Dissecting components of flowering pattern: size effects on female fitness

Abstract

Flowering synchrony is essential for plant reproductive success, especially in the case of small-sized populations of self-incompatible species. Closely related to synchrony, flowering intensity influences pollinator attraction and pollinator movements. Thus, a high flowering intensity may increase pollinator attraction but, at the same time, may also increase the probability of geitonogamous pollinations. Depending on the mating system, the female fitness of plants in small populations may be affected by both the positive effects of higher flowering synchrony and pollinator attraction and the negative effects of geitonogamous pollinations induced by a high flowering intensity. It was hypothesized that different-sized plants in a population would show contrasting flowering patterns, resulting in differences in pollinator behaviour. These influences could result in differences in mating and female reproductive success. This hypothesis was tested by studying the flowering pattern of Erodium paularense (Geraniaceae), a rare and endangered endemic of central Spain. The temporal distribution of flower production was explored throughout the reproductive season, and the probability of xenogamy and geitonogamy and their relationship to plant size and fitness components were calculated. The analysis of this partially self-compatible species showed diverse flowering patterns related to different plant sizes. Small plants produced a larger number of seeds per fruit in spite of having lower values of flowering synchrony. By contrast, large plants produced a larger number of seeds from geitonogamous pollinations. The effect of different flower displays and outcrossing rates on seed set varied throughout the season in the different groups. Our findings highlight the relevance of individual plant size-dependent phenology on female reproductive success and, in particular, on the relationship between flowering synchrony and fitness. © 2008 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2008, 156, 227–236.