciliaris (L.) Lindl. N 66.0 76.0 Gregg, 1990Platanthera lacera (Michx.) G. Don N 67.0 47.0 Gregg, 1990Pleurothallis adamantinensis Brade N 28.0 92.0 Borba, Semir & Shepherd, 2001*Pleurothallis fabiobarrosii Borba & Semir N 30.0 94.0 Borba, Semir & Shepherd, 2001*Pleurothallis johannensis Barb. Rodr. N 20.0 91.0 Borba, Semir & Shepherd, 2001*Pleurothallis ochreata Lindl. N 28.0 95.0 Borba, Semir & Shepherd, 2001*Pleurothallis teres Lindl. N 5.0 90.0 Borba, Semir & Shepherd, 2001*Sacoila lanceolata (Aubl.) Garay var.
lanceolataN 80.0 75.0 Catling, 1987
Sacoila lanceolata (Aubl.) Garay var.paludicola (Luer) Sauleda, Wunderlin
Y 97.5 97.5 Catling, 1987
& B. F. HansenSatyrium bicorne Thunb. N 14.8 66.1 Ellis & Johnson, 1999Satyrium coriifolium Sw. N 29.3 65.6 Ellis & Johnson, 1999Satyrium erectum Sw. N 14.5 57.9 Ellis & Johnson, 1999Sophronitis purpurata (Lindl. & Paxton)
C. Berg & M. W. Chase N 11.6 43.8 Stort & de Lima Galdino, 1984Vanilla claviculata (W. Wright) Sw. N 63.0 88.0 L. R. Nielsen & J. D. Ackerman,
unpubl. dataXylobium squalens Lindl. N 74.7 82.3 Pintaúdi, Stort & Marin-Morales,
1990Mean and SE 40.8 (3.8) 64.6 (2.5)
Species Autogamy
EF (%)
ReferenceSelf Cross
Table 7. Continued
*Values are approximate, from interpretation of figure 2 in mentioned reference
22 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
(Ackerman & Montero Oliver, 1985; Calvo, 1993; Ack-erman et al., 1997) and Ackerman (1989) recorded avalue of 4% for Psychilis krugii while Christensen(1992) reported 2.2% for Stelis argentata. J. K. Zim-merman (unpubl. data) observed a level of 1.8% in aPanamanian population of Oncidium stipitatum andwe observed 1.6% fruit set in a Puerto Rican popula-tion of O. altissimum. In the tropical terrestrial Mal-axis massonii, fruit set was 1.4% and 3.4% in twopopulations (Aragón & Ackerman, 2001). Dieringer(1982) recorded an average fruit set of 5% in two Ohiopopulations of Galearis spectabilis (the self-compati-ble Maryland population, meanwhile, exhibited fruitset of 53%; J. K. Zimmerman, unpubl. data). Averagefruit set over 2 years in a Maryland population ofLiparis lilifolia was 1.6% (Whigham & O’Neil, 1991).
One suggestion as to why fruit set is higher in somespecies is that they do not possess elaborate mecha-nisms, evident in many other orchids (Dressler, 1981),which prevent self-pollination. Low fruit set in self-
incompatible species may be the result of much self-and geitonogamous pollination, resulting in flower orfruit abortion. Alternatively, mechanisms for prevent-ing self-pollination may include sequential flowering(Psychilis spp. - Ackerman, 1989; Malaxis massonii -Aragón & Ackerman, 2001), dichogamy/protandry(Goodyera oblongifolia - Ackerman, 1975; Spiranthes- Catling, 1983a; Prescottia stachyodes - Singer &Sazima, 2001a; Erythrodes arietina - Singer & Saz-ima, 2001b; Sauroglossum elatum - Singer, 2002;Mesadenella cuspidate (Lindl.) Garay - Singer, 2002;Notylia nemorosa Barb. Rodr. - Singer & Koehler,2002) and temporal variation in pollinarium size (Bul-bophyllum weddellii (Lindl.) Rchb. f., B. ipanemenseHoehne and B. involutum - Borba & Semir, 1999a).
Autogamy: This is not infrequent among orchid spe-cies. Van der Pijl & Dodson (1966) estimated thefamily-wide occurrence of autogamy to be about 3%,but recent estimates from local floras suggest it may
Table 8. Self-incompatible species
Species References
Acampe pachyglossa var. renschiana (Rchb. f.) Senghas Agnew, 1986Acampe praemorsa (Roxb.) Blatt. & McCann Agnew, 1986Angraecum cultiforme Summerh. Agnew, 1986Cattleya warneri Moore Stort & Martin, 1980Dendrobium (44 spp.) Johansen, 1990Doritis pulcherrima Lindl. Agnew, 1986Epidendrum cinnabarium Salzm. ex Lindl. East, 1940Epipactis atrorubens (Hoffm. ex Bernh.) Besser East, 1940Galearis spectabilis (L.) Raf. Dieringer, 1982Malaxis massonii (Ridl.) Kuntze Aragón & Ackerman, 2001Lepanthes woodburyana Stimson G. Pomales, M. Méndez & R. L. Tremblay, unpubl. dataLiparis lilifolia (L.) Lindl. Whigham & O’Neil, 1991Liparis makinoana Schltr. Oh et al, 2001Oeoniella polystachys (Thouars) Schltr. Agnew, 1986Oncidium ascendens Lindl. Parra-Tabla et al., 2000Oncidium cavendishianum Bateman East, 1940Oncidium cimiciferum (Rchb. f.) Beer East, 1940Oncidium crispum Lodd. East, 1940Oncidium divaricatum Lindl. East, 1940Oncidium lemonianum Lindl. East, 1940Oncidium sphacelatum Lindl. East, 1940Oncidium unicorne Lindl. East, 1940Phalaenopsis schilleriana Rchb. f. Agnew, 1986Psychilis krugii (Bello) Sauleda Ackerman, 1989Psychilis monensis Sauleda S. Aragón, unpubl. dataSobennikoffia humbertiana H. Perrier Agnew, 1986Stelis argentata Lindl. Christensen, 1992Tolumnia variegata (Sw.) Braem Ackerman & Montero Oliver, 1985Trichocentrum microchilum (Bateman ex Lindl.) East, 1940
M. W. Chase & N. H. Williams
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 23
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
be higher. Catling (1990) suggested that autogamouspollination may occur in between 5% and 20% of thefamily. Ackerman (1985) estimated that 15% of theNorth American orchid flora was autogamous com-pared to 10% for Barro Colorado Island, Panama and25% for Puerto Rico.
There is evidence that autogamy increases with lat-itude and in insular areas. In eastern Canada, forexample, 17% of orchids are autogamous, while valuesfor Europe range from 27 to 50% (Kirchner, 1922a;Hagerup, 1952; Catling, 1983b, 1990). Self-pollinationis more frequent in austere colder habitats (Catling,1990 and references therein) where pollinator activitymight be unpredictable.
Autogamy in orchids is often suggested by high lev-els of fruit set. Among orchids in which mechanisms ofself-pollination are known (Table 9), average fruit setis high, 77.0 ± 5.0% (between 14% and 100%, N = 21),much higher than it is in allogamous orchids (Table 3).Clearly, one result of autogamy is that pollination lim-itation is reduced (depending on the degree to whichthe pollen of a single flower can fertilize all potentialovules) or absent and the evolution of self-fertilization
under these conditions follows the ReproductiveAssurance Hypothesis of Hagerup (1952) and Jain(1976).
While fruit production is assured under self-fertili-zation, there are trade-offs involved. Inbreedingdepression, the loss in offspring fitness due to theexpression of deleterious recessive alleles and othercauses (Charlesworth & Charlesworth, 1979, 1987;Dudash, 1990), can offset increases in seed production.However, because offspring from self-pollination pos-sess two copies of the parental genome compared toone in outcrossed offspring, the critical level ofinbreeding depression determining the evolution ofautogamy is assumed to be 50% (Charlesworth &Charlesworth, 1979; Lande & Schemske, 1985; but seeHolsinger, 1988). On this basis Gill (1989, 1996) hassuggested that high inbreeding depression mayexplain the failure of Cypripedium acaule to developautogamy from its current ‘inefficient’ mating system(natural fruit set is often < 2% in this species, Table 3).Data on embryo formation from cross- and self-pollination in non-autogamous species do not suggesta level of inbreeding depression greater than 50%
Table 9. Natural fruit set (per cent fruits from flowers) in autogamous orchids
Species % FS Location Reference
Aplectrum hyemale (Mulh. ex Willd.) Torr. 64 Illinois, USA Hogan, 1983Bletia stenophylla Schltr. 88 Venezuela R.N. Calvo, unpubl. dataCaularthron bilamellatum (Rchb. f.) R. E. Schult. 86 Panama J.K. Zimmerman, unpubl. dataCephalanthera austinae (A. Gray) A. Heller 14 California, USA Kipping, 1971C. odontorhiza (Willd.) Poir. 84 Maryland, USA J.K. Zimmerman, unpubl. dataC trifida Chatel. 93 Ontario, Canada Catling, 1983bDisa glandulosa Harv. ex Lindl. 78 South Africa Johnson, Steiner & Kurzweil,
1994Disa vaginata Burch. ex. Lindl. 74 South Africa Johnson, Steiner & Kurzweil,
1994Goodyera procera Ker-Gawl. 94 Hong Kong Wong & Sun, 1999Isotria medeoloides (Pursh) Raf. 67 Main, USA Vitt & Campbell, 1997Isotria verticillata Muhl. ex Willd. 57 Southeastern USA Mehrhoff, 1983Liparis loeselii (L.) Rich. 71 Germany Kirchner, 1922bOeceoclades maculata (Lindl.) Lindl. 36 Florida, USA Calvo, 1990b
52 Puerto Rico González-Díaz & Ackerman,1988
Ophrys apifera Huds. 100 England Darwin, 1877Phragmipedium lindenii (Lindl.) Dressler & N. H.
Williams>95 Ecuador L. McCook, pers. comm.
Platanthera clavellata (Michx.) Luer 50 USA Gregg, 1990Platanthera hyperborea (L.) Lindl. 99-100 Michigan, USA Catling, 1983bSacoila lanceolata (Aubl.) Garay var. paludicola
(Luer) Sauleda, Wunderlin & B. F. Hansen100 Florida, USA Catling, 1987
Thelymitra carnea R. Br. 100 Australia Fitzgerald in Darwin, 1877Thelymitra circunsepta Fitzg. 96 Australia Sydes & Calder, 1993Mean (SE) 78.1 (4.8)
24 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
(Tables 6, 7). The level of inbreeding depression in theself-compatible Puerto Rican Prosthechea cochleatashowed very little difference in fitness among self andcross progeny (Ortiz-Barney & Ackerman, 1999); inthis species a selfing mutant could easily swamp theoutcrossing phenotype. However, more thorough stud-ies of inbreeding depression focusing on the completeorchid life span are required to address this issue.
Comparison of seed formation in autogamousorchids with that of outcrossing species suggests theelimination of an inbreeding fitness bottleneck inancestral outcrossing stock. The autogamous Brazil-ian Cattleya aurantiaca (Bateman) Don studied byStort & Martins (1980) did better under self- (79.5%)than cross-pollination (62.8%). In Oeceoclades macu-lata and Sacoila lanceolata (Catling, 1987; González-Díaz & Ackerman, 1988) embryo formation wassimilar in fruits from cross- and self-pollination(Table 7). In addition, seed mass of fruits inO. maculata was unaffected by self- and cross-pollination (González-Díaz & Ackerman, 1988).
Facultative autogamy may occur in a number of spe-cies (for review see Catling, 1990) and may be anappropriate strategy when frequency of pollination ishabitually low. An occasional crossing event may besufficient to infuse enough genetic variability todiminish any effects of inbreeding depression from fre-quent self-pollination. However, supporting evidenceis not yet at hand.
Pollen diversity: Increasing pollen diversity on thestigma can positively affect the quality and quantity ofthe progeny (Marshall & Ellstrand, 1986; Montalvo,1992). For orchids, the effects of multiple parentageare incompletely known yet it may be important forsome species, particularly those with mealy or sectilepollen. The incidence of multipaternal pollination inorchids is, similarly, usually not known, although it isnot likely to be frequent, as many orchid flowers arenot visited at all and when they are, they wither afterpollen deposition (Arditti, 1976; Proctor & Harder,1995). Nevertheless, multipaternal pollinations arepossible because pollinators may carry more than onepollinarium (Nilsson et al., 1987; Luyt & Johnson,2001). When evidence for such pollination has beensought under field conditions, it was either notdetected (Tremblay, 1994; Peakall, 1989b; Nilsson,Rabakonandrianina & Pettersson, 1992; Salguero-Faría & Ackerman, 1999) or found to be rare (Folsom,1994). What is the effect of pollen diversity on seedquality? Tremblay (1994) hand-pollinated Cypripe-dium calceolus, where treatments included pollinationby outcrossing with a single father or a mixture of tendifferent fathers. Multipaternal pollination resultedin a higher germination rate although embryo sizeswere generally smaller.
POLLINATION LIMITATION SUMMARY
In nearly all non-autogamous species examined, fruitset may be increased by hand pollination, which sug-gests that the observed variation in fruit set is mainlydependent upon the level of pollinator activity. This inturn may vary among populations and among years.Thus orchids are generally pollination limited andseverely so. Pollen quantity, quality and frequency ofselfing may also affect fruit and seed set, but are gen-erally not correlated with the degree of pollinatoractivity.
RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS IN ORCHIDS
SHORT-TERM EFFECTS
What role does the availability of resources play inorchid reproduction? The usual evidence for resourcelimitation of fruit and seed set is that additional pol-lination fails to increase fruit production, whereas anaugmentation of resources succeeds in doing so. Anexperimental study evaluating the effect of nutrientapplication (N, P and K) to Platanthera bifolia andDactylorhiza incarnata showed mixed results (Mattila& Kuitunen, 2000). They found that for P. bifolia,plant size was the factor in determining fruit set of fer-tilized plants. Small plants had higher fruit set whengiven nutrients, whereas large plants showed no dif-ferences (Mattila & Kuitunen, 2000). Nutrient fertili-zation of D. incarnata did not effect fruit initiation andproduction, or leaf area in the following year (Mattila& Kuitunen, 2000).
Another experiment evaluated the effect of addi-tional water resources on fruit production in Platan-thera bifolia (Mattila, 2000). While it resulted inhigher fruit production, no increase in leaf area wasnoted on plants the following year (Mattila, 2000).Fisher (1992) examined the consequences of the asso-ciation of the self-pollinating Caulathron bilamella-tum with an ant which inhabits the pseudobulb. Therefuse of the ant community presumably fertilizes theplant. Such uptake has been demonstrated in Myrme-cophila tibicinis (Rico-Gray et al., 1989). Fisher’sremoval of the ants and their refuse reduced the num-ber of fruits produced, which suggests that reproduc-tion is resource limited. Zimmerman & Whigham(1992) showed that severance of old corms in Tipu-laria discolor and experimental defoliation (herbivoryeffect) had little effect on fruit production. Aragón &Ackerman (2001) had similar results in their defolia-tion experiments with Malaxis massonii as did Pri-mack, Miao & Becker (1994) in their work onCypripedium. Not surprisingly, the response level wasdependent on the severity of the costs. Multi-yeardefoliation of T. discolor resulted in failure to produceflowers (Whigham, 1990).
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 25
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Fire has been thought to stimulate flowering in ter-restrial orchids, although Barnett (1984) found thatamong 22 species at one site in Australia most wereadversely affected and only a few responded positively.Primack et al. (1994) noted that fire also had a nega-tive effect on Cypripedium acaule that became addi-tive when coupled with simulated herbivory. D. E. Gill(pers. comm.) noted a positive effect on the same spe-cies, but an indirect one: fire opened up the forest can-opy, stimulating flowering of food plants for thepollinators of C. acaule, while the orchid benefitedfrom increased pollinator populations and visitationrates.
Disease can affect resource availability and repro-ductive success in many plants (Burdon, 1987), but itrarely has been studied in natural populations oforchids. Meléndez & Ackerman (1993) studied a com-mon rust disease in a population of the epiphytic Tol-umnia variegata and found that it had little impact oneither short-term vegetative growth or reproductivesuccess.
In some studies in which fruit production wassignificantly increased by hand pollination, within-season effects of resource availability have beendocumented. These include reduced flower productionor vegetative growth, decreased fruit size withincreasing fruit number, position-dependent fruitsize, and abortion of initiated fruits (Montalvo & Ack-erman, 1987; Ackerman, 1989; Zimmerman & Aide,1989; Calvo, 1993). A series of experiments evaluat-ing the effect of a reduction in photosynthesis demon-strated that it affected neither fruit production norleaf area in Dactylorhiza maculata, which suggeststhat orchids either are either heavily dependent onmycorrhizae or utilize stored resources for fruit devel-opment, capsule weight and subsequent growth (Val-lius & Salonen, 2000; Vallius, 2001). In addition tothese short-term effects that are widely known amongorchidists, long-term costs to elevated fruit set alsooccur.
LONG-TERM EFFECTS
Ample evidence for within-season pollinator limita-tion in orchids exists, yet lifetime fruit production maybe resource-limited rather than pollinator-limited(Montalvo & Ackerman, 1987; Zimmerman & Aide,1989). In a study in which hand pollination resulted ina 13-fold increase in fruit set over natural pollinationin Encyclia cordigera, Janzen et al. (1980) argued thatthe results of single-season experiments could be mis-leading because the experimental increase in fruit setmight have detrimental effects on future growth andreproduction (i.e. it may result in an increased cost ofreproduction). Determining the long-term effect ofincreasing fruit set was tested on the epiphyte, Ionop-
sis utricularioides, by Montalvo & Ackerman (1987).Natural fruit set in this species was 6.1%; in hand-pollinated plants it was between 51% and 66%, abouta 10-fold increase. However, this increase carried acost. There was a significant negative linear correla-tion between fruit set in 1982 and the per cent changein leaf area between 1982 and 1983, and plants with>25% fruit set also had a significantly lower probabil-ity of flowering in 1983 than those with lower fruit set(67% failed to flower vs. 19%, respectively). Further-more, mineral fertilization in a shaded greenhouseresulted in higher growth rates than in the field.These data indicate that the availability of nutrientswas a limiting factor for growth and reproduction, andthat there was a trade-off in resource allocation tothese two functions. Significant negative effects ofartificially increased fruit set on growth have beenreported in four other tropical epiphytes and two tem-perate species (Ackerman, 1989; Snow & Whigham,1989; Zimmerman & Aide, 1989; Ackerman & Mon-talvo, 1990; Primack & Hall, 1990; Meléndez-Ackerman, Ackerman & Rodríguez-Robles, 2000).However, no effects of fruit set on either growth orreproduction were detected in multiyear studies ofCyclopogon cranichoides (Calvo, 1990a) and Cleistesdivaricata (Gregg, 1989).
RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS AND OVULE DEVELOPMENT
One corollary of the resource limitation hypothesis(Stephenson & Bertin, 1983) is that the relative cost offlowers is small compared to that of fruits, such thatlarge floral displays are relatively inexpensive. Forexample, Bookman (1984) showed that the biomassand nutrient content of abscised flowers and fruits ofAsclepias speciosa Torr. was < 3.2% that of maturepods, suggesting that the cost of aborting the struc-tures was relatively small. Similar adaptations to pol-lination and resource limitation may have occurred inorchids.
As noted previously, hyperovulate ovaries (and theenormous number of seeds produced per fruit) is ahallmark of orchid reproduction. Although firstdescribed in the 1940s (Duncan & Curtis, 1943; seeWirth & Withner, 1959 for citations), it is still notwidely recognized that ovule development in orchids isusually completed after pollination. As a result, theperiod between pollination and fertilization in orchidscan be quite long, ranging from a week to almost ayear (Wirth & Withner, 1959). In orchids with singleanthers, ovaries develop to a stage where three pla-cental ridges, consisting of undifferentiated tissue, areevident. Cypripedoid orchids have two anthers anddifferentiation proceeds to where megaspore mothercells (which will divide by mitosis to form megagame-tophytes) are recognizable. In both types of orchids
26 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
further development of ovules is triggered by auxinreleased from pollen that has been deposited on thestigma (Wirth & Withner, 1959).
Can the incomplete development of orchid ovariesbe interpreted as part of a reproductive strategyrelated to pollen-limited fruit reproduction? If flowersfrequently remain unpollinated, then the arresteddevelopment of the ovaries may represent a strategyfor limiting the cost of flower production (Dressler,1981) in favour of pollinator attraction. FollowingBookman’s (1984) example, Zimmerman (unpub-lished) collected data on the relative mass of flowersand fruits from a Maryland population of Tipulariadiscolor. Plants were sampled at anthesis, at the timethe ovaries of pollinated flowers had expanded (andincluded only the placental ridges in the hollowovary), and when fruits were mature. Ovaries atanthesis weighed about 0.5 mg (dry weight after >72 h at 60 ∞C). The average mass of expanded ovarieswas 6.25 mg (12.5 times that of ovaries at anthesis)and that of mature fruits was 8.65 mg (over 17 timesthat of an unexpanded ovary). Thus, the mass ofmature fruits is only about 1.4 times that of matureflowers and if T. discolor were to regularly abortunpollinated, fully developed flowers, it would be rel-atively costly in terms of biomass.
A test of this idea would come from an orchid inwhich fruit set of flowers was assured. Wirth & With-ner (1959) noted one exception in orchids in whichovary development proceeds, prior to pollination, tolevels beyond those observed in other orchids. Thisoccurs in a triandrous form of the normally monan-drous Prosthechea cochleata. This form is autogamousand differentiation of the placental ridges precedescontact of the pollen and stigmatic fluids (Duncan &Curtis, 1943). One consequence of autogamy is thatpollen-limitation is alleviated and fruit set is assured.In autogamous orchids, therefore, one would expect toobserve a relatively greater degree of ovule develop-ment in advance of pollination.
EVALUATING SHORT AND LONG-TERM COSTS
OF FRUIT SET
Calvo & Horvitz (1990) investigated the relative rolesof pollination level and cost of reproduction on overallfitness using a transition matrix demographic modelof orchid life-history. The model incorporated life-his-tory traits characteristic of orchids, such as skeweddistribution in fruit production, the ability to regressin size in subsequent years, and high fecundity havinga cost. Through simulation, the model predicted thatmaximum fitness would be attained at intermediatelevels of pollination in most cases. The results stressedthe importance of the trade-off between the additionalfecundity gained through increased fruit production
and its effects on subsequent growth. For a given mag-nitude of cost, there was a threshold return in fecun-dity beyond which higher fruit production wasfavourable.
Tolumnia variegata provides a good example of thedisparity between an increase in fruit set and the costof the increase. In Calvo’s (1993) study population,hand-pollination of field plants resulted in 72% fruitset vs. 0% in naturally pollinated plants. In the follow-ing year the former were, on average, about 30%smaller than the latter. This model showed that thecost was too insignificant to override the potential ben-efit of higher fruit set.
Re-examination of the evidence for Ionopsis utricu-larioides (Montalvo & Ackerman, 1987) and Aspasiaprincipissa (Zimmerman & Aide, 1989) in terms oftheir demographic model, led Calvo & Horvitz (1990)to suggest that these species may indeed be pollinator-limited, mainly because the fecundity gained throughhigher fruit production appeared to be relativelyhigher than the negative effects of costs. Meléndez-Ackerman et al. (2000) took a different approach fromCalvo & Horvitz (1990). From experimental data onComparettia falcata, they calculated a relative fitnessindex to compare pollen augmented plants and natu-rally pollinated plants and found that lifetime fitnessin this species can be resource limited. Nutrient avail-ability affects flowering in a number of orchids andconsequently resources do affect reproductive success(Dijk, Willems & Van Andel, 1997). Nevertheless, theavailable evidence seems to indicate that, althoughresource limitation may impose an upper limit to fruitproduction in orchids, many species could sustain sig-nificantly higher levels of pollination throughout theirlifetimes.
Many orchids face low fruit production as a result oflow pollination, but they are able to produce manyfruits if pollinated. If pollination is uncertain at theindividual level, then producing many fruits in a given‘good’ year may be beneficial to the plant even if itentails a cost, because the probability of being polli-nated in the subsequent year may be very low, regard-less of whether or not the plant sets fruit in thecurrent year (Zimmerman & Aide, 1989; Calvo & Hor-vitz, 1990). For example, the lady’s slipper, Cypripe-dium acaule, produces a single flower per year andconsistently exhibits strikingly low fruit set in closedcanopy forests where the orchids are usually found(below 10%; Davis, 1986; Gill, 1989). Fruiting doeshave a significant cost, but only after four consecutiveyears, which may occur with a probability of 0.0001(Primack & Hall, 1990). On the rare occasion that theforest canopy opens up after a fire, pollinator activityabruptly increases as does fruit set (Gill, 1996). Thissit-and-wait strategy probably pays off because thelong intervals of low activity allow plants to replenish
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 27
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
their resources before another fruiting event takesplace.
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS ON REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS
Variation in the probability of a given flower settingfruit is influenced by a number of factors. Phenology,inflorescence, habitat, plant density, population size,and temporal variation (Kindlmann & Balounová,2001) may affect reproductive success as well as thecomposition of the surrounding plant community.
PHENOLOGY
The degree of synchronization between flower anthe-sis and pollinator availability may affect visitationrates. In several temperate orchid species, individu-als that flower early in the spring are pollinated at ahigher rate than those that flower later, as inCalypso bulbosa (Ackerman, 1981), Orchis morio(Nilsson, 1984), Orchis mascula (Nilsson, 1983b) andPlatanthera blephariglottis in Michigan (cf. Cole &Firmage, 1984). The same phenomenon was observedin the tropical epiphyte Tolumnia variegata (Sabat &Ackerman, 1996). However, constant rates of pollina-tion throughout the season were reported for thesame species of Platanthera in Maine (Smith &Snow, 1976), and for the tropical epiphyte, Psychiliskrugii (Ackerman, 1989), which flowers all year. InDactylorhiza sambucina the highest rates of visita-tion and pollinia removal occurred at the beginningof the flowering season (Nilsson, 1980), but thisobservation was not discussed in terms of fruitingsuccess.
Zimmerman et al. (1989) reported asynchronousphenologies of Catasetum viridiflavum and itseuglossine bee pollinator, Eulaema cingulata (Fabri-cius) in Panama. Peak flowering occurred up to sixmonths later than the peak of pollinator activity, withfruit set of early flowering plants being about threetimes higher than later flowering ones. However, earlyinitiated fruits were shed at a higher rate, even whenthey appeared to be fully developed. This shedding offruits was presumably related to the long time fruitshave to be retained until seed dispersal, which occursduring the next dry season. Zimmerman et al. (1989)discussed the possibility of conflicting selective pres-sures on the flowering time of C. viridiflavum. In sev-eral cases, the phenology of orchids and theirpollinators has been recorded (Smith & Snow, 1976;Nilsson, 1978b, 1983a; Ackerman, 1983; Inoue, 1985;Nilsson et al., 1985), but the effects of individual vari-ation in flowering phenology on fruit set was not fullydiscussed.
INFLORESCENCE EFFECTS
Differential fruit set can occur, as a result of the posi-tion of the flower on the inflorescence (Nilsson, 1980,1983b, 1984; Cole & Firmage, 1984; Berry & Calvo,1991; Vallius, 2000). In all reported cases, fruit set washighest toward the bottom of the inflorescence anddecreased steadily toward the top. In Orchis morio,O. mascula, and Dactylorhiza sambucina, which arenectarless orchids with acropetal floral development,the reduction in fruit set along the inflorescence wasdramatic. Fruit set of flowers at the top was between50 and 90% lower than that of those at the bottom(Nilsson, 1978a, 1980, 1983b, 1984; Vallius, 2000). Asimilar pattern was observed in the nectar producingOreorchis patens in Japan (Sugiura, Okajima &Maeta, 1997). These patterns may result from pollina-tor foraging behaviour. Pollinators tend to moveupwards along inflorescences in order to forage fornectar (Ackerman, 1975; Best & Bierzychudek, 1982);they may depart after unsuccessfully probing a fewflowers, thus resulting in reduced pollination of flow-ers located towards the top (Nilsson, 1980, 1983b).
It is possible that the nectar reward is insufficient toencourage multiple flower visits or that the top flowersare smaller in size, thus affecting reproductive success(Sugiura et al., 1997). Alternatively, in reward species,pollinators may lose interest as rewards in the popu-lation diminish below a certain threshold as happenswith pollinators of other plant populations (Heinrich,1975). In the case of deceptive species, the pool ofnaive pollinators may become exhausted so that flow-ers emerging in the latter half of the season wouldreceive few visitations (see ‘Phenology’ above). Fruit-ing would therefore be more common on the lower andolder parts of the inflorescence.
A unique situation has been described for the highaltitude Andean orchid, Myrosmodes cochleare (Berry& Calvo, 1991). As in other orchids, fruit set decreasesmarkedly toward the top of the inflorescence; however,in this case flowers open in a basipetal sequence (i.e.top flowers open first) and flower size increasessteadily from the top to the bottom of the inflores-cence. Controlled pollination revealed that the abilityto set fruit decreases from the bottom to the top, andappears to be associated with the change in flowersize. Because pollen viability is high along the inflo-rescence, Berry & Calvo (1991) argued thatM. cochleare is functionally andromonoecious.
Position-related fruit set is common in other fami-lies, but it has been generally explained in terms ofcompetition for resources among developing ovaries(Lee, 1988). Basal, early initiated fruit may pre-emptresources that could otherwise be allocated to otherfruit (Stephenson, 1981; Bawa & Webb, 1984). Thus, inresource-limited species, position-related fruit set is a
28 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
consequence of differential flowering or fruit abortion.Orchids, however, are largely pollination-limited andthe pattern seems to be the result of differential pol-lination along the inflorescence. Consequently, thecommonness and influence of resource allocationneeds to be studied and could explain position-dependent fruit set, especially in terrestrial, many-flowered species.
HABITAT AND COMMUNITY EFFECTS
Another potential source of variation in attractivenessto pollinators (and thus in fruit set) among individualsof a population is the microhabitat they occupy. In gen-eral, plants that attract their pollinators by means ofvisual cues may be less visited if they grow amongother plants or in shady spots (e.g. Orchis galilaea;Bino, Dafni & Meeuse, 1982). Reduced fruit set hasbeen attributed to ‘closed habitat’ in Platanthera cili-aris (Smith & Snow, 1976), and P. blephariglottis (Cole& Firmage, 1984), where plants were somewhat hid-den by the surrounding vegetation. In Cephalantheralongifolia, fruit set of plants located in shady micro-habitats was 40–50% lower than that of those insunny areas in two consecutive years (Dafni & Ivri,1981b). Similarly, M. Morales & J. D. Ackerman(unpubl. data) found that in a population of the epi-phytic Tolumnia variegata, plants in the sun had 20%fruit set whereas those in the shade had only 3%.Inoue (1985) studied two moth-pollinated species ofPlatanthera; in one there was a detectable reductionin fruit set related to plant cover, but in the other norelationship was detected.
Sometimes fruiting success of an individual maysimply depend on whether it is located where its pol-linators are present. Ackerman et al. (1997) found thatpopulation variation in fruit set of Tolumnia variegatawas associated with the abundance of their Centrisbee pollinators. Nilsson (1983c) noted that fruit set inCephalanthera rubra, which deceives its solitary malebee pollinator, Chelostoma spp., was 30% in areas thatwere patrolled by the bees, and only 7% in unpatrolledareas (Nilsson, 1983c). Finally, deceptive orchids mayhave higher fruit set if the population overlaps with arewarding species and they share one or more pollina-tors. Cypripedium acaule benefits from bumblebeeactivity on interspersed Vaccinium (Gill, 1996). Dafni& Ivri (1981a) observed that fruit set of the nectarlessOrchis israelitica, which resembles flowers of the nec-tariferous Bellevalia flexuosa Boiss. (Liliaceae), wasbelow 5% where Bellevalia was absent and higherthan 35% with it present. Similarly, fruit set in Orchiscaspia was 2–6 times higher where nectar producingspecies of other families were present (Dafni, 1983).However, fruit production of Epidendrum radicansPav. ex Lindl. was apparently unaffected by the pres-
ence of Asclepias curassavica L. and Lantana camaraL., two nectar producing species with similar floraldisplays that share pollinators with it (Bierzychudek,1981b), although other nectar resources were nottaken into account.
In the rewardless Orchis boryi, reproductive successcan depend on the flower colour of the plants in thesurrounding community (Gumbert & Kunze, 2001).Bees that preferentially foraged on flowers similar incolour to that of the orchid were more likely to visit theorchid as well. Visits to O. boryi were also influencedby the density of both the orchid and the surroundingrewarding plants.
Reproductive success can vary dramatically betweenadjacent sites where habitats differ. Sugiura et al.(1997) observed that at an exposed seashore site inJapan, the unpollinated flowers of Cypripedium mac-ranthos lasted an average 5.1 days and fruit set was8.3%. At a nearby sheltered area, longevity was twiceas long yet fruit set was only 1.2%. The authors suggestthat the lower fruit set was a direct consequence ofanthropogenic intervention (tourism, site two only:1500 visitors/day) interfering with the pollinators.
DENSITY EFFECTS
Clumped distributions may result in higher pollina-tion rates if pollinators respond to the larger floral dis-play. However, not many studies have addressed thispossibility. In Calopogon tuberosus, clumps of interme-diate size (2–8 plants in a 1-m radius) were found tohave higher fruit set than either solitary plants orclumps of nine or more plants (Firmage & Cole, 1988).More pollinators may be attracted to the largerclumps, but because C. tuberosus has a deceptive pol-lination system, they might be abandoned after a fewunrewarding visits, resulting in lower overall fruit set(Firmage & Cole, 1988). No effect of clump size orplant densities was found in Brassavola nodosa(Schemske, 1980), Leporella fimbriata (Peakall,1989a) or Malaxis massonii (Aragón & Ackerman,2001). Plant densities also had no effect on reproduc-tive success in Listera cordata except where plantswhere highly dispersed (Meléndez-Ackerman & Ack-erman, 2001). Alternatively, Schemske (1980) sug-gested that pollinators of Brassavola nodosa mayfocus on the inflorescence as the unit of attractioninstead of clusters of inflorescences. This is corrobo-rated by some studies (Montalvo & Ackerman, 1987;Aragón & Ackerman, 2001), but not by others(Meléndez-Ackerman & Ackerman, 2001). In one caseSabat & Ackerman (1996) found that frequency of vis-itation to a population of Tolumnia variegata wasmore closely related to the number of flowers on a hosttree than to the number of flowers on a host branch ororchid inflorescence.
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 29
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
POPULATION SIZE EFFECTS
Population size can have an effect on reproductive suc-cess. For orchids, the distribution of population sizes isskewed, with most populations holding only a fewindividuals and few populations are large (Whigham& O’Neill, 1988; Tremblay, 1997c). Fritz & Nilsson(1994) observed the effect of pollinaria removal andfruit set in populations of differing size in three spe-cies of deceptive orchids in Sweden (Orchis spitzelii,N = 10; Orchis palustris Jacq., N = 8, and Anacamptispyramidalis, N = 10). The number of pollinaria remov-als and fruit set increased with population size, butthe proportion of pollinaria removed per plantdecreased. The effect on fruit set was inconsistentamong the three species: a reduction was observed inthe butterfly-pollinated A. pyramidalis but no correla-tion was observed in the other two species. In general,larger populations had: (1) more pollinaria removedand higher fruit set; (2) decreased pollinaria removalsper individual; (3) increased variance in male (but notfemale) reproductive success; (4) an increased ratio ofpollinaria removal to fruit set; and (5) increase in vari-ation of pollinator types.
In addition to Fritz & Nilsson’s (1994) study,Donaldson et al. (2002) examined the effect of habitatfragmentation on pollinator diversity and reproduc-tive success and showed that these factors can influ-ence reproductive success by demonstrating thatisolated small populations can fail to set fruit. Murren(2002) investigated the effect of fragmentation onreproductive success in Catasetum viridiflavum in tenislands created by the Panama Canal and five nearbymainland sites. Reproductive success, as measured asfruit set, was significantly lower on islands as com-pared to mainland populations in two of three years.
We have supplementary data on the number of pol-linations or fruits set and variance in male and femalereproductive success. Ackerman (1981) found thenumber of fruits set in the deceptive Calypso bulbosavar. occidentalis was strongly related to populationsize [linear regression, N = 7, r2 = 0.84, P = 0.004 (ouranalysis)] as did Peakall (1989a) for the number of pol-linations in populations of Leporella fimbriata [N = 16,r2 = 0.46, P = 0.004 (our analysis)]. However, Peakall(1990) did not find such a relationship for Drakaeaglyptodon [N = 9, P = 0.3 (our analysis)]. Fritz & Nils-son (1994) showed that only variance in female repro-ductive success was unrelated to population sizewhereas Tremblay (unpubl. data) found that variancein both male and female reproductive success in threespecies of Caribbean Lepanthes was independent ofthe size of populations (all P > 0.20).
Although we often find a positive relationshipbetween population size and the number of pollina-tions or fruits set, per cent fruit set shows no such
relationship. Per cent fruit set was independent ofpopulation size in the rewardless Calypso bulbosa var.occidentalis [Ackerman (1981) linear regression,r2 = 0.22, N = 7, P = 0.61 (our calculations)], althoughthere was a tendency for reduced per cent fruit set invery small or very large populations. Alexandersson &Ågren’s (2000) similar study of the same species noteda negative relationship between pollen removal andpopulation size, although the pattern was onlyobserved in one of two years. Moreover, fruit set waspopulation size independent. Similarly, in populationsof the sexually deceptive Australian terrestrials, Dra-kaea glyptodon (N = 9), Caladenia tentactulata (N = 5)and Leporella fimbriata (N = 16), the percentage offlowers pollinated was independent of population size[linear regressions: all P ≥ 0.3 (our calculations)] butthere was a trend for the largest populations to havelower rates of pollination (Peakall, 1989a, 1990;Peakall & Beattie, 1996). Per cent fruit set of SouthAfrican populations of sexually deceptive Disa atrica-pilla (N = 6, P = 0.39) and D. bivalvata (N = 4,P = 0.28) were again unrelated to population size(Steiner, Whitehead & Johnson, 1994). Furthermore,pollinator behaviour may be affected by populationsize variation which may itself be density dependent(Gillman & Dodd, 2000). Thus, in general, reproduc-tive success as measured by per cent fruit set or flow-ers pollinated in populations of deceptive species inAfrica, Australia, North America and the Caribbean,appears to be unrelated to most population sizesencountered.
TEMPORAL VARIATION IN REPRODUCTIVE EFFORT
Fruit set in some populations of both tropical and tem-perate orchids is consistent from year to year. Popula-tions of Orchis mascula showed 4.8–7.1% fruit set overa period of 6 years (Nilsson, 1983b), and V. C. Quesnel(pers. comm.) reported that fruit set was consistentlylow in a Trinidad population of Cyrtopodium parviflo-rum Lindl. (1978, 10%, 1979, 1%, 1980, 3% and 1981,8%). Fruit set was also consistent in Epidendrum cil-iare and was even unaltered after a hurricane severelyaltered the habitat (Ackerman & Moya, 1996).
Consistency may commonly exist, but not all popu-lations of a species behave in a similar fashion. Tol-umnia variegata fruit set differed ten-fold amongPuerto Rican populations, but was consistent amongyears (Ackerman et al., 1997). Usually, Cypripediumacaule also has a fairly constant fruit set (Gill, 1989;Primack & Hall, 1990) and a low one too, but unlikeE. ciliare, a large increase in fruit production occurredwhen the environment was radically modified. Afteran outbreak of gypsy moth caused trees above theorchids to defoliate, the increased light brought a dra-matic increase in flower production in orchids and
30 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
blueberries. The latter were an important nectarsource for bees, pollinators of both the blueberries andthe orchids. The bee populations increased, and orchidfruit set leaped to 20% (Gill, 1996). Such environmen-tal perturbations may be responsible for the variablefruit set reported in other orchid populations such asEpipactis palustris (5.01–19.80% in 3 years; Nilsson,1983b) and Orchis morio (4.3–30.2% over a 5-yearperiod; Nilsson, 1984).
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES AND CONSEQUENCES
Studies of patterns of evolutionary divergence inorchids have flourished over the last decade, withnumerous papers addressing evolutionary relation-ships among species, genera, tribes and subfamilies ofthe Orchidaceae (Benzing, 1987; Chase & Palmer,1997; Barkman, 2001; Barkman & Simpson, 2002;Mant et al., 2002). These studies have generated muchdiscussion, spawning hypotheses of evolutionary pro-cesses to explain the patterns of relationships. How-ever, our understanding of the processes by whichorchids evolve is still in its infancy. In this section wediscuss how variation originates in orchids, describethe evolutionary processes associated with theseplants and review the evidence for each.
SOURCES OF VARIATION
Evolution can only occur if there is variation amongindividuals. The most commonly acknowledged causeof variation is point mutation. Using phylogeneticdata, Barraclough & Savolainen (2001) estimated neu-tral molecular evolution in flowering plants and dem-onstrated that a positive relationship between speciesnumber and rate of molecular change exists. What isthe cause of molecular rate change? Barraclough &Savolainen (2001) suggested that three possible com-ponents could influence and cause higher evolutionaryrates: short generation time, small population size andhigh mutation rates. Mutation rates may vary amongdifferent plant lineages for a number of reasons,including mismatch repair efficiency and mutagenexposure (Merrell, 1981; Gaut et al., 1996; Barra-clough & Savolainen, 2001).
In addition to DNA mutation, variation is alsoaffected by meiotic recombination (Adelson, 2001). Inorchids, every fruit produces many seeds; the largestcontain over a million (Arditti & Ghani, 2000). Thus,the opportunity for meiotic recombination is high,where each new combination constitutes an experi-ment in variation.
Another process influencing variation in orchids ispolyploidy and aneuploidy, both of which are notuncommon. (Tanaka & Kamemoto, 1984). From a hor-
ticultural point of view, polyploidy often results inmore robust plants with flowers that are wider,thicker, more erect, sturdy or compact. However,Tanaka & Kamemoto (1984) note that whereas polyp-loidy leads to distinct differences from parental plants,aneuploidy rarely leads to differences from the paren-tal plant except for deviations from the basic chromo-some number.
Hybridization generates considerable variation andis thought to be a major reason for plant diversifica-tion (Stebbins, 1959; Campbell Waser & Meléndez-Ackerman, 1997). In fact, coupled with polyploidy, itmay lead to sympatric speciation of allopolyploidicpopulations (Hedrén, 1996). Natural hybrids occuramong orchids and new examples are reported everyyear. However, convincing genetic evidence is rarelypresented for putative hybrids. Hybrid swarms andhybrid origins of species appear to be commonplace inEurope (Scacchi, De Angelis & Lanzara, 1990) but arerarely reported elsewhere. The high frequency inEurope may be overstated (Hedrén, 1996) whereas thelow occurrence elsewhere may be understated. In atleast one neotropical genus, Tolumnia, a number ofprocesses seem to be operating that generate variationand these do include both hybridization and poly-ploidy (Withner, 1976; Braem, 1988).
Whatever the origin of variation within and amongorchid populations, the consequences for orchid evolu-tion depend on the same processes. Rather thanreview and debate the relative importance of varioussources of variation, we focus on the conditions andprocesses that shape that variation.
NATURAL SELECTION AND GENETIC DRIFT
Two processes can lead to evolution: natural selectionand genetic drift. Natural selection is a process thatrequires (a) variation in character states among indi-viduals (variation); (b) a relationship between traitvariants and the ability of the individuals to leave off-spring (fitness differences); and (c) that the trait beheritable between parents and offspring (inheritance).
Genetic drift requires (a) and (c), but (b) is absent(Endler, 1986). Population sizes necessary for naturalselection and genetic drift to occur are likely to be dif-ferent. Natural selection is more likely in populationswith large effective sizes, unless the selection coeffi-cient is high, while genetic drift is more likely in pop-ulations with small effective sizes. The presence ofnatural selection does not exclude genetic drift andvice versa. It is important to appreciate that in smallpopulations, small selection coefficients are effectivelyneutral: the smaller the population, the larger theselection coefficient must be to overcome genetic drift.Consequently, for natural selection to be dominantand observable in small populations, the selection
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 31
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
coefficients need to be high (Merrell, 1981; Tremblay,1997a).
Are fruit set and pollinaria removals goodindicators of fitness?Attempts to understand the reproductive ecology oforchids and flowering plants in general have focusedon fruit and seed production. Arguments about polli-nator vs. resource limitation, pollinator efficiency andfitness have been made under the assumption that iffruit set is higher, then fitness would be higher. Evo-lutionary arguments about pollinator limitation andresource limitation are applicable only to the extent towhich fruit production affects overall fitness and isconsequently subjected to selection. The only study todate that addresses this question in orchids is Acker-man, Sabat & Zimmerman (1996), who found thathigher fruit production in Tolumnia variegataresulted in an increase in seedling establishment.Thus, in one of 20 000 or so species of orchids, fruit setis a good indicator of reproductive success and, in par-ticular, female fitness.
Occasionally the number of pollinaria removals isused as a measure of male fitness; again, however, wehave found only one study that has tested this notion.Nilsson et al. (1992) used microtags on pollinaria ofAerangis ellisii and found that there was a very strongrelationship between the number of pollinariaremoved and success as a pollen donor.
Fitness is a measure of the relative reproductivesuccess of individuals (fruit set or pollinaria removals)as compared to the mean of the population. Conse-quently, it is the ability of an individual to leave off-spring as compared to others, making the number offruits produced or pollinia donated important. On theother hand, per cent fruit set is a measure likely to bemore relevant for comparing growth among popula-tions.
EVIDENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION
There is no doubt that selection is responsible formany (probably most) of the floral adaptations oforchids. However, there are few examples that showhow natural selection occurs in orchids and thestrength and direction of the selection. We describesome of the evidence in this section.
Influence of inflorescence display size onreproductive successInflorescence size (number of flowers per inflores-cence) or display size (number of flowers open) variesin most orchids. If reproductive success is associatedwith size or display, then the number of flowers pro-duced may be affected by selection. Plants with largerinflorescences had a higher probability of setting fruit
in Brassavola nodosa (Schemske, 1980), Lepantheswendlandii (Calvo, 1990b), Calopogon tuberosus (Fir-mage & Cole, 1988), Ionopsis utricularioides (Mon-talvo & Ackerman, 1987) and Aspasia principissa(Zimmerman & Aide, 1989). This was not the case withdisplay size in the self-incompatible Psychilis krugii(Ackerman, 1989), Cypripedium fasciculatum (Lipow,Bernhardt & Vance, 2002) or inflorescence size in Epi-dendrum exasperatum (Calvo, 1990b). However, pro-longed sequential production of flowers in Psychilismonensis improves probability of both male andfemale success (S. Aragón, unpubl. data).
The effect of inflorescence size on fruit productioncan be time dependent. Rodríguez-Robles et al. (1992)found a positive relationship in Comparettia falcata inone year but not in another. Furthermore, response tovariation in inflorescence size may differ among polli-nators. Inoue (1986a) showed in a study of the moth-pollinated Platanthera metabifolia that species of thefamily Sphingidae were clearly the most effective pol-linators and responded positively to inflorescence size,whereas those of the Noctuidae were poor pollinatorsand did not favour the larger inflorescences. Maad(2000) found display size to be highly significant anddirectional in P. bifolia in three consecutive years.Thus, flower production in most cases is positivelyrelated to fitness so that one would expect selection forincreased flower production in the absence of anyother constraints.
Floral display, whether measured by inflorescenceor flower size, may differentially affect male andfemale reproductive success. A role for male-malecompetition in the evolution of display size assumesthat pollen is not limiting to reproduction (Stephenson& Bertin, 1983; Willson & Burley, 1983). Therefore, inpollen-limited taxa, one might expect that display sizewould influence male and female reproductive successequally. In those orchids that have been studied, thisappears to be true. In each of these studies, malereproductive success was estimated from pollinariaremovals and female reproductive success was mea-sured as fruit set (usually) or pollination, as deter-mined by the presence of pollinia on the stigma. In thetropical orchids Aspasia principissa (Zimmerman &Aide, 1989), Psychilis krugii (Ackerman, 1989), andComparettia falcata (Rodríguez-Robles, Meléndez &Ackerman, 1992) relative male and female reproduc-tive success does not vary with inflorescence size andis therefore parallel with respect to display size. How-ever, these relationships can be site dependent.Schemske (1980) reported a disproportionate increasein both male and female reproductive success withrespect to inflorescence size in Brassavola nodosa, buttrends for male and female function were nonethelessparallel. Murren & Ellison (1996) found that largerdisplays in B. nodosa at another locality had dispro-
32 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
portionately greater male than female reproductivesuccess. Similar results were observed for Psychiliskrugii (Ackerman, 1989).
The relationship between display size and male andfemale reproductive success is equally complex fortemperate orchids. Piper & Waite (1988) concludedthat secondary floral characteristics were male spe-cialized in Epipactis helleborine because polliniaremovals were greater than depositions. However, aspointed out by Snow & Whigham (1989), trends inestimates of male and female reproductive successacross the range of inflorescences were largely paral-lel, indicating no differential effect of this aspect ofdisplay. They also cited unpublished data from Tipu-laria discolor supporting the same conclusion. Fir-mage & Cole (1988) suggested that inflorescence sizeof Platanthera blephariglottis influenced male andfemale reproductive success in a parallel fashion oversmall inflorescences (1–4 flowers) but that femalereproductive success levelled off with increasing inflo-rescence size while male reproductive success contin-ued to increase. However, samples of largeinflorescences were few and it is not clear that thistrend was real.
The relationship between inflorescence size andmale and female reproductive success in temperateand tropical orchids appears to suggest parallelresponse for most species with few exceptions. More-over, we agree with Nilsson (1992) that clarification ofthis relationship may be dependent on whether flow-ers develop synchronously or sequentially. Furtherresearch is required.
Some constraints on floral displayInflorescence size may be influenced by multiple fac-tors over ecological and evolutionary time. Total flowerproduction is dependent on plant size in many plantspecies (Harper, 1977) including orchids (Montalvo &Ackerman, 1987; Zimmerman & Aide, 1989; Calvo,1990a). We have shown that larger inflorescences oforchids generally have greater male and female repro-ductive success. However, plant size distribution inmany populations is strongly hierarchical, with themajority of the individuals being small (Weiner & Sol-brig, 1984; Gregg, 1991b; Leeson, Haynes & Wells,1991). Consequently, most plants may have relativelysmall inflorescences (e.g. Schemske, 1980; Firmage &Cole, 1988). Even if larger inflorescences are benefi-cial, an increase in the mean inflorescence size of apopulation may be limited by energetic and allometricconstraints.
Another factor that may impose limits on inflores-cence size is the frequency of geitonogamous pollina-tion (Ackerman, 1989), which may be greater in largerinflorescences and result in higher rates of flower andfruit abortion due to self-incompatibility or inbreeding
(e.g. Wyatt, 1982; Hessing, 1988; Klinkhamer & deJong, 1993). There are numerous mechanisms whichenhance the probability of cross-pollination in orchidsand manipulation of display size is one of them. Someorchids have small floral displays yet produce manyflowers over long periods (e.g. Lepanthes and Psychilisspp.). Displays at any given moment may be small, buttotal flower production in these plants is positivelyrelated to reproductive success (Lepanthes spp., R. L.Tremblay, unpubl. data; Psychilis monensis, Aragón &Ackerman, 2004).
Although reproductive success in orchids is stronglypollen limited, resource availability plays a major rolein affecting display size. We could suggest that thereshould be selection for more flowers, but the action ofthat selection may be for efficient procurement andstorage of resources for reproductive events. There isscope here, too, for further investigation.
Effect of flower size on reproductive success: Thenumber of flowers produced is one component of dis-play and flower size is another. Larger flowers may bea more powerful signal to pollinators than smallerones and may be affected by selection in a similarmanner to flower production. We found five studiesthat compared flower size with reproductive success.Murren & Ellison (1996) showed that larger flowershad higher male reproductive success in Brassavolanodosa. However, male and female reproductive suc-cesses were independent of flower size in Tolumniavariegata (Sabat & Ackerman, 1996), Myrmecophilatibicinis (Malo, Leirana-Alcocer & Parra-Tabla, 2001)and Cypripedium acaule (O’Connell & Johnston,1998).
Due to the near ubiquity of pollen-limited orchidreproduction, one would expect no differential effect offlower size on male and female reproductive success.However, more experimental studies should be con-ducted, perhaps utilizing modification of display sizeas in Malo et al. (2001) to show whether or not this istrue. If flower size indeed influences male and femalereproductive success equally, then selection to ensurepollinator visits should be higher than in specieswhere male and female reproductive success isunequal. As a result of pollinator limitation selectionwould favour the showiest variants in a population oforchids.
Spur characteristics and reproductive success: Spurlength, width of spur mouth and nectar reward shouldbe closely correlated with reproductive success. Dar-win recognized that effective pollination is dependenton the coupling of the morphology of the flower withthat of the vector. One of the most commonly givenexamples of adaptation is the extraordinary spurlength of Angreacum sesquipedale Thou. and thematching proboscis length of the hawkmoth pollinator
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 33
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Xanthopan morgani (Walker) ssp. praedicta. Variationin spur length and spur-mouth width has been impli-cated in orchid evolution and reproductive isolation(e.g. Nilsson, 1980, 1983a, b, 1985, 1988). While thereis little debate that the spur length of orchids is adap-tive, recognition of such features is not indicative ofthe processes involved.
Most of the evidence relating natural spur lengthvariation to reproductive success is circumstantial. Itseffects have been evaluated in few species. Luyt &Johnson (2001) failed to detect selection for length inMystacidium venosum, while Inoue (1986b) found thatin natural populations of Platanthera mandarinorumssp. hachijoensis, variation in length was independentof reproductive success. However, he tested the effectof spur-shortening and a simulation of spur elongationand found that it caused a reduction in male andfemale reproductive success. Inoue interpreted theresults to suggest that extreme variants are selectedagainst and that stabilizing selection is likely.
Nilsson (1988) also examined the importance of spurlength variation on male and female reproductive suc-cess. For Platanthera bifolia and P. chlorantha heshowed that both male and female fitness increasewith spur length and that it should be under direc-tional selection.
The most comprehensive approach to studyingselection in orchids was performed by Maad (2000).She observed that long spurs of Platanthera bifoliahad a female advantage but the selection differentialwas only observed in one of three years. Selection canbe variable not only across seasons, but within a sea-son as well. Maad (2000) observed that a combinationof the time of flowering and the length of the spuraffected reproductive success. Plants with short spurswere favoured through female function early in theseason while those with long spurs were favouredlater in the season.
Floral colour and reproductive success: Most pollina-tors are sensitive to colour. Consequently, colour vari-ation among orchids in a population should beperceived by pollinators and the most attractive colourmorph should be preferentially selected. Such varia-tion exists and can be substantial, particularly indeceptive orchids (e.g. Dactylorhiza sambucina - Nils-son, 1980; Orchis caspia - Dafni, 1983; Thelymitra epi-pactoides - Cropper & Calder, 1990). Sometimes thevariation is continuous (Psychilis monensis - Aragón& Ackerman, 2004) while at other times there are dis-tinct colour morphs.
Have we found selection for flower colour? Few stud-ies have analysed this problem and only two includebehavioural data of pollinators. Smithson (2001) andGigord, MacNair & Smithson (2001) found in Dacty-lorhiza sambucina that there is a reproductive advan-
tage to the rare corolla colour morph of thenonrewarding orchid. Smithson (2001) corroboratedher field studies with behavioural experiments in thelaboratory. Negative frequency-dependent selectionseems to occur for flower colour in her system.Koivisto, Vallius & Salonen (2002) examined thebehaviour of pollinators on two colour morphs ofD. maculata and noted that bumblebees preferred thedarker coloured morphs while other visitors had nopreferences. In contrast, R. L. Tremblay (unpubl. data)examined colour variation in Lepanthes rupestris pet-als and found no evidence of differential selection innatural populations.
J. D. Ackerman & W. Carromero (unpubl. data) mea-sured reproductive success in two colour morphs(magenta and white) of Bletia patula in the DominicanRepublic and discovered that there was no significantrelationship between flower colour and male or femalereproductive success. Nevertheless, there was a ten-dency for pollinaria removals to be higher in the whitemorph (P = 0.056). Aragón & Ackerman (2004) exper-imentally manipulated flower colour variation in pop-ulations of Psychilis monensis and detected negativefrequency-dependent selection in two of three trials.Thus, flower colour in orchids can be under selectionbut not necessarily all the time.
Community structure of flower colour can also affectorchid reproductive success. Pollinators of Orchisboryi react to the diversity of flowers in the immediatevicinity of the orchid; the similarity of these (model)plants can have a positive effect on the orchid’s repro-ductive success. Orchis boryi had a higher reproduc-tive success if pollinators foraged on flowers of similarcolour (Gumbert & Kunze, 2001).
Floral rewards and reproductive success: Nectar, fra-grances, oils, pseudopollen, resins and waxes (van derPijl & Dodson, 1966; Dondon et al., 2002) and even pol-len (Vogel, 1981 reported in Pridgeon et al., 1999;Gregg, 1991c) have been identified as pollinatorrewards in orchids. Variation in these rewards isexpected to directly influence pollinator behaviour andconsequently affect plant reproductive success eitherthrough frequency of visits or quality of pollination.Nevertheless, among all pollinator attractants, weperhaps know the least about variation in rewardsand its consequences.
Nectar is the most common pollinator rewardoffered by orchids and is the only one in which vari-ability has been associated with plant reproductivesuccess. Variation in the quantity of nectar existswithin inflorescences of Platanthera blephariglottisbut it is not consistently associated with the probabil-ity of pollination (Cole & Firmage, 1984). Interplantvariation in nectar production was extensively studiedin Comparettia falcata by Rodríguez-Robles et al.
34 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
(1992). They found no relationship between naturalvariation in nectar availability and pollinator visita-tion. However, when Ackerman, Rodríguez-Robles &Meléndez (1994) experimentally removed nectar,reproductive success declined. On the other hand,when nectar was added, there was no effect, not evenan increase in geitonogamous pollinations (Salguero-Faría & Ackerman, 1999). These results strongly sug-gest that stabilizing selection may favour the meagrenectar reward offered by C. falcata.
Perhaps the most intriguing story concerning nectarproduction in orchids is actually the lack of it: approx-imately one third of all species produce no pollinatorreward (Ackerman, 1986a). Visitors are deceived byvarious means; most commonly the deception is basedon a general resemblance to food plants without anyspecific mimicry. Naive pollinators visit a few flowersbefore learning to avoid them (Heinrich, 1975).
When orchids are so pollinator-limited, how couldsuch a pollination system have evolved (Gill, 1989)?Under pollen-limitation there should be strong selec-tion to increase pollinator visits. What better waycould there be than to provide a more enticing reward?Any plant carrying a mutation that enhances itsreward would likely be more successful than one with-out it. This may have happened in the genus Disa.Johnson, Linder & Steiner (1998) showed that nectarreward systems in the genus are derived and evolvedindependently three times. These results are quiteintriguing because they contradict the hypothesis thatdeception systems are more specialized than reward-based systems and are derived from them (Ackerman,1986a; Dafni, 1987).
If we do indeed find that deceptive systems evolvedfrom rewarding ones in some lineages, then whatwould have led to the loss of a reward? Selection mayhave favoured a loss if having a reward resulted in (1)high levels of geitonogamy (selfing) or (2), resourcedepletion through high costs of nectar or fruit produc-tion. Johnson & Nilsson (1999), Smithson & Gigord(2001) and Smithson (2002) tested the geitonogamyhypothesis by adding nectar to rewardless orchids(Orchis spp., Barlia and Anacamptis). They foundthat pollinator visitation increased dramatically asexpected, but that there was little or no effect on thenumber of geitonogamous pollinations or total fruitset except in Anacamptis. In the first two taxastudied, delayed caudicle bending likely preventedself-pollinations. As for resource depletion, we havenothing but suggestive data: nectar production maybe expensive (Southwick, 1984; Koopowitz & March-ant, 1998; Luyt & Johnson, 2002), and as alreadyreviewed, there is ample evidence of a physiologicalcost to reproduction.
Smithson & Gigord (2001) identified a third possiblemechanism that would lead to evolution of a deception
system. In their nectar-addition experiment, theyfound that nectarless plants had ten times more pol-linaria removals as reward plants. If a population hada nectarless mutant, then it would have a much higherprobability of fathering seed than a nectar-producingplant. Such mutants would rapidly spread through apopulation even when the effective population size issmall. Smithson & Gigord (2001) argued that a malefunction advantage is the more likely explanation forthe evolution of deception systems.
Selection may not be the only avenue for the evolu-tion or maintenance of deception. Nectar productionmay have been lost through genetic drift if populationor display sizes were insufficient to attract or main-tain pollinator interest regardless of reward quality orquantity. Coincidentally, when population sizes aresmall, both drift and competition for pollinator atten-tion are more likely to occur. Tremblay & Ackerman(2001) showed that conditions for drift do occur inorchids, and the widespread pollen-limitation inorchids implies that competition for pollinators issevere. We still need experimental data on reproduc-tive success across an array of population sizes to cor-roborate this hypothesis.
Thus, we have phylogenetic evidence that nectarproducing orchids may have evolved from deceptivespecies (Johnson et al., 1998) which is also supportedby theoretical considerations that deception should bean unstable system (Gill, 1989). On the other hand,there are data which indicate that deceptive speciesmay have evolved from reward species via costs toreproduction or reward production (Ackerman & Mon-talvo, 1990), or through male function advantage(Smithson & Gigord, 2001). Perhaps there is no singleor dominant process by which deceptive pollinationhas evolved or is maintained. However, the wide-spread nature of the pollination system in orchidsargues against this possibility.
Odour and reproductive success: As in other charac-teristics associated with pollinator attraction, floralfragrances are usually considered to be adaptive. Thecharacterization of floral fragrances took immenseleaps in the 1960s and early 1970s, particularly fororchids pollinated by male euglossine bees (Dodsonet al., 1969; Williams & Dodson, 1972). Field andexperimental studies have linked floral fragrances inboth temperate and tropical genera to specific pollina-tors or groups of pollinators (Dressler, 1968; Hills, Wil-liams & Dodson, 1972; Borg-Karlson, Bergström &Kullenberg, 1987; Bergström et al., 1992; Alcock,2000; Plepys, Ibarra & Löfstedt, 2002). Because theemphasis was on reproductive isolating mechanisms,characterization tended to be typological. It is cer-tainly undeniable that interspecific variation in fra-grances exists and that this may be attributed to
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 35
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
differences in pollinators. Nonetheless, there is con-siderable intraspecific variation in floral fragranceproduction and composition as well.
The first population-level sampling of orchid floralfragrances that we know of showed that there wasconsiderable variation among plants in fragrances ofeuglossine bee-pollinated Cycnoches species (Gregg,1983). Within- and among-population variation wasalso described in the European Platanthera bifoliaand P. chlorantha (Tollsten & Bergström, 1989, 1993).In contrast, Patt, Rhoades & Corkill (1988) foundmuch quantitative but little qualitative variation inpopulations of North American P. stricta. In a detailedstudy of fragrance variation, Moya & Ackerman (1993)showed that fragrances of Epidendrum ciliare are pro-gressively more variable among flowers of an inflores-cence, among inflorescences of a plant, among plantsof a population, and finally among populations. Inanother study, some plants of the widespread Anti-llean epiphyte, Tolumnia variegata, were found to befragrant whereas others were not (Ackerman, Melén-dez-Ackerman & Salguero-Faría, 1997).
What are the causes of intraspecific variations infloral fragrances? Some variation may be attributableto hybridization (Tollsten & Bergström, 1993),whereas genetic drift may be important in other cases.Drift may come about due to founder events, smalleffective population size of isolated populations (Toll-sten & Bergström, 1993) or loss of function, as hasapparently happened for other characteristics(Steiner, 1998). More recently it has been suggestedthat variation in fragrance production and composi-tion may be driven by natural selection, particularlyin species that employ deceptive means of attractingpollinators. In the pseudocopulated Ophrys sphegodes,part of the fragrance spectrum is invariant whereasother parts are not. The invariant part mimics thefemale sex pheromones of the pollinators while thenon-biologically active part of the fragrance is quitevariable. It is this variable portion of the fragrancethat impairs avoidance learning on the part of theduped male bees (Ayasse et al., 2000).
Negative frequency-dependent selection has beenproposed to maintain high levels of variation in char-acteristics associated with pollinator attraction fordeception-pollinated species (Ackerman & Galarza-Pérez, 1991). Although negative frequency-dependentselection on flower colour has been shown, we have notbeen able to demonstrate it for fragrance. An attemptwas made to test this hypothesis by manipulating thefrequencies of fragrant and odourless plants of Tolum-nia variegata but without success. As it turns out, thefragrant plants are highly variable in fragrance com-position (A. Cuevas, unpubl. data), a factor which mayhave affected the outcome of the experiment. We areunaware of any other attempt to associate reproduc-
tive success with odour variation in natural popula-tions of orchids.
Because pollinators associate rewards with fra-grances quite readily (Kunze & Gumbert, 2001), weexpect that some deceptive species would have anodour identical to rewarding species, be odourless orhave a highly variable fragrance (Moya & Ackerman,1993; Kunze & Gumbert, 2001). With the partialexception of the Ophrys model (Ayasse et al., 2000), weare unaware of any deceptive species with a fragrancethat mimics that of a rewarding model (Nilsson, 1980;Kunze & Gumbert, 2001). Thus far, deceptive speciestend to be either odourless or quite variable.
Current evidence for natural selection on floralodours is mostly indirect, coming from studies whichshow that different fragrances are associated with dif-ferent pollinators. Others have demonstrated theadaptiveness of particular compounds (Schiestl &Ayasse, 2001). In cases where variation is minimal, weexpect that the pattern would have been the result ofstabilizing selection. On the other hand, drift, nega-tive frequency-dependent selection or hybridizationmay be responsible for high levels of fragrance varia-tion in some species.
Inflorescence height and reproductive success: Howhigh flowers are from the ground or substrate couldaffect reproductive success if pollinators have foragingheight preferences. Handel & Peakall (1993) showedthat thynnine wasps preferred flowers of the sexuallydeceptive Chiloglottis reflexa Druce that were lower tothe ground (15 cm) compared to flowers higher up inthe vegetation (55 and 105 cm). Maad (2000) found sig-nificant selection differentials for stalk length in Pla-tanthera bifolia in all three years of her study. However,the selection differentials were more consistentthrough the female function. O’Connell & Johnston(1998) found that stalk length (flower height) was sig-nificantly correlated with male and female reproduc-tive success in Cypripedium acaule. In the Caribbeangenus Psychilis, inflorescences have an elongate scapeup to 2 m in some species. Aragón & Ackerman (2004)detected a significant positive effect of height aboveground and length of inflorescence on reproductive suc-cess for P. monensis but similar data failed to show anysuch relationship for the related P. krugii (J. D. Ack-erman & R. L. Tremblay, unpubl. data).
Multivariate selectionSelection can affect multiple characters simulta-neously and can occur either as a result of charactersthat are linked genetically or because of allometriccorrelations. We found two studies that attempted tomeasure multivariate selection in orchids and bothlooked at phenological, vegetative and floral charac-teristics. O’Connell & Johnston (1998) found negative
36 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
correlational selection on plant height with floweringtime in one of two populations of Cypripedium acaulewhereas Maad (2000) found no evidence of correla-tional selection in Platanthera bifolia. In the absenceof experimental manipulation of trait distributions,future studies should consider using regression anal-ysis as a powerful tool (Lande & Arnold, 1983) forobtaining estimates of the strength of selectionacting both directly (univariate) and indirectly(multivariate).
EVIDENCE OF GENETIC DRIFT
SHIFTING BALANCE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
While natural selection is the change in trait distribu-tion across generations caused by selection of advan-tageous characteristics, genetic drift is the changeresulting from random events. There are presentlytwo main hypotheses for evolution through geneticdrift: Wright’s shifting balance theory (Wright, 1968,1969, 1977, 1978) and genetic drift including only thetwo first steps of Wright’s theory (Coyne et al., 1997).Wright’s shifting balance theory describes a mecha-nism that involves genetic drift, followed by mass nat-ural selection and migration among subpopulations. Itimagines an adaptive landscape with peaks and val-leys of relative fitness. For example, peaks in fitnessmay correspond to characteristics of flowers that pro-mote the efficient deposition and receipt of pollen fromcertain sized pollinators. Valleys are combinations offloral traits that do not match available pollinators.
How then do members of a species pass from onepeak to another, thereby achieving reproductive isola-tion and resulting in speciation? Wright (1978) pro-posed three stages to his theory. First, relativelyisolated subpopulations or demes become geneticallydifferentiated through genetic drift, the stochasticchange in gene frequencies caused by small effectivepopulation size (Ne). Put simply, Ne is the number ofindividuals in a population actually leaving offspringin the next generation. However, its meaning andmeasurement are much more complicated than this(Wright, 1939; Kimura & Crow, 1963; Waples, 1989;1991; Wade, 1991; Barrowclough & Rockwell, 1993;Nunney, 1993, 2000; Orive, 1993). Demes ‘drift’ ran-domly into new genetic combinations and this processis more likely with decreasing Ne. When foundingevents involve very few individuals colonizing a newlocale, extreme changes can occur, particularly if thisresults in the alteration of genetic variance-covariancematrices controlling the relationships between indi-vidual genes (Carson, 1990). In this way, a deme maypass or ‘skip’ fitness valleys, placing them on an oppo-site slope of the adaptive landscape.
The second stage is mass selection, perhaps themost straightforward aspect of the theory (Crow,
Engels & Denniston, 1990; Coyne et al., 1997). Once anew variant has become established, one that achievessome modicum of pollination efficiency from a new pol-linator, selection will act to improve this efficiency.Additive genetic variance allowing selection to occur isassumed to be maintained by polymorphic mutationand recombination (Kimura, 1965; Lande, 1975) andmay be augmented by the scrambling of genetic vari-ance-covariance matrices during a founding event(Carson, 1990; Roughgarden, 1996). Owing to overallpollinator limitation, less fit individuals may repro-duce infrequently if at all, speeding the fixation of pol-lination efficient genotypes. As a concrete example,Inoue (1986b) noted that the effect of spur length onestimates of male and female reproductive success inPlatanthera mandarinorum was greater at lower pol-lination frequencies than at higher ones. Thus, selec-tion proceeds most rapidly under pollinator limitation,again possibly distinguishing orchids from many otherplants if variance in reproductive success is higher ormore frequent in orchids.
The establishment of new pollination strategies ofclosely related species with different pollinators maybe speeded up if only a few fruits are needed to set afounder population. The fact that species of Catase-tum can be distinguished by a few fragrance compo-nents (Hills et al., 1972) may be the result of the quickestablishment of new genotypes. Thus, low fruit pro-duction in orchids, coupled with the high number ofseeds produced per pod, may have provided a mecha-nism for speciation and diversification in pollinationsystems.
The third stage involves the movement of these‘more’ fit genes back to the original populations. Intime, the different populations take on the new com-bination of phenotypes from the original founding pop-ulation (Wright, 1969; 1977; Lande, 1979; Coyne et al.,1997). However, this process has never been docu-mented in natural populations (Coyne et al., 1997).Furthermore, it would not result in cladogenesis andconsequently cannot fully explain the great diversityof orchids.
Commonality of small effective population size (Ne)We have argued and shown elsewhere (Zimmerman &Aide, 1989; Calvo, 1990b; Ackerman & Galarza-Pérez,1991; Tremblay, 1996, 1997a; Tremblay & Ackerman,2001) that reproductive patterns in orchids may pro-mote small Ne. Within a season, few flowering individ-uals produce fruit and contribute to the seed pool,particularly in populations of tropical orchids(Table 3). Fruiting failure in a reproductive season ishigh (Fig. 4). This may hold true even over longer sam-pling periods because fruit production can suppressflowering in subsequent years. Estimates of Ne for thethree species of the tropical epiphytic Lepanthes
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 37
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
revealed it to be below 20% for all species and popu-lations; most were below 10% of the standing adultpopulation (Tremblay & Ackerman, 2001). Only 18%of flowering individuals in a population of Aspasiaprincipissa produced fruit during the three years of asurvey by Zimmerman & Aide (1989). Furthermore,the variances in female and male reproductive successand in total lifespan are high and can further reduceNe. If the variance in recruitment is as skewed as theprevious variables, then Ne may be lowered even more.While numerous factors contribute to Ne, we believethat these life history characteristics separate orchidsfrom many other plant groups and are all directlylinked to the extreme degree to which reproduction ispollinator-limited. It will be necessary to investigatein detail the commonality of small Ne in orchids beforewe can critically evaluate the frequency of this processin orchid evolution.
Gene flow in orchidsGene flow is an essential component of evolutionaryprocesses and critical to our argument that geneticdrift is an important component of diversification inorchids. The amount of gene flow among local popula-tions will determine whether or not individual popu-lations (demes) can evolve independently and begenetically distinct and plausibly lead to cladogenesis.Theoretically, a gene flow rate greater than two indi-viduals per generation is sufficient to prevent localadaptation/evolution. Consequently, local selectionand drift will be overcome by migration (Merrell,1981). Meanwhile, a flow rate less than one individualper generation will likely result in population differ-
entiation through natural selection or genetic drift(Merrell, 1981; Roughgarden, 1996). If the product ofNm (the effective number of migrants per generation;
, N = effective population size, m =
migration rate) lies between one and two, there will beconsiderable variation in gene frequencies among pop-ulations (Merrell, 1981). The determining factor relat-ing gene flow and natural selection is the effectivepopulation size; the smaller it is, the more gene flow isrequired to prevent local differentiation (Roughgar-den, 1996). Thus, many small groups of individualswith high gene flow would evolve as a unit if the sumof the populations has a large Ne. Consequently, nat-ural selection will likely dominate as the main evolu-tionary process. Therefore, we need to know theamount of gene flow among populations or groups ofindividuals in order to identify the evolutionary pro-cesses involved.
Gene flow and dispersal can be measured throughdirect and indirect methods (Bohomak, 1999). Directobservation of gene flow can be viewed by the use ofmark and recapture studies (for mobile organisms orstained pollen) or tracking marker alleles (paternityanalysis) over a short number of generations. Indirectmethods involve obtaining allele frequencies and pro-vide an estimate of the average long-term effect of dif-ferentiation by genetic drift. The alleles are assumedto be neutral so that differentiation based on thesemarkers would be a consequence of genetic driftrather than natural selection. Bohomak (1999) con-cluded that simple population genetic statisticsare robust for inferring gene flow among groups ofindividuals.
Few orchid studies have attempted to directlyobserve gene flow and thus far only staining ormicrotagging of pollen have been used (Peakall,1989b; Nilsson et al., 1992; Folsom, 1994; Tremblay,1994; Salguero-Faría & Ackerman, 1999). All suchstudies examined gene flow only within populations.
Current estimates of gene flow have been madeusing indirect methods. They indicate that there ismuch variation among species (Table 10). Data areavailable for 70 species and subspecies of orchids. Nogenetic differentiation among populations wasobserved in two of the species. Twenty-nine specieswith high levels of estimated gene flow (Nm > 2), 20 ofthe species have intermediate to low levels of geneflow (1 < Nm < 2) and 22 species have low levels(Nm < 1; Fig. 5). There is much variation within agenus, but there appears to be some consistency. Forexample, Orchis species typically have high estimatesof gene flow among populations (Scacchi et al., 1990;Corrias et al., 1991; Rossi et al., 1992) whereas Lepan-thes spp. have much lower ones (Tremblay & Acker-man, 2001). The present indirect approach to
FNm
st =+
14 1
Figure 4. Distribution of fruiting failure in natural popu-lations of orchids. Frequency of plants (N = 36) that fail toset fruits. Data from Table 3.
Per cent fruiting failure
90.0 –100.0
80.0 – 90.0
70.0 – 80.0
60.0 – 70.0
50.0 – 60.0
40.0 – 50.0
30.0 – 40.0
20.0 – 30.0
10.0 – 20.0
0.0–10.0
Freq
uenc
y
8
6
4
2
0
38 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Table 10. Estimates of gene flow in orchids. Nm(S) = gene flow estimates (number of migrants per generation) based onSlatkin’s private allele model; Nm(W) = gene flow estimates based on Wright’s statistics; GST coefficient of genic differen-tiation among populations
Species References Nm(S) Nm(W) GST
Caladenia tentaculata Tate Peakall & Beattie, 1996 7.101 0.0346
Calypso bulbosa (L.) Oakes Alexandersson & Ågren, 2000 3.20 0.072Cephalanthera damasonium (Mill.)
DruceScacchi, De Angelis & Corbo, 1991 --5 --5
Cephalanthera longibracteata Blume Chung, Nason & Chung, 2004 0.762 0.247Cephalanthera longifolia (L.) Fritsch Scacchi, De Angelis & Corbo, 1991 2.151 0.104Cephalanthera rubra (L.) Rich. Scacchi, De Angelis & Corbo, 1991 0.761 0.247
Brzosko & Wroblewska, 2003 14.21 0.017
estimating Nm is actually the sum and interaction ofthe historical and present gene flow (Slatkin & Bar-ton, 1989).
Variation in gene flow estimates can be extensive,even within the same species. In Cephalantherarubra, Scacchi et al. (1991) found high genetic popu-lation substructure in Italy (FST = 0.245), whereasBrzosko & Wroblewska (2003) found very little struc-ture in South Korea (FST = 0.017). Similar large varia-tions have been observed in Epipactis helleborine inEurope and North America (Hollingsworth & Dickson,1997; Scacchi, Lanzara & De Angelis, 1987; Squirrellet al., 2001) and Cypripedium calceolus in NorthAmerica and Poland (Case, 1993, 1994; Brzosko,Wróblewska & Ratliewicz, 2002; Brzosko, Ratkiewicz& Wroblewska, 2003)
Are there phylogenetic associations with gene flow?The Orchis and Lepanthes data are suggestive butmuch more extensive sampling is needed for both tem-perate and tropical species. Curiously, Lepanthes andOrchis have very different population genetic param-
eters yet both are species-rich genera and are likely ina state of evolutionary flux.
EVOLUTIONARY DIVERSIFICATION MODELS
The commonness of pollinator limitation in orchids isevident from the literature and we suggest it to be ofprimordial importance in explaining evolutionary pro-cesses in the family. The low levels of fruit set and theskewed reproductive success and lifespan among indi-viduals will result in small Ne when gene flow amongpopulations is limited.
The presence of short and long-term resource con-straints is not likely to have effected the importance ofpollinator limitation as a component of evolution inthe Orchidaceae because resource constraints havemostly been observed between reproductive bouts andnot through fruit abortion. For example, if fruit abor-tion occurred because of resource constraints, thiswould result in a reduction in the variance in repro-ductive success among individuals and an increase inNe.
Interestingly, the process of natural selection inorchids has rarely been detected in the field eventhough it might seem obvious that it must have beeninvolved in the evolutionary process. Moreover, asmentioned earlier, we are still ignorant of the strengthof natural selection, its frequency and directions. Theevidence we use to explain the great morphologicaldiversity that we assign to natural selection is eitherpattern-based or circumstantial. We believe that thegreat diversity of vegetative and floral charactersexhibited by the Orchidaceae is best explained by aprocess that involves more than just natural selection.In this section we will discuss our view of the processof evolution in orchids after differentiating naturalselection and Wright’s shifting balance theory andexplain why these processes alone cannot account forevolution in this family.
Figure 5. Frequency distribution of gene flow estimates(Nm(W)) among populations of orchids. Data from Table 10.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Freq
uenc
y
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Nm(W)
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 39
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Cymbidium goeringii Rchb. f. Chung & Chung, 1999 8.48 2.30 0.098Cypripedium acaule Ait. Case, 1994, 2002 1.271 0.164Cypripedium arietinum R. Br. Case, 2002 --5 --5
Cypripedium calceolus L. Case, 1993, 1994 1.631 0.196Brzosko, Ratkiewicz & 17.6 0.014
Wroblewska, 2002Cypripedium candidum Muhl.
ex Willd.Case, 1994, 2002 3.371 0.069
Cypripedium fasciculatumKellogg ex S. Watson
Aagaard, Harrod & Shea 1999 6.00 0.04
Cypripedium kentuckienseC. F. Reed
Case et al., 1998; Case, 2002 1.121 0.182
Cypripedium parviflorum Salisb. var.pubescens (Willd.) O. W. Knight
Case et al., 1998; Case, 2002 1.281 0.163
Southern populations Wallace & Case, 2000 0.94 0.209Northern populations 1.57 0.137
var. makasin (Farw.) Sheviak var. 1.00 0.199parviflorum species level 1.43 0.149
0.83 0.232Cypripedium reginae Walter Case, 1994, 2002 0.471 0.349Dactylorhiza romana (Sebastiani) Soó Bullini et al., 2001 3.321 0.07Dactylorhiza sambucina (L.) Soó Bullini et al., 2001 1.311 0.16Epidendrum conopseum R. Br. Bush, Kutz & Anderton, 1999 1.433 0.149Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz Scacchi, Lanzara & De Angelis,
1987; Squirrell et al., 20017.31 0.033
European populations 1.001
0.241,40.2000.5064
North American 2.531 0.0904
Hollingsworth & Dickson, 1997 0.791 0.240Epipactis youngiana Richards & Porter Harris & Abbott, 1997 2.431 0.093Eulophia sinensis Miq. Sun & Wong, 2001 --
0.1331,30.00.6533
Gooyera procera Ker-Gawl. Wong & Sun, 1999 0.2211
0.3971,30.5230.3863
Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. Br. Scacchi & De Angelis, 1989 0.2801 0.471Gustafsson, 2000 3.917 0.06
Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. Br.conopsea
Soliva & Widmer, 1999 2.96 0.078
Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. Br.subsp densiflora (Wahl) E.G.Camus & A. Camus
Soliva & Widmer, 1999 0.39 0.391
Gymnadenia odoratissima (L.) Rich Gustafsson & Sjögren-Gulve, 2002 1.066 0.19Lepanthes caritensis Tremblay &
AckermanW. Carromero, R. L. Tremblay & J. D.
Ackerman, unpubl. data0.23 1.30 0.167
Lepanthes eltoroensis Stimson Tremblay & Ackerman, 2001 1.54 0.89 0.220Lepanthes rubripetala Stimson Tremblay & Ackerman, 2001 0.48 0.62 0.270Lepanthes rupestris Stimson Tremblay & Ackerman, 2001 1.15 1.84 0.170Lepanthes sanguinea Hook. W. Carromero, R. L. Tremblay & J. D.
Ackerman, unpubl. data1.74 1.45 0.144
Lepanthes woodburyana Stimson W. Carromero, R. L. Tremblay & J. D. Ackerman, unpubl. data
0.61 7.5 0.032
Leporella fimbriata Peakall & James, 1989 5.431 0.044
Species References Nm(S) Nm(W) GST
Table 10. Continued
40 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Nigritella rhellicani Teppner &Klein
Hedrén, Klein & Teppner, 2000 1.381 0.153
Orchis laxiflora Lam. Scacchi, De Angelis & Lanzara, 1990 2.851 0.08Arduino et al., 1996 1.971 0.116
Orchis longicornu Poir. Corrias et al., 1991 4.20 12.252 0.02Orchis mascula (L.) L. Scacchi, De Angelis & Lanzara, 1990 2.761 0.083Orchis morio L. Scacchi, De Angelis & Lanzara, 1990 3.661 0.064
Rossi et al., 1992 4.751 0.05Orchis palustris Jacq. Arduino et al., 1996 0.311 0.448Orchis papilionacea L. Scacchi, De Angelis & Lanzara, 1990 6.331 0.038Orchis pauciflora Ten. Scacchi, De Angelis & Lanzara, 1990 6.001 0.040Orchis provincialis Balb. Scacchi, De Angelis & Lanzara, 1990 10.621 0.023Orchis purpurea Huds. Scacchi, De Angelis & Lanzara, 1990 5.701 0.042Orchis tridentata Scop. Scacchi, De Angelis & Lanzara, 1990 6.161 0.039Paphiopedilum micranthum T. Tang
& F. T. WangLi, Luo & Ge, 2002 0.061 0.7977
Platanthera leucopaea (Nutt.) Lindl. Wallace, 2002 0.081
0.7110.7540.263
Pleurothallis adamantinensis Brade Borba, Semir & Sheppard, 2001 4.851 0.049Pleurothallis fabiobarrosii Borba
& SemirBorba et al., 2001 2.841 0.081
Pleurothallis johannensis Barb. Rodr. Borba et al., 2001 5.191 0.046Pleurothallis ochreata Lindl. Borba et al., 2001 4.061 0.058Pleurothallis teres Lindl. Borba et al., 2001 0.971 0.205Pterostylis aff. alata M. A. Clem. Sharma et al., 2001 0.811 0.235
Sharma, Jones & French, 2003 4.381 0.054Pterosylis angusta A. S. George Sharma et al., 2001 1.301 0.161Pterosylis aspera D. L. Jones & M. A.
Clem.Sharma et al., 2001 1.011 0.198
Pterostylis gibbosa R. Br. Sharma, Clements & Jones, 2000 1.42 0.15Pterostylis hamiltonii Nicholls Sharma et al., 2001 0.861 0.225Pterosylis rogersii E. Coleman Sharma et al., 2001 1.101 0.186Pterostylis scabra Lindl. Sharma et al., 2001 0.831 0.232Spiranthes diluvialis Sheviak Arft & Ranker, 1998 5.44 0.044Spiranthes hongkongensis S. H. Hu
& BarrettoSun, 1996 --5 --5
Spiranthes sinensis (Pers.) Ames Sun, 1996 0.53 1.19 0.174Tipularia discolor (Pursh) Nutt. Smith, Hunter & Hunter, 2002 0.357 0.415Tolumnia variegata (Sw.) Braem Ackerman & Ward, 1999 8.00 2.50 0.09Vanilla barbellata Rchb. f. Nielsen & Siegismund, 2000 1.78 0.123Vanilla claviculata (W. Wright) Sw. Nielsen & Siegismund, 2000 1.33 0.158Zeuxine gracilis Blume Sun & Wong, 2001 0.5001
0.21410.3330.5393
Zeuxine strateumatica Schltr. Sun & Wong, 2001 0.0213 0.9243
Species References Nm(S) Nm(W) GST
Table 10. Continued
1Nm calculated by the present authors from GST or FST using formula on p. 320 of Hartl & Clark (1989).2Recalculated using previous formula, original Nm value 3.70.3Calculated from RAPD markers.4Calculated from cpDNA.5No genetic differentiation found among populations.6Calculated according to Weir and Cockerham’s statistics.7Estimated using RAPD and AMOVA.
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 41
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
DARWINIAN AND WALLACIAN GRADUALISM
Both Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) promoted theview that change in character states among genera-tions is gradual and driven by natural selection.Armed with an understanding of gene expression, pop-ulation genetics, and techniques to measure selection,gradualism has come under fire from many quarters,including orchid biologists.
Gradual change may occur when effective popula-tions are large or gene flow is substantial amongsmaller populations. Under these circumstances, mostgenetic variation would occur within populationsrather than among them. We have some evidence,mostly indirect, that such conditions do occur inorchids. Pollen and seed dispersal is the usual meansfor gene flow. Pollinators can move pollinaria long dis-tances, presumably from population to population(Janzen, 1971; Williams & Dodson, 1972; Ackerman &Montalvo, 1985). The dust-like seeds are ideally suitedfor wind dispersal (Carey, 1998; Murren & Ellison,1998) and may be carried over great distances (Arditti& Ghani, 2000). Nevertheless, fine-scale genetic struc-turing (Chung, Nason & Chung, 2004), mathematicalmodels and wind tunnel experiments suggest limitedgene flow (Murren & Ellison, 1998). The rapid rangeexpansion of Oeceoclades maculata (Stern, 1988)throughout the neotropics clearly demonstrates thepotential orchids have for dispersal. In addition, somepopulation genetic data are consistent with the highgene flow hypothesis. For outbreeding species, varia-tion among populations can be quite low, especially fortemperate terrestrial orchids (Table 10). If evolution-ary change occurs in such populations, then it wouldlikely be a gradual process.
Nevertheless, we have also presented substantialevidence that evolutionary change for many orchids isnot likely to be gradual. Effective population sizes maybe small because of a combination of factors: fewadults per population, pollinator limitation, skewedreproductive success among individuals, and perhapsskewed progeny recruitment. In such populations,gene flow is restricted, and a high proportion of thegenetic variation occurs among populations. Gradualevolutionary change is not consistent with those con-ditions, so we advocate an alternative process that weoutline below.
THE DRIFT-SELECTION MODEL OF ORCHID EVOLUTION
A simpler scenario than the shifting balance theory isthe founding event–genetic drift scenario without thethird stage of Wright’s process. In this alternativeapproach to evolution, genetic drift would be acommon occurrence in local populations followed bynatural selection, ultimately causing sufficient differ-
entiation and the beginning of cladogenesis. Subse-quently, this new taxon would colonize new sites.Assumptions of this model include commonality ofsmall populations (low effective population sizes), lowor infrequent gene flow among populations, heritablevariation, and high or consistent selection coefficientsamong generations in local populations.
Our present vision of orchid evolution involves bothgenetic drift and natural selection working simulta-neously. For most orchids, population sizes are smalland are effectively further reduced by skewness inboth reproductive success and lifespan of individuals.Such conditions would likely result in frequent char-acter changes among generations. Most of thesechanges would be neutral or negatively selected withthe odd character having some positive selection(directional, disruptive, stabilizing selection or somenon-parametric distribution). If true, then we shouldobserve large heritable character variation amongindividuals, populations and generations.
The original evolutionary model for drift-selection isDodson’s (1962) ‘leap-frog’ model of orchid speciationin Stanhopea. This genus is pollinated by relativelysmall euglossine bees of the genus Euglossa and rela-tively large ones of the genera Eulaema and Eufriesea(Kimsey, 1982). Dodson proposed that speciation hadoccurred repeatedly by the switching of species fromsmall to large pollinators and vice versa. This couldpossibly occur through random changes in floral fra-grances caused by genetic drift, followed by strongselection on morphological characteristics to accom-modate a different pollinator. This model was recentlygiven support by a study which demonstrated that themolecular phylogeny of Stanhopea is not congruentwith phylogenies based on floral fragrances (Williams& Whitten, 1999). A similar model of evolutionarydiversification may apply to the Australian genusChiloglottis and its Thynninae wasp pollinators. Mantet al. (2002) showed that the pattern of pollinatorchange is conservative in the sexually deceptive orchidand that the phylogenies based on the DNA sequencesof the orchids and pollinators are highly congruent(but not perfectly so). They emphasized that theobserved pattern is not evidence of coevolutionbecause relative branch length differences betweenplant and insect groups were not similar. They alsosuggested that pollinator shifts are dependent on theavailability of pollinators within the geographicalarea, the phenology of flowering and wasp emergence,and the changes in floral odour chemistry that mimicfemale wasp pheromones. Thus, random changes infloral fragrances could attract a different species ofwasp and lead to cladogenesis.
It is unlikely that we will observe in the field aseries of evolutionary events reflecting the totality ofthe drift-selection model. However, it is possible to
42 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
assemble sufficient field observations and experi-ments to reconstruct the process. The model may besupported by demonstrating that: (1) gene flow amongpopulations is restricted in time or space; (2) effectivepopulation sizes are usually (or occasionally) small,and (3) selection is episodically intense and differentamong populations.
CONCLUSIONS
In this review, our central question has been: Whataspect(s) of orchid reproduction explain(s) the intri-cate pollination mechanisms of this family? We haveargued that pollen-limitation of both male and femalereproductive success, in combination with the uniquestructure of the orchid flower (the column), largelyexplains the extravagant pollination mechanisms.Low reproductive success, leading to a small propor-tion of reproducing individuals and low Ne, makesgenetic drift a more likely source of evolutionarychange in orchids that, combined with episodic selec-tion, explains much of the diversification of the family.Paradoxically, it is the low reproductive success oforchids, not the opposite, that may account for boththeir unique pollination mechanisms and extremediversity. The Orchidaceae is a remarkable group ofplants and the fundamental processes by which thefamily has diversified are far more fascinating thanDarwin ever suspected.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This review was begun in the early 1990s by JKZ andRNC, then abandoned as careers changed. They thankRLT and JDA for reviving the project and achievinglevels of understanding never contemplated. JKZwishes to thank the support of the Smithsonian Envi-ronment Research Center and Dennis Whigham dur-ing the incipient phase of development. We greatlyappreciate critical comments from W. M. Whitten, N.W. Williams and two anonymous reviewers. We alsothank all our colleagues who have contributed unpub-lished data in the many areas of orchid biology.
REFERENCES
Aagaard JE, Harrod RJ, Shea KL. 1999. Genetic variationamong populations of the rare clustered lady-slipper orchid(Cypripedium fasciculatum) from Washington State, USA.Natural Areas Journal 19: 234–238.
Ackerman JD. 1975. Reproductive biology of Goodyeraoblongifolia (Orchidaceae). Madroño 23: 191–198.
Ackerman JD. 1981. Pollination biology of Calypso bulbosavar. occidentalis (Orchidaceae): a food-deception system.Madroño 28: 101–110.
Ackerman JD. 1983. Euglossine bee pollination of the orchid,Cochleanthes lipscombiae: a food source mimic. AmericanJournal of Botany 70: 830–834.
Ackerman JD. 1985. Pollination of tropical and temperateorchids. In: Tan KW, ed. Proceedings of the eleventh worldorchid conference. Miami, 98–101.
Ackerman JD. 1986a. Mechanisms and evolution of food-deceptive pollination systems in orchids. Lindleyana 1: 108–113.
Ackerman JD. 1986b. Coping with the epiphytic existence:pollination strategies. Selbyana 9: 52–60.
Ackerman JD. 1989. Limitations to sexual reproduction inEncyclia krugii (Orchidaceae). Systematic Botany 14: 101–109.
Ackerman JD. 1995. An orchid flora of Puerto Rico and theVirgin islands. Memoirs of the New York Botanical Gardens,73.
Ackerman JD, Galarza-Pérez M. 1991. Patterns andmaintenance of extraordinary variation in the Caribbeanorchid Tolumnia (Oncidium) variegata. Systematic Botany16: 182–194.
Ackerman JD, Meléndez-Ackerman EJ, Salguero-FaríaJ. 1997. Variation in pollinator abundance and selection onfragrance phenotypes in an epiphytic orchid. American Jour-nal of Botany 84: 1383–1390.
Ackerman JD, Mesler MR. 1979. Pollination biology of List-era cordata (Orchidaceae). American Journal of Botany 66:820–824.
Ackerman JD, Montalvo AM. 1985. Longevity of euglossinebees. Biotropica 26: 44–49.
Ackerman JD, Montalvo AM. 1990. Short and long termlimitations to fruit production in a tropical orchid. Ecology71: 263–272.
Ackerman JD, Montero Oliver JC. 1985. Reproductive biol-ogy of Oncidium variegatum: moon phases, pollination andfruit set. American Orchid Society Bulletin 54: 326–329.
Ackerman JD, Moya S. 1996. Hurricane aftermath: resil-iency of an orchid–pollinator interaction in Puerto Rico. Car-ibbean Journal of Science 32: 369–374.
Ackerman JD, Rodríguez-Robles JA, Meléndez EJ. 1994.A meager nectar offering by an epiphytic orchid is betterthan nothing. Biotropica 26: 44–49.
Ackerman JD, Sabat A, Zimmerman JK. 1996. Seedlingestablishment in an epiphytic orchid: an experimental studyof seed limitation. Oecologia 106: 192–198.
Ackerman JD, Ward S. 1999. Genetic variation in a wide-spread epiphytic orchid: where is the evolutionary potential?Systematic Botany 24: 282–291.
Adelson JW. 2001. From aardvarks to apples and orchids toostriches: The simple evolutionary roots of a world of biolog-ical complexity and biodiversity. Scandinavian Journal ofClinical and Laboratory Investigation 61 (Suppl. 234): 13–18.
Agnew JD. 1986. Self-compatibility/incompatibility in someorchids of the subfamily Vandoideae. Plant Breeding 97:183–186.
Alcock J. 2000. Interactions between the sexually deceptiveorchid Spiculaea ciliata and its wasp pollinator Thynnotuin-
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 43
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
eria sp. (Hymenoptera: Thynninae) Journal of Natural His-tory 34: 629–636.
Alexandersson R, Ågren J. 1996. Population size, pollinatorvisitation and fruit production in the deceptive orchidCalypso bulbosa. Oecologia 107: 533–540.
Alexandersson R, Ågren J. 2000. Genetic structure of thenonrewarding bumblebee pollinated Calypso bulbosa. Hered-ity 85: 401–409.
Aragón S, Ackerman JD. 2001. Density effects on the repro-ductive success and herbivory of Malaxis massonii. Lindley-ana 16: 3–12.
Aragón S, Ackerman JD. 2004. Does flower color variationmatter in deception pollinated Psychilis monensis (Orchi-daceae)? Oecologia 138: 405–413.
Arditti J. 1976. Post-pollinations phenomena in orchid flow-ers, a pictorial view. Orchid Review 84: 261–268.
Arditti J, Ghani AKA. 2000. Tansley review, 110. Numericaland physical properties of orchid seeds and their biologicalimplications. New Phytologist 145: 367–421.
Arduino P, Verra F, Cianchi R, Rossi W, Corrias B, Bull-ini L. 1996. Genetic variation and natural hybridizationbetween Orchis laxiflora and Orchis palustris (Orchidaceae).Plant Systematics and Evolution 202: 87–109.
Arft AM, Ranker TA. 1998. Allopolyploid origin and popula-tion genetics of the rare orchid Spiranthes diluvialis. Amer-ican Journal of Botany 85: 110–122.
Atwood JT. 1985. Pollination of Paphiopedilum roths-childianum: brood-site deception. National GeographicResearch 1: 247–257.
Ayasse M, Schiestl FP, Paulus HF, Löfstedt C, HanssonB, Ibarra F, Francke W. 2000. Evolution of reproductivestrategies in the sexually deceptive orchid Ophrys sphegodes:how does flower-specific variation of odor signals influencereproductive success? Evolution 54: 1995–2006.
Bänziger H. 1996. The mesmerizing wart: the pollinationstrategy of epiphytic lady slipper orchid. Paphiopedilum vil-losum (Lindl.) Stein (Orchidaceae). Botanical Journal of theLinnean Society 121: 59–90.
Barkman TJ. 2001. Evolution of vegetative morphology inMount Kinabal high-elevation endemics: Insights from theOrchid genus Dendrochilum. Sabah Parks Nature Journal 4:9–24.
Barkman TJ, Simpson BB. 2002. Hybrid origin and parent-age of Dendrochilum acuiferum (Orchidaceae). Inferred in aphylogenetic context using nuclear and plastid DNAsequence data. Systematic Botany 27: 209–220.
Barnett JM. 1984. The initial effects of fire on orchids in aStringybark-Box forest. Victorian Naturalist 101: 188–190.
Barraclough TG, Savolainen V. 2001. Evolutionary ratesand species diversity in flowering plants. Evolution 55: 677–683.
Barrowclough GF, Rockwell RF. 1993. Variance of lifetimereproductive success: estimation based on demographic data.American Naturalist 141: 281–295.
Bartareau T. 1994. The reproductive ecology of Dendrobiumtoressae (Bailey) Dockr., a geographically restricted speciesin north-east Queensland. Orchadian 11: 106–111.
Bartareau T. 1995. Pollination limitation, cost of reproduc-
tion and capsule-to-flower ratio in Dendrobium monophyl-lum F. Muell (Orchidaceae). Australian Journal of Ecology20: 257–265.
Bateman AJ. 1948. Intrasexual selection in Drosophila.Heredity 2: 349–368.
Batty AL, Dixon KW, Brundett M, Sivasithamparam K.2001. Constraints to symbiotic germination of terrestrialorchid seed in a Mediterranean bushland. New Phytologist152: 511–520.
Bawa KS, Beach JH. 1981. Evolution of sexual systems inflowering plants. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden68: 254–274.
Bawa KS, Webb CJ. 1984. Flower, fruit and seed abortion intropical forest trees: implications for the evolution of pater-nal and maternal reproductive patterns. American Journalof Botany 71: 736–751.
Beardsell DV, Clements MA, Hutchinson JF, WilliamsEG. 1986. Pollination of Diuris maculata R. Br. (Orchi-daceae) by floral mimicry of the native legumes Daviesa spp.and Pultenaea scabra R. Br. Australian Journal of Botany34: 165–173.
Bell G. 1985. On the function of flowers. Proceedings of theRoyal Society of London B 224: 223–265.
Benzing DH. 1987. Major patterns and processes in orchidevolution: a critical synthesis. In: Arditti J, ed. Orchid biol-ogy, Vol. IV. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 34–77.
Bergström G, Birgersson G, Groth I, Nilsson LA. 1992.Floral fragrance disparity between three taxa of Lady’s Slip-per Cypripedium calceolus (Orchidaceae). Phytochemistry31: 2315–2319.
Bernhardt P, Burns-Balogh P. 1986. Observations of thefloral biology of Prasophylum odoratum (Orchidaceae, Spi-ranthoideae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 153: 65–76.
Berry PE, Calvo RN. 1991. Pollinator limitation andposition-dependent fruit set in the high Andean orchidMyrosmodes cochleare. Plant Systematics and Evolution174: 93–101.
Best LS, Bierzychudek P. 1982. Pollinator foraging on fox-glove (Digitalis purpurea): a test for a new model. Evolution36: 70–79.
Bierzychudek P. 1981a. Pollinator limitation of plant repro-ductive effort. American Naturalist 117: 838–840.
Bierzychudek P. 1981b. Asclepias, Lantana and Epiden-drum: a floral mimicry complex? Biotropica 13: 54–58.
Bino RJ, Dafni A, Meeuse ADJ. 1982. The pollination ecol-ogy of Orchis galilaea (Bornm. et Schulze) Schltr. (Orchi-daceae). New Phytologist 90: 315–319.
Blivona I. 2002. A northernmost population of Cypripediumcalceolus L. (Orchidaceae): demography, flowering, and pol-lination Selbyana 23: 111–120.
Bohomak AJ. 1999. Dispersal, gene flow, and populationstructure. Quarterly Review of Biology 74: 21–45.
Boland JT, Scott PJ. 1991. Ecological aspects of Arethusabulbosa, Calopogon tuberosus, and Pogonia ophioglossoides(Orchidaceae) in eastern Newfoundland. I. Flowering andfruiting patterns. Rhodora 93: 248–255.
Bookman SS. 1984. Evidence for selective fruit production inAsclepias. Evolution 38: 72–86.
44 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Borba EL, Felix JM, Solferini VN, Semir J. 2001. Fly-pollinated Pleurothallis (Orchidaceae) species have highgenetic variability: evidence from isozyme markers. Ameri-can Journal of Botany 88: 419–428.
Borba EL, Semir S. 1998. Wind-assisted fly pollination inthree Bulbophyllum (Orchidaceae) species occurring in Bra-zilian campos rupestres. Lindleyana 13: 203–218.
Borba EL, Semir S. 1999a. Temporal variation in pollinar-ium size after its removal in species of Bulbophyllum: adifferent mechanism preventing self-pollination in Orchi-daceae. Plant Systematics and Evolution 217: 197–204.
Borba EL, Semir S. 1999b. Reproductive systems and cross-ing potential in three species of Bulbophyllum (Orchidaceae)occurring in Brazilian ‘campo rupestre’ vegetation. PlantSystematics and Evolution 217: 205–214.
Borba EL, Semir S. 2001. Pollinator specificity and conver-gence in fly-pollinated Pleurothallis (Orchidaceae) species: amultiple population approach. Annals of Botany 88: 75–88.
Borba EL, Semir S, Sheppard GJ. 2001. Self-incompatibility,inbreeding depression and crossing potential in five Brazil-ian Pleurothallis (Orchidaceae) species. Annals of Botany88: 89–99.
Borba EL, Sheppard GJ, Semir J. 1999. Reproductive sys-tems and crossing potential in three species of Bulbophyllum(Orchidaceae) occurring in Brazilian ‘campo rupestre’ vege-tation. Plant Systematics and Evolution 217: 205–214.
Borg-Karlson A-K, Bergström G, Kullenberg B. 1987.Chemical basis for the relationship between Ophrys orchidsand their pollinators. Chemica Scripta 27: 303–311.
Boyden TC. 1982. The pollination biology of Calypso bulbosavar. americana (Orchidaceae): initial deception of bumblebeevisitors. Oecologia 55: 178–184.
Braem GJ. 1988. The chromosome numbers of the taxa usu-ally referred to as ‘variegata oncidiums’ (genera Braasiella,Hispaniella, Olgasis and Tolumnia) with a review of thechromosome numbers of the Orchidaceae and special refer-ence to the Oncidiinae. Schlechteriana 1: 23–33.
Braga PIS. 1977. Aspectos biológicos das Orchidaceae de umacampina de Amazonica Central. Acta Amazonica 2: 1–89.
Brzosko E, Ratkiewicz M, Wroblewska A. 2002. Allozymedifferentiation and genetic structure of the Lady’s slipper(Cypripedium calceolus) island populations in north-eastPoland. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 138: 433–440.
Brzosko E, Wroblewska A. 2002. Spatial genetic structureand clonal diversity of island populations of lady’s slipper(Cypripedium calceolus) from the Biebrza National Park(northeast Poland). Molecular Ecology 11: 2449–2509.
Brzosko E, Wroblewska A. 2003. Genetic variation andclonal diversity in island Cephalanthera rubra populationsfrom Biebrza National Park, Poland. Botanical Journal ofthe Linnean Society 143: 99–108.
Bullini L, Cianchi R, Arduino P, De Bonis L, Mosco MC,Verdi A, Porretta D, Corrias B, Rossi W. 2001. Molecularevidence for allopolyploid speciation and a single origin ofthe western Mediterranean orchid Dactylorhiza insularis(Orchidaceae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 72:193–201.
Burd M. 1994. Bateman’s Principle and plant reproduction:The role of pollen limitation in fruit and seed set. BotanicalReview 60: 63–139.
Burdon JJ. 1987. Diseases and plant population biology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bush ST, Kutz WE, Anderton JM. 1999. RAPD variation intemperate populations of epiphytic orchid Epiendrum conop-seum and the epiphytic fern Pleopelti polypodioides. Selby-ana 20: 120–124.
Calder DM, Adams PB, Slater AT. 1982. The floral biologyand breeding system of Dendrobium speciosum Sm. In: Wil-liams EG, Knox RB, Gilbert JH, Bernhardt P, eds. Pollina-tion ’82. Melbourne, Australia: School of Botany, Universityof Melbourne, 184–192.
Calvo RN. 1990a. Four-year growth and reproduction ofCyclopogon cranichoides (Orchidaceae) in South Florida.American Journal of Botany 77: 736–741.
Calvo RN. 1990b. Inflorescence size and fruit distributionamong individuals of three orchid species. American Journalof Botany 77: 1378–1381.
Calvo RN. 1993. Evolutionary demography of orchids: inten-sity and frequency of pollination and the cost of fruiting.Ecology 74: 1033–1042,.
Calvo RN, Horvitz CC. 1990. Pollinator limitation, cost ofreproduction, and fitness in plants: a transition matrixdemographic approach. American Naturalist 136: 499–516.
Campbell DR. 1989. Inflorescence size: test of the male func-tion hypothesis. American Journal of Botany 76: 730–738.
Campbell DR, Waser NM, Meléndez-Ackerman EJ. 1997.Analyzing pollinator-mediated selection in plant hybridzone: hummingbird visitation patterns on three spatialscales. American Naturalist 149: 295–315.
Carey PD. 1998. Modelling the spread of Himantoglossumhircinum (L.) Spreng. at a site in the north of England.Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 126: 159–171.
Carroll S, Miller RL, Whitson PD. 1984. Status of 4 orchidspecies at Silver Lake Fen complex. Proceedings of the IowaAcademy of Science 91: 132–139.
Carson HL. 1990. Increased genetic variance after a popula-tion bottleneck. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5: 228–230.
Carvalho R, Machado IC. 2002. Pollination of Catasetummacrocarpum (Orchidaceae) by Eulaema bombiformis(Euglossini). Lindleyana 17: 85–90.
Case MA. 1993. High levels of allozyme variation within Cyp-ripedium calceolus (Orchidaceae) and low levels ofdivergence among its varieties. Systematic Botany 18: 663–677.
Case MA. 1994. Extensive variation in the levels of geneticdiversity and degree of relatedness among five species ofCypripedium (Orchidaceae). American Journal of Botany 81:175–184.
Case MA. 2002. Evolutionary patterns in Cypripedium: Infer-ences from allozyme analyses. Proceedings of the 16th WorldOrchid Conference, April 1999. Vancouver, 192–202.
Case MA, Mlodozeniec HT, Wallace LE, Weldy TW. 1998.Conservation genetics and taxonomic status of the rare Ken-tucky Lady’s slipper: Cypripedium kentuckiense (Orchi-daceae). American Journal of Botany 85: 1779–1779.
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 45
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Catling PM. 1980. Rain-assisted autogamy in Liparis loeselii(L.) L. C. Rich (Orchidaceae). Bulletin of the Torrey BotanicalClub 107: 55–529.
Catling PM. 1982. Breeding systems of northeastern NorthAmerican Spiranthes (Orchidaceae). Canadian Journal ofBotany 60: 3017–3039.
Catling PM. 1983a. Pollination of northeastern North Amer-ican Spiranthes (Orchidaceae). Canadian Journal of Botany61: 1080–1093.
Catling PM. 1983b. Autogamy in eastern Canadian Orchi-daceae: a review of current knowledge and some new obser-vations. Naturaliste Canadien 110: 37–53.
Catling PM. 1987. Notes on the breeding systems of Sacoilalanceolata (Aublet) Garay. Annals of the Missouri BotanicalGardens 74: 58–68.
Catling PM. 1990. Auto-pollination in the Orchidaceae. In:Arditti J, ed. Orchid biology: reviews and perspectives, V.Portland, OR: Timber Press, 121–158.
Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B. 1979. The evolutionarygenetics of sexual systems in flowering plants. Proceedings ofthe Royal Society of London B 205: 511–530.
Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B. 1987. Inbreeding depres-sion and its evolutionary consequences. Annual Review ofEcology and Systematics 18: 237–268.
Charnov EL. 1979. Simultaneous hermaphroditism and sex-ual selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-ences, USA 76: 2480–2482.
Charnov EL. 1982. The theory of sex allocation. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chase MW. 1986. Pollination ecology of two sympatric, syn-chronously flowering species of Leochilus in Costa Rica.Lindleyana 1: 141–147.
Chase MW, Palmer JD. 1997. Leapfrog radiation in floraland vegetative traits among twig epiphytes in the orchidtribe Oncidiinae. In: Givnish TJ, Systsma KJ, eds. Molecularevolution and adaptive radiation. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 331–352.
Christensen DE. 1992. Notes on the reproductive biology ofStelis argentata Lindl. (Orchidaceae: Pleurothallidinae) inEastern Ecuador. Lindleyana 7: 28–33.
Chung MY, Chung MG. 1999. Allozyme diversity and popu-lation structure in Korean populations of Cymbidium goer-ingii (Orchidaceae). Journal of Plant Research 112: 139–144.
Chung MY, Chung MG. 2003. The breeding systems of Cre-mastra appendiculata and Cymbidium goeringii: high levelsof annual fruit failure in two self-compatible orchids.Annales Botanici Fennici 40: 81–85.
Chung MY, Nason JD, Chung MG. 2004. Spatial geneticstructure in populations of the terrestrial orchid Cephalan-thera longibracteata (Orchidaceae). American Journal ofBotany 91: 52–57.
van der Cingel NA. 1995. An atlas of orchid pollinations:European orchids. Brookfield, VT: Balkema.
Cole FR, Firmage DH. 1984. The floral ecology of Platan-thera blephariglottis. American Journal of Botany 71: 700–710.
Coleman RA. 1995. The wild orchids of California. Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press.
Corrias B, Rossi W, Arduino P, Cianchi R, Bullini L.1991. Orchis longicornu Poiret in Sardinia: genetic, morpho-logical and chronological data. Webbia 45: 71–101.
Coyne JA, Barton NH, Turelli M. 1997. Perspectives: a cri-tique of Sewall Wright’s shifting balance theory of evolution.Evolution 51: 643–671.
Cropper SC, Calder DM. 1990. The floral biology of Thelym-itra epipactoides (Orchidaceae), and the implications of pol-lination by deceit on the survival of this rare orchid. PlantSystematics and Evolution 170: 11–27.
Cropper SC, Calder DM, Tomkinson D. 1989. Thelymitraepipactoides F. Muell. (Orchidaceae), the morphology, biologyand conservation of an endangered species. Proceedings ofthe Royal Society of Victoria 101: 89–101.
Crow JF, Engels WR, Denniston C. 1990. Phase three ofWright’s shifting-balance theory. Evolution 44: 233–247.
Curtis JT. 1954. Annual fluctuations in rate of flower produc-tion by native Cypripedium during two decades. Bulletin ofthe Torrey Botanical Club 81: 340–352.
Dafni A. 1983. Pollination of Orchis caspia -a nectarless plantwhich deceives the pollinators of nectariferous species fromother plant families. Journal of Ecology 71: 467–474.
Dafni A. 1984. Mimicry and deception in pollination. AnnualReview of Ecology and Systematics 15: 259–2178.
Dafni A. 1987. Pollinations in Orchis and related genera: evo-lution from reward to deception. In: Arditti J, ed. Orchidbiology: reviews and perspectives, IV. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press, 79–104.
Dafni A, Calder DM. 1987. Pollination by deceit and floralmimesis in Thelymitra antennifera (Orchidaceae). Plant Sys-tematics and Evolution 158: 11–22.
Dafni A, Ivri Y. 1979. Pollination ecology of, and hybridizationbetween, Orchis coriophora L. and O. collina Sol. ex Russ(Orchidaceae) in Israel. New Phytologist 83: 181–187.
Dafni A, Ivri Y. 1981a. Floral mimicry between Orchis isra-elitica Baumann and Dafni (Orchidaceae) and Bellevaliaflexuosa Boiss. (Liliaceae). Oecologia 49: 229–232.
Dafni A, Ivri Y. 1981b. The flower biology of Cephalantheralongifolia (Orchidaceae) – Pollen imitation and facultative flo-ral mimicry. Plant Systematics and Evolution 137: 229–240.
Dafni A, Ivri Y, Brantjes NBM. 1981. Pollination of Serapiasvomeracea Briq. (Orchidaceae) by imitation of holes forsleeping solitary male bees (Hymenoptera). Acta BotanicaNeerlandica 30: 69–73.
Dafni A, Woodell SRJ. 1986. Stigmatic exudate and the pol-lination of Dactylorhiza fuchsii (Druce) Soo. Flora 178: 343–350.
Darwin C. 1859. The origin of species by means of naturalselection or the preservation of favoured races in the strugglefor life. London: John Murray.
Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relationto sex. London: John Murray.
Darwin C. 1877. The various contrivances by which orchidsare fertilized by insects. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. (1984 ed.)
Davies KL, Winters C, Turner MP. 2000. Pseudopollen: itsstructure and development in Maxillaria (Orchidaceae).Annals of Botany 85: 887–895.
46 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Davis RW. 1986. The pollination biology of Cypripediumacaule (Orchidaceae). Rhodora 88: 445–450.
Dieringer G. 1982. The pollination ecology of Orchis spectabi-lis L. (Orchidaceae). Ohio Journal of Science 82: 218–225.
Dijk E, Willems JH, Van Andel J. 1997. Nutrient responsesas a key factor to the ecology of orchid species. Acta BotanicaNeerlandica 46: 339–363.
Dodson CH. 1962. The importance of pollination in the evo-lution of the orchids of tropical America. American OrchidSociety Bulletin 31: 525–534, 641–649.
Dodson CH. 1965. Studies in orchid pollination. The genusCoryanthes. American Orchid Society Bulletin 34: 680–687.
Dodson CH, Dressler RL, Hills HG, Adams RM, WilliamsNH. 1969. Biologically active compounds in orchid fra-grances. Science 164: 1243–1248.
Dodson CH, Frymire GP. 1961. Natural pollination oforchids. Missouri Botanical Gardens Bulletin 49: 133–139.
Donaldson J, Nanni I, Zachariades C, Kemper J. 2002.Effects of habitat fragmentation on pollinator activity andplant reproductive success in renosterveld shrublands ofSouth Africa. Conservation Biology 16: 1267–1276.
Dondon R, Marsaioli AJ, Koehler S, Singer R, AmaralMC. 2002. A química das recompensas florais de Maxillar-ieae (Orchidaceae). 25a Reunião Anual da SociedadeBrasileira de Química, 20–23 de Maião.
Dressler RL. 1968. Observations on orchids and euglossinebees in Panama and Costa Rica. Revista de Biologia Tropical15: 143–183.
Dressler RL. 1981. The orchids: their natural history andclassification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dressler RL. 1982. Biology of the orchid bees (Euglossini).Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13: 373–394.
Dudash MR. 1990. Relative fitness of selfed and outcrossprogeny in a self-compatible, protandrous species, Sabatiaangularis L. (Gentianaceae). A comparison in three environ-ments. Evolution 44: 1129–1139.
Duncan RE, Curtis JT. 1943. Growth of fruits in Cattleyaand allied genera in the Orchidaceae. Bulletin of the TorreyBotanical Club 70: 104–119.
East EM. 1940. The distribution of self-fertility in floweringplants. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 82:449–518.
Ellis AG, Johnson SD. 1999. Do pollinators determinehybridization patterns in sympatric Satyrium (Orchidaceae)species? Plant Systematics and Evolution 219: 137–150.
Eltz T, Whitten WM, Roubik DW, Linsenmair KE. 1999.Fragrance collection, storage, and accumulation by individ-ual male orchid bees. Journal of Chemical Ecology 25: 157–176.
Endler JA. 1986. Natural selection in the wild. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
Farrell L. 1985. Orchis militaris L. (Biological Flora of theBritish Isles, 160). Journal of Ecology 73: 1041–1053.
Firmage DH, Cole FR. 1988. Reproductive success and inflo-rescence size of Calopogon tuberosus (Orchidaceae). Ameri-can Journal of Botany 75: 1371–1377.
Fisher BL. 1992. Facultative ant association benefits a Neo-tropical orchid. Journal of Tropical Ecology 8: 109–114.
Folsom JP. 1994. Pollination of a fragrant orchid. OrchidDigest 58: 83–99.
Freudenstein JV, Rasmussen FN. 1997. Sectile pollinia andrelationships in Orchidaceae. Plant Systematics and Evolu-tion 205: 125–146.
Fritz A-L. 1990. Deceit pollination of Orchis spitzelii (Orchi-daceae) on the island of Gotland in the Baltic: a suboptimalsystem. Nordic Journal of Botany 9: 577–587.
Fritz A-L, Nilsson LA. 1994. How pollinator-mediated mat-ing varies with population size in plants. Oecologia 100:451–462.
Garwood NC, Horvitz CC. 1985. Factors limiting fruit andseed production of a temperate shrub, Staphylea trifolia L.(Staphyleaceae). American Journal of Botany 72: 453–466.
Gaut BS, Morton BR, McCaig BC, Clegg MT. 1996. Sub-stitution rate comparisons between grasses and palms: syn-onymous rate differences at the nuclear gene Adh parallelrate differences at the plastid gene rbcL. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences, USA 93: 10274–10279.
Gigord LDB, MacNair MR, Smithson A. 2001. Negative fre-quency-dependent selection maintains a dramatic flowercolor polymorphism in the rewardless orchid Dactylorhizasambicina (L.) Soò. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences, USA 98: 6253–6255.
Gill DE. 1989. Fruiting failure, pollinator inefficiency and spe-ciation in orchids. In: Otte D, Endler JA, eds. Speciation andits consequences. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, 458–481.
Gill DE. 1996. The natural population ecology of temperateterrestrials: Pink Lady’s Slipper, Cypripedium acaule. In:Allen C, ed. North American native terrestrial orchids: prop-agation and production. North American Native TerrestrialOrchid Conference, Germantown, MD, 91–106.
Gillman MP, Dodd M. 2000. Detection of delayed densitydependence in an orchid population. Journal of Ecology 88:204–212.
González-Díaz N, Ackerman JD. 1988. Pollination, fruit set,and seed production in the orchid, Oeceoclades maculata.Lindleyana 3: 150–155.
Goss GH. 1977. The reproductive biology of the epiphyticorchids of Florida. 6. Polystachya flavescens (Lindley). Amer-ican Orchid Society Bulletin 46: 990–994.
Gregg KB. 1983. Variation in floral fragrances and morphol-ogy: incipient speciation in Cycnoches? Botanical Gazette144: 566–576.
Gregg KB. 1989. Reproductive biology of the orchid Cleistesdivaricata (L.) Ames var. bifaria Fernald growing in a WestVirginia meadow. Castanea 54: 57–78.
Gregg KB. 1990. The natural life cycle of Platanthera. NorthAmerican native terrestrial orchid propagation and produc-tion. Chadds Ford, PA: Brandywine Conservancy, Mt. CubaCenter, New England Wild Flower Society.
Gregg KB. 1991a. Reproductive strategy of Cleistes divaricata(Orchidaceae). American Journal of Botany 78: 350–360.
Gregg KB. 1991b. Variation in behaviour of four populationsof the orchid Cleistes divaricata, an assessment using matrixmodels. In: Wells TCE, Willems JH, eds. Population ecologyof terrestrial orchids. The Hague: SPB Academic Publishing,139–160.
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 47
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Gregg KB. 1991c. Defrauding the deceitful orchid: pollen col-lection by pollinators of Cleites divericata and C. bifaria.Lindleyana 6: 214–220.
Gumbert A, Kunze J. 2001. Colour similarity to rewardingmodel plants affects pollination in a food deceptive orchid,Orchid boryi. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 72:419–433.
Gustafsson S. 2000. Patterns of genetic variation in Gymnad-enia conopsea, the fragrant orchid. Molecular Ecology 9:1863–1872.
Gustafsson S, Sjögren-Gulve P. 2002. Genetic diversity inthe rare orchid, Gymnadenia odoratissima and a comparisonwith the more common congener, G. conopsea. ConservationGenetics 3: 225–234.
Hagerup O. 1952. Bud autogamy in some northern orchids.Phytomorphology 2: 51–60.
Hainsworth FR, Wolf LL, Mercier T. 1985. Pollen limita-tion in a monocarpic species, Ipomopsis aggregata. Journalof Ecology 73: 263–270.
Handel SN, Peakall R. 1993. Thynnine wasps discriminateamong heights when seeking mates: tests with a sexuallydeceptive orchid. Oecologia 95: 241–245.
Harper JL. 1977. Population biology of plants. London: Aca-demic Press.
Harris SA, Abbott RJ. 1997. Isozyme analysis of the reportedorigin of a new hybrid orchid species, Epipactis youngiana(Young’s helleborine), in the British Isles. Heredity 79: 402–407.
Hartl DL, Clark AG. 1989. Principles of population genetics,2nd edn. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
Hedrén M. 1996. Genetic differentiation, polyploidization andhybridization in northern European Dactylorhiza (Orchi-daceae): evidence from allozyme markers. Plant Systematicsand Evolution 201: 31–55.
Hedrén M, Klein E, Teppner H. 2000. Evolution of poly-ploids in the European orchid genus Nigritella: Evidencefrom allozyme data. Phyton 40: 239–275.
Heinrich B. 1975. Bee flowers: a hypothesis on flower varietyand blooming times. Evolution 29: 325–334.
Hernández-Apolinar M. 1992. Dinamica poblacional de Lae-lia speciosa (HBK) Schltr. (Orchidaceae). Tesis Titalode Biol-ogo, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, México.
Hessing MB. 1988. Geitonogamous pollination and its conse-quences in Geranium caespitosum. American Journal of Bot-any 75: 1324–1333.
Hills HG, Williams NH, Dodson CH. 1972. Floral fragrancesand isolating mechanisms in the genus Catasetum (Orchi-daceae). Biotropica 4: 61–76.
Hogan KP. 1983. The pollination biology and breeding systemof Aplectrum hyemale (Orchidaceae). Canadian Journal ofBotany 61: 1906–1910.
Hollingsworth PM, Dickson JH. 1997. Genetic variation inrural and urban populations of Epipactis helleborine (L.)Crantz. (Orchidaceae) in Britain, Botanical Journal of theLinnean Society 123: 321–331.
Holsinger KE. 1988. The evolution of self-fertilization inplants: lessons from population genetics. Acta Oecologica:Serie Oecologica Plantarum 9: 95–102.
Iannotti MA, Stort MNS, Morales MAM. 1987. O sistemareproductivo de Epidendrum rigidum Jacq. (Orchidaceae).Ciencia y Cultura 39: 641–644.
Iman RL. 1974. A power study of a rank transform for the two-way classification model when interaction may be present.Canadian Journal of Statistics 2: 227–229.
Inoue K. 1985. Reproductive biology of two platantherans(Orchidaceae) in the island of Hachijo. Japanese Journal ofEcology 35: 77–83.
Inoue K. 1986a. Different effects of sphingid and noctuidmoths on the fecundity of Platanthera metabifolia (Orchi-daceae) in Hokkaido. Ecological Research 1: 25–36.
Inoue K. 1986b. Experimental studies on male and femalereproductive success: effects of variation in spur length andpollinator activity on Platanthera mandarinorum ssp.Hachijoensis (Orchidaceae). Plant Species Biology 1: 207–215.
Ivri Y, Dafni A. 1977. The pollination ecology of Epipactis con-similis Don (Orchidaceae) in Israel. New Phytologist 79:173–177.
Jain SK. 1976. The evolution of inbreeding in plants. AnnualReview of Ecology and Systematics 7: 469–495.
Janzen DH. 1971. Euglossine bees as long-distance pollina-tors of tropical plants. Science 171: 1440–1448.
Janzen DH. 1977. A note on optimal mate selection by plants.American Naturalist 111: 365–371.
Janzen DH, DeVries P, Gladstone DE, Higgins ML,Lewinsohn TM. 1980. Self- and cross- pollination of Encyc-lia cordigera (Orchidaceae) in Santa Rosa National Park,Costa Rica. Biotropica 12: 72–74.
Johansen B. 1990. Incompatibility in Dendrobium (Orchi-daceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 103: 165–196.
Johnson SD. 1993. Carpenter bee pollination of Herschelian-the graminifolia (Orchidaceae) on the Cape Peninsula. Flora188: 383–386.
Johnson SD. 1994. Evidence for Batesian mimicry in a but-terfly-pollinated orchid. Biological Journal of the LinneanSociety 53: 91–104.
Johnson SD. 1995. Moth pollination of the cryptic Capeorchid Monadenia ophrydea. Flora 190: 105–108.
Johnson SD, Bond WJ. 1992. Habitat dependent pollinationsuccess in a Cape Orchid. Oecologia 91: 455–456.
Johnson SD, Edwards TJ. 2000. The structure and functionof orchid pollinaria. Plant Systematics and Evolution 222:243–269.
Johnson SD, Linder HP, Steiner KE. 1998. Phylogeny andradiation of pollination systems in Disa (Orchidaceae).American Journal of Botany 85: 402–411.
Johnson SD, Nilsson LA. 1999. Pollen carryover, geitonog-amy, and the evolution of deceptive pollination systems inorchids. Ecology 80: 2607–2619.
Johnson SD, Steiner KE. 1994. Pollination by megachilidbees and determinants of fruit-set in the Cape orchid Disatenuifolia. Nordic Journal of Botany 14: 481–485.
Johnson SD, Steiner KE, Kurzweil H. 1994. Auto-pollina-tion in Disa species (Orchidaceae) of the Cape mountaincloud zone. Lindleyana 9: 3–6.
48 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Johnson SD, Steiner KE, Whitehead VB, Vogelpoel L.1998. Pollination ecology and maintenance of species integ-rity in co-occurring Disa racemosa L. f. and Disa venosa Sw.(Orchidaceae) in South Africa. Annals of the Missouri Botan-ical Garden 85: 231–241.
Kallunki JA. 1976. Population studies in Goodyera (Orchi-daceae) with emphasis on the hybrid origin of G. tesselata.Brittonia 28: 53–75.
Kallunki JA. 1981. Reproductive biology of mixed-speciespopulations of Goodyera (Orchidaceae) in northern Michi-gan. Brittonia 33: 137–155.
Kimsey L. 1982. Systematics of the bees of the genus Eufriesia(Hymenoptera, Apidae). Berkeley, CA: University of Califor-nia Press.
Kimura M. 1965. Attainment of quasi-linkage equilibriumwhen gene frequencies are changing by natural selection.Genetics 52: 875–890.
Kimura M, Crow JF. 1963. The measurement of effectivepopulation number. Evolution 17: 279–288.
Kindlmann P, Balounová Z. 2001. Irregular flowering pat-terns in terrestrial orchids: theories vs empirical data. WebEcology 2: 75–82.
Kipping JL. 1971. Pollination studies of native orchids. MAThesis. San Francisco State College, San Francisco, Califor-nia.
Kirchner O. 1922a. Uber Selbstbestaubung bei den Orchida-ceen. Flora 115: 103–129.
Kirchner O. 1922b. Zur Selbstbestaubung der Orchidaceen.Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 40: 317–321.
Kisseleva TG, Timonin AC. 2001. Orchis militaris in south-west Mordovia. Botanicheskii Zhurnal St-Petersburg 86: 72–75.
Kjellsson G, Rasmussen FN, Dupuy D. 1985. Pollination ofDendrobium infundibulum, Cymbidium insigne (Orchi-daceae), and Rhododendron lyi (Ericaceae) by Bombus exi-mius (Apidae) in Thailand: a possible case of floral mimicry.Journal of Tropical Ecology 1: 289–302.
Klinkhamer PCL, de Jong TJ. 1993. Attractiveness to pol-linators: a plant’s dilemma. Oikos 66: 180–184.
Kocyan A, Endress PK. 2001. Floral structure and develop-ment of Apostasia and Neuwiedia (Apostasioideae) and theirrelationships to other Orchidaceae. International Journal ofPlant Science 162: 847–867.
Koivisto AM, Vallius E, Salonen V. 2002. Pollination andreproductive success of two colour variants of a deceptiveorchid, Dactylorhiza maculata (Orchidaceae). Nordic Jour-nal of Botany 22: 53–58.
Koopowitz H, Marchant TA. 1998. Postpollination nectarreabsorption in the African epiphyte Aerangis verdickii(Orchidaceae). American Journal of Botany 85: 508–512.
Koryan A, Endress PK. 2001. Floral structure and develop-ment of Apostasia and Neuwiedia (Apostasioideae) and theirrelationships to other Orchidaceae. International Journal ofPlant Science 162: 847–867.
Kull T. 1998. Fruit-set and recruitment in populations of Cyp-ripedium calceolus L. in Estonia. Botanical Journal of theLinnean Society 126: 27–38.
Kull T, Kull K. 1991. Preliminary results from a study of pop-ulations of Cypripedium calceolus in Estonia. In: Wells TCE,Willems JH, eds. Population ecology of terrestrial orchids.The Hague: SPB Academic Publishing, 69–76.
Kunze J, Gumbert A. 2001. The combined effect of color andodor on flower choice behavior of bumble bees in flower mim-icry systems. Behavioral Ecology 12: 447–456.
Lammi A, Kuitunen M. 1995. Deceptive pollination of Dac-tylorhiza incarnata: an experimental test of the magnet spe-cies hypothesis. Oecologia 101: 500–503.
Lande R. 1975. The maintenance of genetic variability bymutation in a polygenic character with linked loci. GeneticalResearch 26: 221–234.
Lande R. 1979. Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariateevolution, applied to brain-body size allometry. Evolution 33:402–416.
Lande R, Arnold SJ. 1983. The measurement of selection oncorrelated characters. Evolution 37: 1210–1226.
Lande R, Schemske DW. 1985. The evolution of self-fertilization and inbreeding depression in plants I. Geneticmodels. Evolution 39: 24–40.
Larson RJ, Larson KS. 1987. Observations on the pollina-tion biology of Spiranthes romanzoffiana. Lindleyana 2: 176–179.
Lee TD. 1988. Patterns of fruit and seed production. In: LovettDoust J, Lovett Doust L, eds. Plant reproductive ecology.New York: Oxford University Press, 179–202.
Lee TD, Bazzaz FA. 1982. Regulation of fruit and seed pro-duction in an annual legume, Cassia fasciculata. Ecology 63:1363–1373.
Leeson K, Haynes C, Wells TCE. 1991. Studies of the phe-nology and dry matter allocation of Dactylorhiza fuchsii. In:Wells TCE, Willems JH, eds. Population ecology of terrestrialorchids. The Hague: SPB Academic Publishing, 125–138.
Lehnebach C, Riveros M. 2003. Pollination biology of theChilean endemic orchid Chloraea lamellata. Biodiversityand Conservation 12: 1741–1751.
Li A, Luo YB, Ge S. 2002. A preliminary study on conserva-tion genetics of an endangered orchid (Paphiopedilummicranthum) from Southwestern China. Biochemical Genet-ics 40: 195–201.
Lipow SR, Bernhardt P, Vance N. 2002. Comparative ratesof pollination and fruit set in widely separated populations ofa rare orchid (Cypripedium fasciculatum) InternationalJournal of Plant Science 163: 775–782.
Lloyd DG. 1980. Sexual strategies in plants. I. A hypothesis ofserial adjustment of maternal investment during one repro-ductive session. New Phytologist 86: 81–92.
Luyt R, Johnson SD. 2001. Hawkmoth pollination of theAfrican epiphytic orchid Mystacicium venosum, with refer-ence to flower and pollen longevity. Plant Systematics andEvolution 228: 49–62.
Luyt R, Johnson SD. 2002. Postpollination nectar reabsorp-tion and its implications for fruit quality in an epiphyticorchid. Biotropica 34: 442–446.
Maad J. 2000. Phenotypic selection in hawkmoth-pollinatedPlatanthera bifolia: targets and fitness surfaces. Evolution54: 112–123.
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 49
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Malo EJ, Leirana-Alcocer J, Parra-Tabla V. 2001. Popula-tion fragmentation, floviry, and the effects of flower morphol-ogy alterations on the pollination success of Myrmecophilatibicinis (Orchidaceae). Biotropica 33: 529–534.
Mant JG, Schiestl FP, Peakall R, Weston PH. 2002. A phy-logenetic study of pollinator conservatism among sexuallydeceptive orchids. Evolution 56: 888–898.
Marshall DL, Ellstrand NC. 1986. Sexual selection inRaphanus sativus: experimental data on nonrandom fertili-zation, maternal choice, and consequences of multiple pater-nity. American Naturalist 127: 446–461.
Matsui K, Ushimaru A, Fujita N. 2001. Pollination limita-tion in a deceptive orchid, Pogonia japonica, on a floatingpeat mat. Plant Species Biology 16: 231–235.
Mattila E. 2000. The effects of water stress and pollenavailability on reproductive success of Platanthers bifolia(Orchidaceae). Avhandlinger Utgitt av det Norske Viden-skaps-Akademi i Oslo i Matematisk-NaturvidenskapeligKlasse 39: 83–90.
Mattila E, Kuitunen MT. 2000. Nutrient versus pollinationlimitation in Platanthera bifolia and Dactylorhiza incarnata(Orchidaceae). Oikos 89: 360–366.
McKendrick SL, Leake JR, Taylor DL, Read DJ. 2002.Symbiotic germination and development of the myco-heterotrophic orchid Neottia nidus-avis in nature and itsrequirement for locally distributed Sebacina spp. New Phy-tologist 154: 233–247.
Mehrhoff LA. 1983. Pollination in the genus Isotria (Orchi-daceae). American Journal of Botany 70: 1444–1453.
Meléndez EJ, Ackerman JD. 1993. The effects of a rustinfection on fitness components in a natural population ofTolumnia variegata (Orchidaceae). Oecologia 94: 361–367.
Meléndez-Ackerman EJ, Ackerman JD. 2001. Density-dependent variation in reproductive success in a terrestrialorchid. Plant Systematics and Evolution 227: 27–36.
Meléndez-Ackerman EJ, Ackerman JD, Rodríguez-Robles JA. 2000. Reproduction in an orchid is resource lim-ited over its lifetime. Biotropica 32: 282–290.
Merrell DJ. 1981. Ecological genetics. Minneapolis, Minne-sota: University of Minnesota Press.
Montalvo AM. 1992. Relative success and outcross pollencomparing mixed and single-donor pollinations in Aquilegiacaerulea. Evolution 46: 1181–1198.
Montalvo AM, Ackerman JD. 1987. Limitations to fruit pro-duction in Ionopsis utricularioides. Biotropica 19: 24–31.
Moya S, Ackerman JD. 1993. Variation in the floral fra-grance of Epidendrum ciliare (Orchidaceae). Nordic Journalof Botany 13: 41–47.
Murren CJ. 2002. Effects of habitat fragmentation on polli-nation: pollinators, pollinia viability and reproductive suc-cess. Journal of Ecology 90: 100–107.
Murren CJ, Ellison AM. 1996. Effects of habitat, plant size,and floral display on male and female reproductive success ofthe neotropical orchid Brassavola nodosa. Biotropica 28: 30–41.
Murren CJ, Ellison AM. 1998. Seed dispersal characteristicsof Brassavola nodosa (Orchidaceae). American Journal ofBotany 85: 675–680.
Nazarov CJ. 1995. Reproductive biology of Crimean orchids.PhD Thesis. Komarov Botanical Institute, St Petersburg. (InRussian.).
Nazarov VV, Gerlach G. 1997. The potential seed productiv-ity of orchid flowers and peculiarities of their pollination sys-tems. Lindleyana 12: 188–204.
Neiland MR, Wilcock CC. 1998. Fruit set, nectar reward,and rarity in the Orchidaceae. American Journal of Botany85: 1657–1671.
Nielsen LR, Siegismund HR. 2000. Interspecific differenti-ation and hybridization in Vanilla species (Orchidaceae).Heredity 83: 560–567.
Nilsson LA. 1978a. Pollination ecology of Epipactis palustris(Orchidaceae). Botaniska Notiser 131: 355–368.
Nilsson LA. 1978b. Pollination ecology and adaptation in Pla-tanthera chlorantha (Orchidaceae). Botaniska Notiser 131:35–51.
Nilsson LA. 1979a. The pollination ecology of Herminiunmonorchis (Orchidaceae). Botaniska Notiser 132: 537–549.
Nilsson LA. 1979b. Anthecological studies on the lady’s slip-per, Cypripedium calceolus (Orchidaceae). Botaniska Notiser132: 329–347.
Nilsson LA. 1980. The pollination ecology of Dactylorhizasambucina (Orchidaceae). Botaniska Notiser 133: 367–385.
Nilsson LA. 1981. The pollination ecology of Listera ovata(Orchidaceae). Nordic Journal of Botany 1: 461–480.
Nilsson LA. 1983a. Processes of isolation and introgressiveinterplay between Platanthera bifolia (L.) Rich and P. chlo-rantha (Custer) Reichb. (Orchidaceae). Botanical Journal ofthe Linnean Society 87: 325–350.
Nilsson LA. 1983b. Anthecology of Orchis mascula (Orchi-daceae). Nordic Journal of Botany 3: 157–179.
Nilsson LA. 1983c. Mimesis of bellflower (Campanula) by thered helleborine orchid Cephalanthera rubra. Nature 305:799–800.
Nilsson LA. 1984. Anthecology of Orchis morio (Orchidaceae)at its outpost in the north. Nova Acta Regiae Societatia Sci-entiarum Upsaliensia 3: 167–179.
Nilsson LA. 1985. Monophyly and pollination mechanisms inAngraecum arachnites Schltr. (Orchidaceae) in a guild oflong-tongued hawk-moths (Sphingidae) in Madagascar. Bio-logical Journal of the Linnean Society 26: 1–19.
Nilsson LA. 1988. The evolution of flowers with deep corollatubes. Nature 334: 147–149.
Nilsson LA. 1992. Orchid pollination biology. Trends in Ecol-ogy and Evolution 7: 255–258.
Nilsson LA, Jonsson L, Rason L, Randrianjohany E.1985. Monophyly and pollination mechanism in Angraecumarachnites Schltr. (Orchidaceae) in a guild of long-tonguedhawk-moths (Sphingidae) in Madagascar. Biological Journalof the Linnean Society 26: 1–19.
Nilsson LA, Jonsson L, Rason L, Randrianjohany E.1986. The pollination of Cymbidiella flabellata (Orchi-daceae) in Madagascar: a system operated by sphecid wasps.Nordic Journal of Botany 6: 411–422.
Nilsson LA, Jonsson L, Rason L, Randrianjohany E.1987. Angrecoids and hawkmoths in Central Madagascar:
50 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
specialized pollination systems and generalist foragers. Bio-tropica 19: 310–318.
Nilsson LA, Rabakonandrianina E. 1988. Hawk-moth scaleanalysis and pollination specialization in the epilithicMalagasy endemic Aerangis ellisii (Reichenb. fil.) Schltr.(Orchidaceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 97:49–61.
Nilsson LA, Rabakonandrianina E, Pettersson B. 1992.Exact tracking of pollen transfer and mating in plants.Nature 360: 666–667.
Nilsson LA, Rabakonandrianina E, Razananaivo R, Ran-driamanindry JJ. 1992. Long pollinia on eyes: hawk-mothpollination of Cynorkis uniflora Lindley (Orchidaceae) inMadagascar. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 109:145–160.
Nunney L. 1993. The influence of mating system and overlap-ping generations on effective population size. Evolution 47:1329–1341.
Nunney L. 2000. The limits to knowledge in conservationgenetics: The value of effective population size. EvolutionaryBiology 32: 179–194.
O’Connell LM, Johnston MO. 1998. Male and female polli-nation success in a deceptive orchid, a selection study. Ecol-ogy 79: 1246–1260.
Oh GS, Chung MY, Chung SG, Chung MG. 2001. Contrast-ing breeding systems: Liparis kumokiri and L. makinoama(Orchidaceae). Annales Zoologici Fennici 38: 281–284.
Orive ME. 1993. Effective population size in organisms withcomplex life-histories. Theoretical Population Biology 44:316–340.
Ortiz-Barney E, Ackerman JD. 1999. The cost of selfing inEncyclia cochleata (Orchidaceae). Plant Systematics andEvolution 219: 55–64.
Pacini E, Hesse M. 2002. Types of pollen dispersal units inorchids, and their consequences for germination and fertili-zation. Annals of Botany 89: 653–664.
Parra-Tabla V, Vargas CL, Magaña-Rueda S, Navarro J.2000. Female and male pollination success of Oncidiumascendens Lind[1]ey sic. (Orchidaceae) in two contrastinghabitat patches: forest vs. agricultural field. Biological Con-servation 94: 335–340.
Patt JM, Merchant MW, Williams DRE, Meeuse BJD.1989. Pollination biology of Platanthera stricta (Orchi-daceae) in Olympic National Park, Washington. AmericanJournal of Botany 76: 1097–1106.
Patt JM, Rhoades DF, Corkill JA. 1988. Analysis of the flo-ral fragrance of Plathanthera stricta. Phytochemistry 27: 91–95.
Peakall R. 1989a. The unique pollination of Leporella fimbri-ata (Orchidaceae): pollination by pseudocopulating maleants (Myrmecia urens, Formicidae). Plant Systematics andEvolution 167: 137–148.
Peakall R. 1989b. A new technique for monitoring pollen flowin orchids. Oecologia 79: 361–365.
Peakall R. 1990. Responses of male Zaspilothynnus trilobatusTurner wasps to females and the sexually deceptive orchid itpollinates. Functional Ecology 4: 159–167.
Peakall R, Beattie AJ. 1989. Pollination of the orchid Micro-
tis parviflora R. Br. by flightless worker ants. FunctionalEcology 3: 515–522.
Peakall R, Beattie AJ. 1996. Ecological and genetic conse-quences of pollination by sexual deception in the orchidCaladenia tentaculata. Ecology 50: 2207–2220.
Peakall R, Beattie AJ, James SH. 1987. Pseudocopulation ofan orchid by male ants: a test of two hypotheses accountingfor the rarity of ant pollination. Oecologia 73: 522–524.
Peakall R, James SH. 1989. Outcrossing in an ant pollinatedclonal orchid. Heredity 62: 161–167.
Pedersen HA. 1995. Anthecological observations on Dendro-chilum longibracteatum – a species pollinated by faculta-tively anthophilous insects. Lindleyana 10: 19–28.
Pettersson B. 1989. Pollination in the African species of Ner-vilia (Orchidaceae). Lindleyana 1: 33–41.
Pettersson G, Nilsson LA. 1983. Pollinationsekollogin hosAdam och Eva på Stora Karlsö. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift77: 123–132.
Pintaúdi CA, Stort MNS, Marin-Morales MA. 1990. Polin-izações naturais e artificiais de Xylobium squalens Lindl.(Orchidaceae). Naturalia 15: 67–80.
Piper JG, Waite S. 1988. The gender role of flowers of broadleaved helleborine, Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz (Orchi-daceae). Functional Ecology 2: 35–40.
Plepys D, Ibarra F, Löfstedt C. 2002. Volatiles from flowersof Platanthera bifolia (Orchidaceae) attractive to the silver Ymoth, Autographa gamma (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Oikos99: 69–74.
Pridgeon AM, Cribb PJ, Chase MW, Rasmussen FN.1999. Genera Orchidacearum, Vol. 1: General introduction,Apostasioideae, Cypripedioideae. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Primack RB, Hall P. 1990. Cost of reproduction in the pinklady’s slipper orchid: a four year experimental study. Amer-ican Naturalist 136: 638–656.
Primack RB, Miao SL, Becker KR. 1994. Costs of reproduc-tion in the pink lady’s slipper orchid (Cypripedium acaule):defoliation, increased fruit production and fire. AmericanJournal of Botany 81: 1083–1090.
Proctor HC. 1998. Effect of pollen age on fruit set, fruitweight, and seed set in three orchid species. Canadian Jour-nal of Botany 76: 420–427.
Proctor HC, Harder LD. 1994. Pollen load, capsule weight,and seed production in three orchid species. Canadian Jour-nal of Botany 72: 249–255.
Proctor HC, Harder LD. 1995. Effect of pollination on florallongevity in the orchid Calypso bulbosa (Orchidaceae). Amer-ican Journal of Botany 82: 1131–1136.
Queller DC. 1985. Proximate and ultimate causes of low fruitproduction in Asclepias exaltata. Oikos 44: 373–381.
Quesnel VC, Farrell TF, Hilton A, Hilton J, Lee D,Zuniaga L. 1982. Life history of Cyrtopodium broadwayi.Trinidad Naturalist 4: 34–38.
Rasmussen HN, Whigham DF. 2002. Phenology of roots andmycorrhiza in orchid species differing in phototrophic strat-egy. New Phytologist 154: 797–807.
Rico-Gray V, Barber JT, Thien LB, Ellgaard EG, ToneyJJ. 1989. An unusual animal–plant interaction: feeding of
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 51
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
Schomburgkia tibicinis (Orchidaceae) by ants. AmericanJournal of Botany 76: 603–608.
Rico-Gray V, Thien LB. 1987. Some aspects of the reproduc-tive biology of Schomburgkia tibicinis Batem. (Orchidaceae)in Yucatan, Mexico. Brenesia 28: 13–24.
Robertson JL, Wyatt R. 1990. Evidence for pollinationecotypes in the yellow-fringed orchid, Platanthera ciliaris.Evolution 44: 121–133.
Rodríguez-Robles JA, Meléndez EJ, Ackerman JD. 1992.Effects of display size, flowering phenology, and nectar avail-ability on effective visitation frequencies in Comparettia fal-cata (Orchidaceae). American Journal of Botany 79: 1009–1017.
Rossi W, Corrias B, Arduino P, Cianchi R, Bullini L.1992. Gene variation and gene flow in Orchis morio (Orchi-daceae) from Italy. Plant Systematics and Evolution 179: 43–58.
Roubik DW, Ackerman JD. 1987. Long-term ecology ofeuglossine orchid-bees (Apidae: Euglossini) in Panama.Oecologia 73: 321–333.
Roughgarden J. 1996. Theory of population genetics and evo-lutionary ecology: an introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
Sabat AM, Ackerman JD. 1996. Fruit set in a deceptiveorchid: The effect of flowering phenology, display size, andlocal floral abundance. American Journal of Botany 83:1181–1186.
Salguero-Faría JA, Ackerman JD. 1999. A nectar reward: ismore better? Biotropica 31: 303–311.
Sazima M. 1978. Polinização por moscas em Bulbophyllumwarmingianum Cogn. (Orchidaceae), na Serra do Cipó,Minas Gerais, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Botanica 1: 133–138.
Scacchi R, De Angelis G. 1989. Isoenzyme polymorphisms inGymnaedenia [sic] conopsea and its inferences for systemat-ics within this species. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology17: 25–33.
Scacchi R, De Angelis G, Corbo RM. 1991. Effect of thebreeding system on the genetic structure in Cephalantheraspp. (Orchidaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 176:53–61.
Scacchi R, De Angelis G, Lanzara P. 1990. Allozyme vari-ation among and within eleven Orchis species (fam. Orchi-daceae), with special reference to hybridizing aptitude.Genetica 81: 143–150.
Scacchi R, Lanzara P, De Angelis G. 1987. Study of elec-trophoretic variability in Epipactis heleborine (L.) Crantz,E. palustris (L.) Crantz and E. microphylla (Ehrh.) Swartz(fam. Orchidaceae). Genetica 72: 217–224.
Schemske DW. 1980. Evolution of floral display in the orchidBrassavola nodosa. Evolution 34: 489–493.
Schemske DW, Horvitz C. 1988. Plant–animal interactionsand fruit production in a neotropical herb: a path analysis.Ecology 69: 1128–1137.
Schiestl FP, Ayasse M. 2001. Post-pollination emission of arepellent compound in a sexually deceptive orchid: a newmechanism for maximizing reproductive success. Oecologia126: 531–534.
Selosse MA, Weiß M, Jany JL, Tillier A. 2002. Communitiesand populations of sebacinoid basidiomycetes associatedwith achlorophyllous Neottia nidus-avis (L.) L.C.M. Rich.and neighbouring tree Ectomycorrhizae. Molecular Ecology11: 1831–1844.
Sharma IK, Clements MA, Jones DL. 2000. Observations ofhigh genetic variability in the endangered Australian terres-trial orchid Pterostylis gibbossa R. Br. (Orchidaceae). Bio-chemical Systematics and Ecology 28: 651–663.
Sharma IK, Jones DL, French CJ. 2003. Unusually highgenetic variability revealed through allozymic polymorphismof an endemic and endangered Australian orchid, Pterostylisaff. picta. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 31: 513–526.
Sharma IK, Jones DL, Young AG, French CJ. 2001.Genetic diversity and phylogenetic relatedness among sixendemic Pterostylis species (Orchidaceae; Series Grandiflo-rae) of Western Australia, as revealed by allozyme polymor-phisms. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 29: 697–710.
Shiau YJ, Sagare AP, Chen UC, Yang SR, Tsay HS. 2002.Conservation of Anoectochilus formosanus Hayata by artifi-cial cross-pollination and in vitro culture of seeds. BotanicalBulletin of the Academia Sinica Taipei 43: 123–130.
Singer RB. 2001. Pollination biology of Habenaria parviflora(Orchidaceae: Habenariinae) in southeastern Brazil. Dar-winiana 39: 201–207.
Singer RB. 2002. The pollination biology of Sauroglossum ela-tum Lindl. (Orchidaceae: Spiranthinae): moth-pollinationand protandry in neotropical Spiranthinae. Botanical Jour-nal of the Linnean Society 138: 9–16.
Singer RB, Cocucci AA. 1997a. Pollination of Pteroglossas-pis ruwenzoriensis (Rendle) Rolfe (Orchidaceae) by beetles inArgentina. Botanica Acta 110: 338–342.
Singer RB, Cocucci AA. 1997b. Eye attached hemipollinariain the hawkmoth and settling moth pollination of Habenaria(Orchidaceae). A study on functional morphology in five spe-cies from subtropical South America. Botanica Acta 110:328–337.
Singer RB, Koehler S. 2002. Notes on the pollination biologyof Notylia nemorosa (Orchidaceae): do pollinators necessarilypromote cross pollination? Journal of Plant Research 116:19–25.
Singer RB, Sazima M. 1999. The pollination mechanism inthe ‘Pelexia alliance’ (Orchidaceae: Spiranthinae). BotanicalJournal of the Linnean Society 131: 249–262.
Singer RB, Sazima M. 2000. The pollination of Stenorrhyn-chos lanceolatus (Aublet) L. C. Rich. (Orchidaceae: Spiran-thinae) by hummingbirds in southeastern Brazil. PlantSystematics and Evolution 223: 221–227.
Singer RB, Sazima M. 2001a. The pollination mechanism ofthree sympatric Prescottia (Orchidaceae: Prescottinae) spe-cies in southeastern Brazil. Annals of Botany 88: 999–1005.
Singer RB, Sazima M. 2001b. Flower morphology and polli-nation mechanism in three sympatric Goodyerinae orchidsfrom southeastern Brazil. Annals of Botany 88: 989–997.
Slatkin M, Barton NH. 1989. A comparison of three indirectmethods for estimating average levels of gene flow. Evolution43: 1349–1368.
Smith JL, Hunter KL, Hunter RB. 2002. Genetic variation
52 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
in the terrestrial orchid Tipularia discolor. SoutheasternNaturalist 1: 17–26.
Smith R, Snow GE. 1976. Pollination ecology of Platanthera(Habenaria) ciliaris and P. blephariglottis (Orchidaceae).Botanical Gazette 137: 133–140.
Smithson A. 2001. Pollinator preference, frequency depen-dence, and floral evolution. In: Chittka L, Thomson JD, eds.Cognitive ecology of pollination: animal behavior and floralevolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 237–258.
Smithson A. 2002. The consequences of rewardlessness inorchids: Reward-supplementation experiments with Ana-camptis morio (Orchidaceae). American Journal of Botany89: 1579–1587.
Smithson A, Gigord LDB. 2001. Are there fitness advan-tages in being a rewardless orchid? Reward supplementationexperiments with Barlia robertiana. Proceedings of the RoyalSociety of London B 268: 1435–1441.
Snow AA, Whigham DF. 1989. Cost of flower and fruit pro-duction in Tipularia discolor. Ecology 70: 1286–1293.
Soliva M, Widmer A. 1999. Genetic and floral divergenceamong sympatric populations of Gymnadenia conopsea s.l.(Orchidaceae) with different flowering phenology. Interna-tional Journal of Plant Science 160: 897–905.
Sosa V, Rodríguez-Angulo M. 2000. Pollination and naturalhistory of Mormodes tuxtlensis (Catasetinae: Orchidaceae).Lindleyana 15: 53–58.
Southwick EE. 1984. Photosynthate allocation to floral nec-tar: a neglected energy investment. Ecology 65: 1775–1779.
Squirrell J, Hollingsworth PM, Bateman RM, DicksonJH, Light MHS, MacConaill M, Tebbitt MC. 2001. Par-titioning and diversity of nuclear and organelle markers innative and introduced populations of Epipactis helleborine(Orchidaceae). American Journal of Botany 88: 1409–1418.
Stanton ML, Snow AA, Handel SN. 1986. Floral evolution:attractiveness to pollinators increases male fitness. Science232: 1625–1627.
Stebbins GL. 1959. The role of hybridization in evolution.Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 103: 231–251.
Steiner KE. 1989. The pollination of Disperis (Orchidaceae)by oil-collecting bees in southern Africa. Lindleyana 4: 164–183.
Steiner KE. 1998. The evolution of beetle pollination in aSouth African orchid. American Journal of Botany 85: 1180–1193.
Steiner KE, Whitehead VB, Johnson SD. 1994. Floral andpollinator divergence in two sexually deceptive South Africaorchids. American Journal of Botany 81: 185–194.
Stephenson AG. 1980. Fruit set, herbivory, fruit reductionand the fruiting strategy of Catalpa speciosa (Bignoniaceae).Ecology 61: 57–64.
Stephenson AG. 1981. Flower and fruit abortion: proximatecauses and ultimate functions. Annual Review of Ecologyand Systematics 12: 253–279.
Stephenson AG, Bertin RI. 1983. Male competition, femalechoice, and sexual selection in plants. In: Real L, ed. Polli-nation biology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 109–149.
Stephenson AG, Winsor JA. 1986. Lotus corniculatus regu-lates offspring quality through selective fruit abortion. Evo-lution 40: 453–458.
Stern WL. 1988. The long-distance dispersal of Oeceocladesmaculata. American Orchid Society Bulletin 57: 960–971.
Stort MNS. 1973. Natural pollination in Cattleya loddigesiiLindl. American Orchid Society Bulletin 42: 606–608.
Stort MNS, de Lima Galdino G. 1984. Self- and cross-polli-nation in some species of the genus Laelia Lindl. (Orchi-daceae). Revista Brasileira de Genetica VII (4): 671–676.
Stort MNS, dos Santos Pavanelli EA. 1986. Crossing sys-tems in Epidendrum nocturnum Jacq. (Orchidaceae).Revista Biologia Tropical 34: 59–62.
Stort MNS, Martins PS. 1980. Autopolinização e polinizaçãocruzada em algumas espécies do género Cattleya (Orchi-daceae). Ciencia y Cultura 32: 1080–1083.
Sugiura N. 1995. The pollination of Bletilla striata (Orchi-daceae). Ecological Research (Tokyo) 10: 171–177.
Sugiura N. 1996a. Pollination biology of Cremastra appendic-ulata var. variabilis (Orchidaceae). Plant Species Biology 11:185–187.
Sugiura N. 1996b. Pollination of the orchid Epipactis thum-bergi by syrphid flies (Diptera: Syrphidae). EcologicalResearch (Tokyo) 11: 249–255.
Sugiura N, Fujie T, Inoue K, Kitamura K. 2001. Floweringphenology, pollination, and fruit set of Cypripedium macra-nthos var. rebunense, a threatened lady’s slipper (Orchi-daceae). Journal of Plant Research 114: 171–178.
Sugiura N, Okajima Y, Maeta Y. 1997. A note on the polli-nation of Oreorchis patens (Orchidaceae). Annals of theTsukuba Botanical Gardens 16: 69–74.
Sugiura N, Yamaguchi T. 1997. Pollination of Goodyera foli-osa var. maximowicziana (Orchidaceae) by the bumblebeeBombus diversus diversus. Plant Species Biology 12: 9–14.
Sun M. 1996. Effects of population size, mating system, andevolution origin on genetic diversity in Spiranthes sinensisand S. hongkongensis. Conservation Biology 10: 785–795.
Sun M, Wong KC. 2001. Genetic structure of three orchid spe-cies with contrasting breeding system using RAPD and alloz-yme markers. American Journal of Botany 88: 2180–2188.
Sydes MA, Calder DM. 1993. Comparative reproductive biol-ogy of two sun-orchids; the vulnerable Thelymitra circum-septa and the widespread T. ixioides (Orchidaceae).Australian Journal of Botany 41: 577–589.
Tanaka R, Kamemoto H. 1984. Chromosomes in orchids:counting and numbers. In: Arditti J, ed. Orchid biology:reviews and perspectives III. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress, 323–410.
Thien LB, Marcks BG. 1972. The floral biology of Arethusabulbosa, Calopogon tuberosus and Pogonia ophioglossoides(Orchidaceae). Canadian Journal of Botany 50: 2319–2325.
Thien LB, Utech F. 1970. The mode of pollination in Habe-naria obtusata (Orchidaceae). American Journal of Botany57: 1031–1035.
Tollsten L, Bergström J. 1989. Variation and post-pollina-tion changes in floral odours released by Platanthera bifolia(Orchidaceae). Nordic Journal of Botany 9: 359–362.
Tollsten L, Bergström J. 1993. Fragrance chemotypes of Pla-
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES IN ORCHIDS 53
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
tanthera (Orchidaceae) - the result of adaptation to pollinat-ing moths? Nordic Journal of Botany 13: 607–613.
Tremblay RL. 1992. Trends in pollination biology of theOrchidaceae. Evolution and systematics. Canadian Journalof Botany 70: 642–650.
Tremblay RL. 1994. Frequency and consequences of multi-parental pollinations in a population of Cypripedium calceo-lus L. var. pubescens (Orchidaceae). Lindleyana 9: 161–167.
Tremblay RL. 1996. Sex in small populations and evolution-ary processes. PhD Thesis, University of Puerto Rico, RioPiedras Campus.
Tremblay RL. 1997a. Morphological variance among popula-tions of three tropical orchids with restricted gene flow. PlantSpecies Biology 12: 85–96.
Tremblay RL. 1997b. Lepanthes caritensis, an endangeredorchid: no sex, no future? Selbyana 18: 160–166.
Tremblay RL. 1997c. Distribution and dispersion patterns ofindividuals in nine species of Lepanthes (Orchidaceae). Bio-tropica 29: 38–45.
Tremblay RL, Ackerman JD. 2001. Gene flow and effectivepopulation size in Lepanthes (Orchidaceae): a case forgenetic drift. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 72:47–62.
Tremblay RL, Zimmerman J, Lebrón L, Bayman P, Sas-tre I, Axelrod F, Alers-Garcia J. 1998. Ecological corre-lates of rarity in the epiphytic orchid Lepanthes caritensis(Orchidaceae). Biological Conservation 85: 297–304.
Ushimaru A, Nakata K. 2001. Evolution of flower allometryand its significance for pollination success in the deceptiveorchid Pogonia japonica. International Journal of Plant Sci-ence 162: 1307–1311.
Vallius E. 2000. Position-dependent reproductive success offlowers in Dactylorhiza maculata (Orchidaceae). FunctionalEcology 14: 573–579.
Vallius E. 2001. Factors affecting fruit and seed production inDactylorhiza maculata (Orchidaceae). Botanical Journal ofthe Linnean Society 135: 89–95.
Vallius E, Salonen V. 2000. Effects of defoliation on male andfemale reproductive traits of a perennial orchid, Dacty-lorhiza maculata. Functional Ecology 14: 668–674.
van der Pilj L, Dodson CH. 1966. Orchid flowers: their pol-lination and evolution. Coral Gables, FL: University ofMiami Press.
Vaughton G. 1991. Variation between years in pollen andnutrient limitation of fruit set in Banksia spinulosa. Journalof Ecology 79: 389–400.
Vitt P, Campbell CS. 1997. Reproductive biology of Isotriamedeoloides (Orchidaceae). Rhodora 99: 56–63.
Vogel S. 1972. Pollination von Orchis papilionacea L. in denSchwarmbahnen von Eucera tuberculata. Jahresberichte desNaturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Wuppertal 25: 67–74.
Vogel S. 1974. Ölblumen und ölsammelnde Bienen. Tropischeund Subtropische Pflanzenwelt 7: 285–547.
Vogel S. 1981. Bestäubungs Konzepte der monokotylen undihre Ausdruck im System. Berichte der Deutschen Botanis-chen Gesesllschaft 94: 667–675.
Vöth W. 1982. Die ‘augeborgten’ Bestäuber von Orchis pallensL. Die Orchidee 33: 196–203.
Wade MJ. 1991. Genetic variance for rate of populationincrease in natural populations of flour beetles, Trilobiumspp. Evolution 45: 1574–1584.
Waite S, Hopkins N, Hitchings S. 1991. Levels of polliniaexport, import and fruit set among plants of Anacamptispyramidalis, Dactylorhiza fuschii and Epipactis helleborine.In: Wells TCE, Willems JH, eds. Population ecology of terres-trial orchids. The Hague: SPB Academic Publishing, 103–110.
Wallace AR. 1858. On the tendency of varieties to departindefinitely from the original type. Journal of the Proceed-ings of the Linnean Society, Zoology vol. 3. August 20, 1858.
Wallace BJ. 1974. The pollination of Liparis reflexa (R. Br.)Lindl. The Orchadian 4: 106–108.
Wallace LA. 2002. Examining the effects of fragmentation ongenetic variation in Platanthera leucophaea (Orchidaceae):Inferences from allozyme and random amplified polymorphicDNA markers. Plant Species Biology 17: 37–39.
Wallace LA, Case MA. 2000. Contrasting diversity betweenNorthern and Southern populations of Cypripedium parvi-florum (Orchidaceae): Implications for Pleistocene refugiaand taxonomic boundaries. Systematic Botany 25: 281–296.
Waples RS. 1989. A generalized approach for estimating effec-tive population size from temporal changes in allele fre-quency. Genetics 121: 379–391.
Waples RS. 1991. Genetic methods for estimating the effectivesize of cetacean populations. Report of the InternationalWhaling Commission (special issue) 13: 279–300.
Waser NM, Price MV. 1991. Outcrossing distance and fecun-dity in Delphinium nelsonii: pollen load, pollen tube number,and seed set. Ecology 72: 171–179.
Weiner J, Solbrig OT. 1984. The meaning and measurementof size hierarchies in plant populations. Oecologia (Berlin)61: 1237–1241.
Whigham DF. 1990. The effect of experimental defoliation onthe growth and reproduction of a woodland orchid, Tipulariadiscolor. Canadian Journal of Botany. 68: 1812–1816.
Whigham DF, McWethy M. 1980. Studies on the pollinationecology of Tipularia discolor (Orchidaceae). American Jour-nal of Botany 67: 550–555.
Whigham DF, O’Neill J. 1988. The importance of predationand small scale disturbance to two woodland herb species.In: Werger MJA, van der Aart PJM, During HJ, VerhoervenJTA, eds. Plant form and vegetation structure. The Hague:SPB Academic Publishing, 243–252.
Whigham DF, O’Neill J. 1991. The dynamics of flowering andfruit production in two eastern North American terrestrialorchids, Tipularia discolor and Liparis lilifolia. In: WellsTCE, Willems JH, eds. Population ecology of terrestrialorchids. The Hague: SPB Academic Publishing, 89–101.
Willems JH, Lahtinen ML. 1997. Impact of pollination andresource limitation on seed production in a border populationof Spiranthes spiralis (Orchidaceae). Acta Botanica Neer-landica 46: 365–375.
Williams NH, Dodson CH. 1972. Selective attraction of maleeuglossine bees to orchid floral fragrances and its importancein long distance pollen flow. Evolution 26: 84–95.
Williams NH, Whitten MW. 1983. Orchid floral fragrances
54 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL.
© 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 84, 1–54
and male euglossine bees: methods and advances in the lastsesquidecade. Biological Bulletin of the Marine BiologicalLaboratory, Woods Hole 164: 355–395.
Williams NH, Whitten MW. 1999. Molecular phylogeny andfloral fragrances of male euglossine bee-pollinated orchids: Astudy of Stanhopea (Orchidaceae). Plant Species Biology 14:129–136.
Williams SA. 1994. Observations on reproduction in Triphoratrianthophora (Orchidaceae). Rhodora 96: 30–43.
Willson MF. 1979. Sexual selection in plants. American Nat-uralist 113: 777–790.
Willson MF, Burley N. 1983. Mate choice in plants: tactics,mechanisms and consequences. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.
Willson MF, Price PW. 1977. The evolution of inflorescencesize in Asclepias (Asclepiadaceae). Evolution 31: 495–511.
Willson MF, Rathcke BJ. 1974. Adaptive design of the floraldisplay in Asclepias syriaca L. American Midland Naturalist92: 47–57.
Wirth M, Withner CL. 1959. Embryology and development inthe Orchidaceae. In: Withner CL, ed. The orchids: a scientificsurvey. New York: Wiley and Sons, 155–188.
Withner CL. 1976. Observations on equitant oncidiums asexamples of introgressive hybridization. In: Szmant HH,Wemple J, eds. First symposium on the scientific aspects oforchids. Department of Chemistry, University of Detroit, 34–45.
Wong KC, Sun M. 1999. Reproductive biology and conserva-tion genetics of Goodyera procera (Orchidaceae). AmericanJournal of Botany 86: 1406–1413.
Wright S. 1939. Statistical genetics in relation to evolution.Actualitées scientifiques et industrielles, no. 802. Paris: Her-mann et Cie., 5–64.
Wright S. 1968. Evolution and the genetics of populations, vol.
1. Genetic and biometric foundations. Chicago: The Univer-sity of Chicago Press.
Wright S. 1969. Evolution and the genetics of populations, vol.2. Theory of gene frequencies. Chicago: The University of Chi-cago Press.
Wright S. 1977. Evolution and the genetics of populations, vol.3. Experimental results and evolutionary deductions. Chi-cago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wright S. 1978. Evolution and the genetics of populations, vol.4. Variability within and among populations. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press
Wyatt R. 1982. Inflorescence architecture: how flower number,arrangement, and phenology affect pollination and fruit-set.American Journal of Botany 69: 585–594.
Zar JH. 1996. Biostatistical analysis, 3rd ed. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zettler LW, Fairey JE III. 1990. The status of Platantheraintegrilabia, an endangered terrestrial orchid. Lindleyana 5:212–217.
Zimmerman JK. 1991. Ecological correlates of labile sexexpression in the orchid Catasetum viridiflavum. Ecology 72:597–608.
Zimmerman JK, Aide TM. 1989. Patterns of fruit productionin a neotropical orchid: pollinator vs. resource limitation.American Journal of Botany 76: 67–73.
Zimmerman JK, Roubik DW, Ackerman JD. 1989. Asyn-chronous phenologies of a neotropical orchid and its eugloss-ine bee pollinators. Ecology 70: 1192–1195.
Zimmerman JK, Whigham DF. 1992. Ecological functions ofcarbohydrates stored in corms of Tipularia discolor (Orchi-daceae). Functional Ecology 6: 575–581.
Zimmerman M, Pyke GH. 1988. Reproduction in Polem-onium: assessing the factors limiting seed set. AmericanNaturalist 131: 723–738.