Diel pattern of floral scent emission matches the relative importance of diurnal and nocturnal pollinators in populations of Gymnadenia conopsea.

Publisher: Oxford University Press Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 0372347 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1095-8290 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 03057364 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Ann Bot Subsets: MEDLINE

Publication: 2002- : Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press
Original Publication: Oxford [etc.]

Pollination*; Flowers/*physiology ; Orchidaceae/*physiology; Circadian Rhythm/physiology ; Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry ; Odorants/analysis ; Scandinavian and Nordic Countries

Background and Aims: Floral scent is considered an integral component of pollination syndromes, and its composition and timing of emission are thus expected to match the main pollinator type and time of activity. While floral scent differences among plant species with different pollination systems can be striking, studies on intraspecific variation are sparse, which limits our understanding of the role of pollinators in driving scent divergence.
Methods: Here, we used dynamic headspace sampling to quantify floral scent emission and composition during the day and at night in the natural habitat of six Scandinavian populations of the fragrant orchid Gymnadenia conopsea. We tested whether diel scent emission and composition match pollinator type by comparing four populations in southern Sweden, where nocturnal pollinators are more important for plant reproductive success than are diurnal pollinators, with two populations in central Norway, where the opposite is true. To determine to what extent scent patterns quantified in the field reflected plasticity, we also measured scent emission in a common growth chamber environment.
Key Results: Both scent composition and emission rates differed markedly between day and night, but only the latter varied significantly among populations. The increase in scent emission rate at night was considerably stronger in the Swedish populations compared with the Norwegian populations. These patterns persisted when plants were transferred to a common environment, suggesting a genetic underpinning of the scent variation.
Conclusions: The results are consistent with a scenario where spatial variation in relative importance of nocturnal and diurnal pollinators has resulted in selection for different scent emission rhythms. Our study highlights the importance of adding a characterization of diel variation of scent emission rates to comparative studies of floral scent, which so far have often focused on scent composition only.

New Phytol. 2015 Dec;208(4):1264-75. (PMID: 26183369)
J Chem Ecol. 2015 Jul;41(7):641-50. (PMID: 26133675)
J Chem Ecol. 2005 Aug;31(8):1733-46. (PMID: 16222805)
Glob Chang Biol. 2014 Dec;20(12 ):3660-9. (PMID: 24817412)
Proc Biol Sci. 2015 Oct 7;282(1816):20152053. (PMID: 26446814)
Oecologia. 2005 Feb;142(4):564-75. (PMID: 15586296)
J Chem Ecol. 2003 Apr;29(4):899-909. (PMID: 12775150)
Am J Bot. 2005 Oct;92(10):1624-31. (PMID: 21646079)
Planta. 1988 May;174(2):248-52. (PMID: 24221482)
J Chem Ecol. 2014 Sep;40(9):955-65. (PMID: 25236381)
Curr Biol. 2016 Dec 19;26(24):3313-3319. (PMID: 27916528)
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 17;11(2):e0147975. (PMID: 26886766)
Ann Bot. 2014 Jan;113(2):289-300. (PMID: 24107683)
Phytochemistry. 2005 Jan;66(2):203-13. (PMID: 15652577)
J Chem Ecol. 2007 Sep;33(9):1682-91. (PMID: 17659427)
Am J Bot. 2005 Jan;92(1):2-12. (PMID: 21652378)
Curr Biol. 2016 Dec 19;26(24):3303-3312. (PMID: 27916524)
J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2006 Apr;192(4):431-7. (PMID: 16380841)
Nature. 2003 Nov 13;426(6963):176-8. (PMID: 14614505)
New Phytol. 2010 Jun;186(4):995-1004. (PMID: 20345644)
J Chem Ecol. 2013 May;39(5):630-42. (PMID: 23609162)
J Exp Biol. 2014 Feb 15;217(Pt 4):614-23. (PMID: 24198269)
Planta. 2005 Sep;222(1):141-50. (PMID: 15891900)
New Phytol. 2012 Aug;195(3):667-75. (PMID: 22646058)
Plant Signal Behav. 2009 Feb;4(2):129-31. (PMID: 19649189)
Plant Physiol. 2002 Jul;129(3):1296-307. (PMID: 12114583)
J Chem Ecol. 2006 May;32(5):917-27. (PMID: 16739013)
J Evol Biol. 2013 Oct;26(10):2197-208. (PMID: 23981167)
Curr Biol. 2010 Oct 26;20(20):1846-52. (PMID: 20933425)
New Phytol. 2006;169(4):707-18. (PMID: 16441752)
Am J Bot. 2013 Nov;100(11):2280-92. (PMID: 24190950)
Ecology. 2012 Aug;93(8):1880-91. (PMID: 22928416)
Nature. 2007 Jun 7;447(7145):706-9. (PMID: 17554306)
Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2015 Jan;17(1):226-37. (PMID: 24888962)
PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39010. (PMID: 22720016)
New Phytol. 2010 Oct;188(2):451-63. (PMID: 20553385)
Ann Bot. 2016 Jul 24;:. (PMID: 27451986)

Date Created: 20180124 Date Completed: 20190304 Latest Revision: 20190304

20240513

PMC5853007

10.1093/aob/mcx203

29360931