Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:48:31.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproductive allocation and pollinator distributions in cauliflorus trees in Trinidad

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

John M. Warren ,
Debbie Z. Emamdie  and
Kalai
John M. Warren
Affiliation:
Cocoa Research Unit, The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.
Debbie Z. Emamdie
Affiliation:
Cocoa Research Unit, The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.
Kalai
Affiliation:
Cocoa Research Unit, The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Little information is available to test the various theories which have been proposed to explain the evolution of cauliflory. This study provides such data from observations in Trinidad of the numbers of potential pollinators visiting trunk and canopy flowers and on the size of canopy and trunk flowers and fruits. Subsidiary observations were made on the partitioning of resources between the sexes within flowers. Significantly more potential insect pollinators were trapped around the trunk flowers of two cauliflorous species than were caught around their canopy flowers. Trunk flowers were found to be larger than canopy flowers in four of the seven cauliflorous species studied, but they were smaller in one species. The higher probability of fruit set on trunks than in the canopy may have selected for cauliflory and subsequently increased trunk flower size in insect-pollinated understorey tropical trees. There was a tendency for flowers on the trunk not only to be larger but also to allocate relatively more dry weight to female parts and result in larger fruit than those in the canopy. These observations are consistent with Wallace's theory of the evolution of cauliflory, which argues that the condition arose in the dark understorey of the tropical forest, as a result of selection for trunk flowers which are more apparent to pollinators than are canopy flowers. However, other explanations for the evolution of cauliflory are not precluded as they are not mutually exclusive.

Keywords

Caulifloryfruit/flower sizepollinator abundancetrunk/canopy flowers
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , May 1997 , pp. 337 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, C. D. 1971. An introduction to plant life in Jamaica: the blue mahoe and other bush. McGraw-Hill, Singapore. 130 pp.Google Scholar
Bawa, K. S. 1980. Evolution of dioecy in flowering plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11:15–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, D. J. 1984. Positional information in the specification of leaf, flower and branch arrangement. Pp. 349–374 in Barlow, P. W. & Carr, D. J. (eds). Positional control in plant development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Charnov, E. L. 1982. The theory of sex allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google ScholarPubMed
Corner, E. J. H. 1933. A revision of the Malayan species of Ficus: Corellia and Neomorhe. Journal of the Malay and British Asiatic Society 11:1–65.Google Scholar
Corner, E. J. H. 1949. The durian theory or the origin of the modern tree. Annals of Botany 13:367–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corner, E. J. H. 1953. The durian theory extended. Phytomorphology 3:465–476.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1877. The different forms of flowers on plants of the same species. John Murray, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haberlandt, G. 1893. Eine botanische Tropenreise. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig. 123–142 pp.Google Scholar
Howe, H. F. 1986. Seed dispersal by fruit-eating mammals. Pp. 123–189 in Murray, D. R. (ed.). Seed dispersal. Academic Press, Sydney.Google Scholar
Janson, C. H. 1983. Adaptation of fruit morphology to dispersal agents in the neotropical forest. Science 219:187–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalai, . 1995. Some studies on breeding systems, podset and yield in cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) M.Phil, thesis. Department of Plant Science, The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago.Google Scholar
Klebs, G. 1911. Über die Rhythmik in der Entwicklung der Pflanzen. Stadtbibliothek Heidelberg Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathemathische und naturwissenschaftliche Klasse. Abhandlung 23.Google Scholar
Marshall, A. G. 1983. Bats, flowers and fruit: evolutionary relationships in the Old World. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 20:115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mildbraed, J. 1922. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der zweiten Deutschen Zentral-Afrika-Expedition 1910–1911. II. Unter Fhürung Adolf Friedrichs, Herzog zu Mecklenburg. Leipzig. 115 pp.Google Scholar
Purseglove, J. W. 1968. Tropical crops: dicotyledons. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Toxopeus, H. 1985. Botany, types and populations. Pp. 11–37 in Wood, G. A. R. & Lass, R. A. (eds). Cocoa. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Van Der Pijl, L. 1957. The dispersal of plants by bats (chiropterochory). Acta Botanica Neerlandica 6:291–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, A. R. 1878. Tropical nature and other essays. Macmillan & Co., London. 34 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, H. 1971. Ecology of tropical and subtropical vegetation. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar