Abstract

The concept of floral syndromes has been controversial since it was first proposed by Delpino in the nineteenth century. Some have derided the concept for being typological and inconsistent with the generalized nature of many pollination systems. However, others have lauded it for providing a testable framework for the study of convergent evolution in plants showing specialization to particular functional groups of pollinators. During the 1950s, Stefan Vogel assigned floral syndromes to 810 plant species in South Africa. Now, 60 years later, data on the pollination systems of 272 of these species allow us to test whether the floral syndromes Vogel assigned to them are consistent with their actual pollinators. The overwhelming majority (99.6%) of species in Vogel’s sample that have been investigated in the field appear to be ecologically specialized for pollination by a particular functional pollinator group. We found that Vogel’s syndrome classification accurately predicted pollinators for almost 82% of species. The highest accuracy (93%) was for the prediction of bird pollinators from the floral syndrome of “ornithophily”, while the lowest accuracy (68%) was for the prediction of hawkmoth pollination from the floral syndrome of “sphingophily”. The degree of accuracy of pollinator predictions based on floral syndromes did not vary significantly among plant families, despite differences in floral construction and levels of ecological specialization among these lineages. This study provides support for the concept of floral pollination syndromes by demonstrating the existence of strong associations between floral phenotypes and pollinators in a region of high biodiversity.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.