Skip to main content
Plant Signaling & Behavior logoLink to Plant Signaling & Behavior
. 2020 Aug 15;15(11):1807153. doi: 10.1080/15592324.2020.1807153

Functional significance of flower orientation and green marks on tepals in the snowdrop Galanthus nivalis (Linnaeus, 1753)

Pavol Prokop a,b,, Martina Zvaríková a, Zuzana Ježová a, Peter Fedor a
PMCID: PMC7588181  PMID: 32799622

ABSTRACT

Flower shapes, colors, sizes and fragrances are shaped mostly for pollinator attraction. Flower phenotypes are, however, subjected to conflicting selection directed by both pollinators and non-pollinating agents. We investigated flower attractiveness to a model pollinator in the snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis L.) under laboratory conditions. Naïve bumblebees (Bombus terrestris L.) showed strong, innate preferences for experimentally altered upward positioned flowers, suggesting that the natural, downward orientation did not evolve to attract pollinators. Experimentally treated green marks on inner tepals decreased pollinator attraction compared with flowers expressing intact marks, suggesting that green marks serve to guide/attract pollinators. Attractiveness of green marks was significantly compromised by flower orientation; green marks were attractive only for untreated downward-oriented flowers, but they did not improve the attractiveness of upward-oriented flowers. Our results suggest that downward flowers in snowdrop evolved under conflicting selection directed by biotic and abiotic factors, and that green marks on inner tepals could evolve later to enhance flower attractiveness.

KEYWORDS: Bumblebee, evolutionary trade-off, flowering, pollination

Introduction

Entomophilous plants increase their reproductive success by means of pollinator attraction.1 Pollinator attraction resulted in the evolution of the enormous diversity of flower colors, shapes, sizes, fragrances and rewards.2,3 Flower phenotypes that are attractive to pollinators are simultaneously subjected to conflicting selection directed by herbivores.4–7 and abiotic factors such as temperature, heat/water stress, wind action, photoperiod or altitude.8–10 This suggests that floral morphology represents a trade-off to selection caused by both pollinators and non-pollinating agents.8

Floral orientation is an abiotic factor associated with pollinator behavior11-14 and plant’s reproductive success.12,15,16 For example, artificially erected flowers experienced lower seed production15,17 and higher visitation rates.11,13 Preferences for upward floral orientation are innate in some pollinators.18 This suggests that downward flowers could have a reduced attractiveness for pollinators.12 In contrast, downward floral orientation can prevent pollen damage/number/germinability caused by certain abiotic factors such as rainfall or solar radiation,19–22 and can maintain heat loss.23,24 The latter factor can be important, particularly in early spring flowering plants when the temperature is low and the number of available pollinators is limited.16,25

A phylogenetically broad range of angiosperm families possesses conspicuous petal spots on their flowers. Over two centuries ago, Sprengel26 was the first to propose that these prominent features on flowers function to guide pollinators toward the flower’s nectary. Later research largely confirmed his idea; experimental evidence shows that petal spots on flower corollas attract various pollinators.27–33 As far as we are aware, the relative simultaneous contribution of petal spots and flower orientation to flower attractiveness for pollinators has been rarely investigated. Moreover, the role of petal spots in pollinator attraction remains unstudied for the majority of plant species and many reports are based on anecdotal observations. However, it has been proposed that there are cases that spots on flowers mimic ants as defense from egg laying by butterflies.34

Snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis L., Amaryllidaceae) is a perennial, early flowering plant (February–March) occurring in central Europe, Asia Minor and in the Caucasus.35 It reproduces both vegetatively and sexually. Sexual reproduction is mainly accomplished by xenogamy and less by autogamy, which is costly in terms of reduced reproductive success.36 Snowdrops are pollinated mainly by honey bees and bumblebees.35 Several reports suggested that snowdrops have green patterned inner tepals attracting and guiding pollinators with visual and/or olfactory displays.36–39 To our best knowledge, however, no study investigated the role of green marks of snowdrop flowers in pollinator attraction experimentally. Moreover, snowdrop has a consistent downward floral orientation, but its significance in pollinator attraction remains unclear. In this study, we experimentally investigated the relative contribution of floral orientation and green-patterned inner tepals to pollinator attraction in the snowdrop under laboratory conditions.

Methods

Experimental conditions

A single captive colony of naïve bumblebees (Bombus terrestris, L.) was procured from Koppert© (Nové Zámky, Slovakia), and was kept at 22–24°C in a room lit by natural light and neon light (370 lx). The bees were connected to a 90 × 50 × 40 cm insectarium by a plastic mesh tube and daily fed with pollen (1/4 honey solution and crushed pollen) and honey solution (water 60%, and honey 40%). Food was removed one-hour prior to testing in order to increase foraging motivation of tested individuals.

The bees could not be tested individually in the insectarium, because a significant proportion of workers (about 30%) resided permanently in the insectarium outside the hive. We, therefore, tested the bees individually by gently capturing individual foragers on the feeding array by using an entomological net and quickly transporting them in a separate terrarium 30 × 20 × 20 cm. All sides of the terrarium were covered with white paper to minimize potential disturbance except for a small 20 × 4 cm opening through which visual observations were carried out. Trials started by insertion of a single bee through a hole (2.5 cm diameter) in the semi-transparent plastic cover positioned on the terrarium. Two freshly collected snowdrop flowers of similar size and tepal opening were placed in glass test-tubes 10 cm apart from each other on the rear part of the terrarium, 6 cm apart from the back wall. For a given day, the placement of the flowers was randomly determined (i.e., left or right). We recorded the time till the bee started to feed on one of the two simultaneously presented flowers to the nearest 1 second following Patiño et al.40 Feeding was defined as the presence of the bee inside the flower for at least 3 seconds. If the bee did not choose any of the flowers after 5 min, the trial was terminated and the bee was tested again on one of the following days. Each bee was used only once.

The trials took place 1 week after the colony arrived, between 26 February and 6 March 2019, during 09:00–14:30, indoors at the same conditions as described for keeping the colony. After each trial, the terrarium was washed with water and the paper from the bottom was replaced with a new one. New flowers were used for each trial.

Treatments

To test the influence of flower position on bee preference, one of the two simultaneously presented flower combinations had unmanipulated flower (downward) and one was treated (upward) (N = 32) (Figure 1a,b). Conspicuousness of the green marks on the abaxial surface of the inner tepals was manipulated by painting these marks on one of the two flowers, i.e., the one with downward flowers with white water-color (N = 28) (Figure 1c). The same approach was applied for another treatment, where both flowers were oriented upward, but in one flower we painted the green marks on its abaxial surface of the inner tepals with white color (N = 35). Finally, we examined whether the green color of the adaxial part of the inner tepals could attract bees by painting one of the two upward flowers, while green marks on the abaxial surface of inner tepals were painted in both flowers (N = 28). To control for possible confounding effect of the water-color, an additional treatment in which the abaxial surface of the outer tepals of downward flowers was painted with white colors or left unpainted was performed (N = 13).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Examples of a) intact, downward oriented flower, b) intact, upward oriented flower and c) treated downward oriented flower with abaxial tepals painted with white water-color

Statistical analyses

Bee’s choices between the two flowers were analyzed with a binomial test. Latency time between the beginning of the experiment and the bee’s choice was Box-Cox transformed to achieve normality and comparisons between treatments were then performed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc test. Sample sizes of the statistical analyses presented in the Results section refer to successful trials. All statistical tests were performed in SPSS ver. 23.

Results

Bees showed significant preference for upward flowers (20/24, 83%) over downward flowers (4/24) (binomial test, P = .002). The preference for upward flowers was not influenced by green marks on the abaxial part of the inner tepals, because both white painted (12/25, 48%) and intact flowers (13/25, 52%) were visited by bees almost identically (binomial test, P = 1.0). Similarly, green color on the adaxial part of the inside of the inner tepals was not exceptionally attractive for bees, because both painted (9/20, 45%) and unpainted upward flowers (11/20, 55%) were visited at a similar ratio (binomial test, P = .824). Green marks on the abaxial part of the inner tepals of downward flowers were strongly attractive for bees; almost all bees (19/21, 90%) visited unpainted downward flowers, while only two bees visited downward flowers with their green marks painted white (binomial test, P < .0001). The possible influence of the paint’s odors on bee visitation was examined in additional treatments. Half of bees (5/10) visited a flower with its outer tepals painted and the remaining five bees visited intact flowers. This suggests that the visitation of flowers was not influenced by the presence of odor cues produced by the paint (binomial test, P = 1.0).

The mean latency time between the beginning of the experiment on the bee’s choice was 138 sec (SE = 9.76, N = 100). Latency time was significantly different among treatments (ANOVA, F(4, 95) = 3.12, p =.019). A subsequent post-hoc test showed that the bees made their choices significantly sooner in treatment where downward and upward flowers were presented simultaneously, than in a treatment with downward flowers with their abaxial inner tepals of one of two flowers painted (Tukey’s P = .011). Other differences were not significant (all P > .17). Among all five treatments, about 23–28% of the bees did not perform any choice. There were no significant differences in the rate of non-choices with respect to the treatments (Pearson χ2 = 0.29, df = 4, P = .99).

Discussion

Our study demonstrates that green marks on inner tepals of snowdrop attract naïve bumblebees as model pollinators, but floral orientation had a greater importance in pollinator attraction than the green marks on the inner tepals.

Certain studies showed that bumblebees specialize on downward floral orientation.41,42 Upward floral orientation of herb flowers is more visible for the majority of pollinators flying from above.43 The surface of the inflorescence of upward-oriented flowers is more visible and therefore strongly preferred by a range of competing pollinators such as solitary bees, muscoid flies, hoverflies, and beetles.13 Perhaps, the bumblebee’s preference for downward floral orientation in nature is driven by reducing interspecific competition. Our results clearly suggest that naïve bumblebees show innate preferences for upward floral orientation, which supports previous studies on Bombus impatiens Cresson, 1863.18 A downward flower might help to filter pollinators in the field to reduce the potential waste of flower reward because some pollinators cannot handle a downward-oriented flower.

Evolution of the downward floral orientation of snowdrop could be traded-off between pollination attraction and abiotic factors such as rainfall/snow damage avoidance,19,21 or perhaps downward-facing flowers can capture convection heat from the ground, because even a small increase in flower temperature of early spring ephemerals may enhance reproductive success.44 However, flower temperatures of snowdrops were about 2.7°C cooler than the ambient air and about 1.7°C cooler than the ground which does not support the thermoregulatory hypothesis.45 A better understanding of snowdrop ancestors would shed more light into the question of the evolution of downward flower orientation, but the fossil records of Amaryllidaceae are very poor.46 Pyramidal shape of snowdrop downward flowers can prevent damage by snow, which can be serious threat, particularly in early spring, when deciduous trees are still defoliated and the understory woody herbs are thus not protected against harsh weather conditions. Indeed, spruce trees with downward hanging branches and narrow crowns are less vulnerable to damage caused by snow than those with rigid horizontal branches and broad crowns.47 Further research on the possible risk of nectar dilution by rain,48 pollen damage/number21 and harm avoidance by snow in experimentally altered flowers is required.

Green marks on abaxial snowdrop tepals were hypothesized to guide/attract pollinators.38,39 Laboratory tests showed that naïve bumblebees prefer model flowers with contrasting colors over monochromatic models.49 This suggests that conspicuous tepal spots may be easier to detect, and thus be effective in attracting pollinators,26 a character that is beneficial to the plant, because spots are placed close to the location of rewards.50 It was found that bumblebees show an innate preference for nectar guides at close range, but not from a distance.51,52 Thus, green marks are probably not attractive to bees from long distance, but are followed by bees only after a closer contact with the flower. If green marks serve as food signals, then the bees are probably able to associate them with a food reward. Conspicuous signals like these green marks may enhance insect learning processes,50 and, consequently, increase snowdrop’s visitation rate.

Green marks on both sides of the inner tepals produce odorous substances that are predicted to attract pollinators.39 We suggest that these odor scents help the flower to guide pollinators to their rewards after the pollinator approaches the flower. Odor scents appear to play no significant role in experimentally altered flowers with upward corollas.

Lev-Yadun34 suggests that dark dots and short stripes on many Passiflora flowers visually mimic ants, which may protect flowers from herbivory. It is possible that green marks along with lectins which are involved in defense against pests and pathogens53 protect snowdrop flowers from herbivory, but this idea requires further research.

With respect to other species with downward flowers, the Solomon’s seal (Polygonatum multiflorum, Asparagaceae) has also white flowers with similar green markings and it also occupies similar habitats as the snowdrop. We suggest that the evolution of downward flowers and their coloration evolved independently from the snowdrop, and that this process could also be driven by early flowering. Interestingly, however, late, downward flowering plants from the family Campanulaceae, having pink or violet flowers occupying in the same habitats lack any apparent flower marks. Further, comparative research should involve estimations of pollinator availability, environmental factors and flower visibility of early and late flowering plants in deciduous woods are required.

To conclude, green tepal marks increase flower attraction for pollinators and may help to guide pollinators to their rewards. Downward floral orientation of snowdrop flowers appears not to have evolved only in order to attract pollinators, but it seems to be a result of selection directed by both biotic and abiotic factors. Green marks enhance learning processes of bumblebees and this increases snowdrop visitation rates. Future research should investigate the benefits of downward floral orientation for early spring blooming plants, when the risk of damage by rain or snow is high.

Acknowledgments

We are extremely grateful to Prof. Simcha Lev-Yadun and an anonymous referee for insightful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Scientific Grant Agency VEGA [1/0286/20].

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

References

  • 1.Fenster CB, Armbruster WS, Wilson P, Dudash MR, Thompson JD.. Pollination syndromes and floral specialization. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2004;35:1–5. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132347. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Harder LD, Johnson SD.. Darwin’s beautiful contrivances: evolutionary and functional evidence for floral adaptation. New Phytol. 2009;183:530–545. doi: 10.1111/j.14698137.2009.02914.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Schiestl FP, Johnson SD.. Pollinator-mediated evolution of floral signals. Trends Ecol Evol. 2013;28:307–315. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.01.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ashman TL, Cole DH, Bradburn M. Sex-differential resistance and tolerance to herbivory in a gynodioecious wild strawberry. Ecology. 2004;85:2550–2559. doi: 10.1890/030495. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Irwin RE. The consequences of direct versus indirect species interactions to selection on traits: pollination and nectar robbing in Ipomopsis aggregata. Am Nat. 2006;167:315–328. doi: 10.1086/499377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kemp JE, Ellis AG. Cryptic petal coloration decreases floral apparency and herbivory in nocturnally closing daisies. Funct Ecol. 2019;33(11):2130–2141. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.13423. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ramos Castro SE, Schiestl FP. Evolution of floral fragrance is compromised by herbivory. Front Ecol Evol. 2020;8:30. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2020.00030. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Strauss SY, Whittall JB. Non-pollinator agents of selection on floral traits. In: Harder LD, Barrett SCH, editors. Ecology and evolution of flowers. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006. p. 120–138. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nattero J, Sérsic AN, Cocucci AA. Geographic variation of floral traits in Nicotiana glauca: relationships with biotic and abiotic factors. Acta Oecol. 2011;37:503–511. doi: 10.1016/j.actao.2011.07.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Van der Kooi CJ. Plant biology: flower orientation, temperature regulation and pollinator attraction. Curr Biol. 2016;26:R:1143–45. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Fenster CB, Armbruster WS, Dudash MR. Specialization of flowers: is floral orientation an overlooked first step? New Phytol. 2009;183(3):502–506. doi: 10.1111/j.14698137.2009.02852.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wang H, Tie S, Yu D, Guo YH, Yang CF. Change of floral orientation within an inflorescence affects pollinator behavior and pollination efficiency in a bee-pollinated plant, Corydalis sheareri. PLoS One. 2014a;9:e95381. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wang H, Xiao CL, Gituru RW, Xiong Z, Yu D, Guo YH, Yang CF. Change of floral orientation affects pollinator diversity and their relative importance in an alpine plant with generalized pollination system, Geranium refractum (Geraniaceae). Plant Ecol. 2014b;215(10):1211–1219. doi: 10.1007/s11258-014-0379-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Armbruster WS, Muchhala N. Floral reorientation: the restoration of pollination accuracy after accidents. New Phytol. 2020. doi: 10.1111/nph.16482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Yon F, Kessler D, Joo Y, Cortés L, Lorca L, Kim S-G, Baldwin IT. Fitness consequences of altering floral circadian oscillations for Nicotiana attenuata. J Integr Plant Biol. 2017;59:180–189. doi: 10.1111/jipb.12511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Xiang GJ, Guo YH, Yang CF. Diversification of floral orientation in Lonicera is associated with pollinator shift and flowering phenology. J Syst Evol. 2020. doi: 10.1111/jse.12554. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ushimaru A, Kawase D, Imamura A. Flowers adaptively face down-slope in 10 forest-floor herbs. Funct Ecol. 2006:585–591. doi: 10.1111/j.13652435.2006.01153.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Makino TT, Thomson JD. Innate or learned preference for upward facing flowers? Implications for the costs of pendent flowers from experiments on captive bumble bees. J Poll Ecol. 2012:9. doi: 10.26786/1920-7603(2012)11. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Huang SQ, Takahashi Y, Dafni A. Why does the flower stalk of Pulsatilla cernua (Ranunculaceae) bend during anthesis? Am J Bot. 2002;89:1599–1603. doi: 10.3732/ajb.89.10.1599. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mao YY, Huang SQ. Pollen resistance to water in 80 angiosperm species: flower structures protect rain‐susceptible pollen. New Phytol. 2009;183(3):892–899. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02925.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wang Y, Meng LH, Yang YP, Duan YW. Change in floral orientation in Anisodus luridus (Solanaceae) protects pollen grains and facilitates development of fertilized ovules. Am J Bot. 2010;97(10):1618–1624. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1000010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lin SY, Forrest JR. The function of floral orientation in bluebells: interactions with pollinators and rain in two species of Mertensia (Boraginaceae). J Plant Ecol. 2017;12(1):113–123. doi: 10.1093/jpe/rtx073. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lu S, Rieger M, Duemmel MJ. Flower orientation influences ovary temperature during frost in peach. Agr For Meteorol. 1992;60(3–4):181–191. doi: 10.1016/0168-1923(92)90037-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Leibfried U, Ortjohann J. Convective heat loss from upward and downward-facing cavity solar receivers: measurements and calculations. J Sol Energ. 1995;117:75–84. doi: 10.1115/1.2870873. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Vesprini JL, Pacini E. Pollination ecology in sympatric winter flowering Helleborus (Ranunculaceae). Flora. 2010;205:627–632. doi: 10.1016/j.flora.2009.10.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sprengel CK. Das entdeckte Geheimnis der Natur im Bau und in der Befruchtung der Blumen. Berlin (Germany): Friedrich Vieweg; 1793. p. 444. doi: 10.5962/bhl.title.50179. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Van Kleunen M, Nanni I, Donaldson JS, Manning JC. The role of beetle marks and flower colour on visitation by monkey beetles (Hopliini) in the greater cape floral region, South Africa. Ann Bot-London. 2007;100:1483–1489. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcm256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Leonard AS, Papaj DR. ‘X’marks the spot: the possible benefits of nectar guides to bees and plants. Funct Ecol. 2011;25:1293–1301. doi: 10.1111/j.1362435.2011.01885.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Johnson SD, Dafni A. Response of bee-flies to the shape and pattern of model flowers: implications for floral evolution in a Mediterranean herb. Funct Ecol. 1998;12:289–297. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.1998.00175.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Dinkel T, Lunau K. How drone flies (Eristalis tenax L. Syrphidae, Diptera) use floral guides to locate. J Insect Physiol. 2001;47:1111–1118. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1910(01)000804. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lunau K, Fieselmann G, Heuschen B, Van De Loo A. Visual targeting of components of floral colour patterns in flower-naive bumblebees (Bombus terrestris; Apidae). Naturwiss 2006;93:325–328. doi: 10.1007/s00114-006-0105-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Goodale E, Kim E, Nabors A. The innate responses of bumble bees to flower patterns: separating the nectar guide from the nectary changes bee movements and search time. Naturwiss. 2014;101:523–526. doi: 10.1007/s00114-014-1188-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.De Jager ML, Willis-Jones E, Critchley S, Glover BJ. The impact of floral spot and ring markings on pollinator foraging dynamics. Evol Ecol. 2017;31:193–204. doi: 10.1007/s10682-016-9852-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lev-Yadun S. Ant mimicry by Passiflora flowers? Isr. J Entomol. 2009;39:159–163. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Cox F. Gardener’s Guide to Snowdrops. ISBN 978-1847974754. Ramsbury (UK): The Crowood Press Ltd; 2013. p. 256. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Chudzik B, Snieżko R, Szaub J. Biology of Flowering of Galanthus nivalis L. (Amaryllidaceae). Ann Univ Mariae Curie-Sklodowska EEE Hortic. 2002:1–10. https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=PL2007000421. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Budnikov G, Kricsfalusy V. Bioecological study of Galanthus nivalis L. in the East Carpathians. Thaiszia-J Bot. 1994; 4(1): 49–75. https://www.upjs.sk/public/media/5524/thaiszia-4049-075-1994-budnikov.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Aschan G, Pfanz H. Why snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis L.) tepals have green marks? Flora. 2006;201:623–632. doi: 10.1016/j.flora.2006.02.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Weryszko-Chmielewska E, Chwil M. Flowering biology and structure of floral nectaries in Galanthus nivalis L. Acta Soc Bot Pol. 2016;85(1):3486. doi: 10.5586/asbp.3486. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Patiño S, Jeffree C, Grace J. The ecological role of orientation in tropical convolvulaceous flowers. Oecologia. 2002;130:373–379. doi: 10.1007/s00442-0010824-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kobayashi S, Inoue K, Kato M. Evidence of pollen transfer efficiency as the natural selection factor favoring a large corolla of Campanula punctata pollinated by Bombus diversus. Oecologia. 1997;111:535–542. doi: 10.1007/s004420050268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mahoro S. Effects of flower and seed predators and pollinators on fruit production in two sequentially flowering congeners. Plant Ecol. 2003;166:37–48. doi: 10.1023/A:1023203325501. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Willmer P. Pollination and floral ecology. ISBN: 9780198570868. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 2011. p. 832. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Van der Kooi CJ, Kevan PG, Koski MH. The thermal ecology of flowers. Ann Bot. 2019;124:343–353. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcz073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Rejšková A, Brom J, Pokorný J, Korečko J. Temperature distribution in light-coloured flowers and inflorescences of early spring temperate species measured by infrared camera. Flora. 2010;205:282–289. doi: 10.1016/j.flora.2009.05.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Friis EM, Crane PR, Pedersen KR. Early flowers and angiosperm evolution. ISBN 978-0-521-59283-3. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 596. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Nykänen ML, Peltola H, Quine C, Kellomäki S, Broadgate M. Factors affecting snow damage of trees with particular reference to European conditions. Silva Fenn. 1997:31:193–213. http://hdl.handle.net/1975/8519. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Aizen MA. Down‐facing flowers, hummingbirds and rain. Taxon. 2003;52:675–680. doi: 10.2307/3647342. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Simonds V, Plowright CMS. How do bumblebees first find flowers? Unlearned approach responses and habituation. Anim Behav. 2004;67:379–386. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.03.020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Dafni A, Lehrer M, Keyan PG. Spatial flower parameters and insect spatial vision. Biol Rev. 1997;72:239–282. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Lunau K. Innate flower recognition in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris, B. lucorum. Apidae): optical signals as learning reaction releasers. Ethology. 1991;88:203–214. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lunau K. Interspecific diversity and uniformity of flower colours patterns as cues for learned discrimination and innate detection of flowers. Experientia. 1993;49:1002–1010. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Ripoll C, Favery B, Lecomte P, Van Damme E, Peumans W, Abad P, Jouanin L. Evaluation of the ability of lectin from snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis) to protect plants against root-knot nematodes. Plant Sci. 2003;164:517–523. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Plant Signaling & Behavior are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES