An official website of the United States government
Summary Epiphytic microbes frequently affect plant phenotype and fitness, but their effects depend on microbe abundance and community composition. Filtering by plant traits and deterministic dispersal‐mediated processes can affect microbiome assembly, yet their relative contribution to predictable variation in microbiome is poorly understood.We compared the effects of host‐plant filtering and dispersal on nectar microbiome presence, abundance, and composition. We inoculated representative bacteria and yeast into 30 plants across four phenotypically distinct cultivars ofEpilobium canum. We compared the growth of inoculated communities to openly visited flowers from a subset of the same plants.There was clear evidence of host selection when we inoculated flowers with synthetic communities. However, plants with the highest microbial densities when inoculated did not have the highest microbial densities when openly visited. Instead, plants predictably varied in the presence of bacteria, which was correlated with pollen receipt and floral traits, suggesting a role for deterministic dispersal.These findings suggest that host filtering could drive plant microbiome assembly in tissues where species pools are large and dispersal is high. However, deterministic differences in microbial dispersal to hosts may be equally or more important when microbes rely on an animal vector, dispersal is low, or arrival order is important.
more »
« less
The dispersal of microbes among and within flowers by butterflies
Abstract Floral microbes, including bacteria and fungi, alter nectar quality, thus changing pollinator visitation. Conversely, pollinator visitation can change the floral microbial community.Most studies on dispersal of floral microbes have focused on bees, ants or hummingbirds, yet Lepidoptera are important pollinators.We asked (a) where are microbes present on the butterfly body, (b) do butterflies transfer microbes while foraging, and (c) how does butterfly foraging affect microbial abundance on different floret structures.The tarsi and proboscis had significantly more microbes than the thorax in wild‐caughtGlaucopsyche lygdamus(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) andSpeyeria mormonia(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae).Glaucopsyche lygdamus, a smaller‐bodied species, had fewer microbes thanS. mormonia.As a marker for microbes, we used a bacterium (Rhodococcus fascians,near NCBI Y11196) isolated from aS. mormoniathat was foraging for nectar, and examined its dispersal byG. lygdamusandS. mormoniavisiting florets ofPyrrocoma crocea(Asteraceae). Microbial dispersal among florets correlated positively with bacterial abundance in the donor floret. Dispersal also depended on butterfly species, age, and bacterial load carried by the butterfly.Recipient florets had less bacteria than donor florets. The nectaries had more bacteria than the anthers or the stigmas, while anthers and stigmas did not differ from each other. There was no differential transmission among floral organs.Lepidoptera thus act as vectors of floral microbes. Including Lepidoptera is thus crucial to an understanding of plant–pollinator–microbe interactions. Future studies should consider the role of vectored microbes in lepidopteran ecology and fitness.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1755522
- PAR ID:
- 10419884
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley-Blackwell
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Ecological Entomology
- Volume:
- 48
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 0307-6946
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 458-465
- Size(s):
- p. 458-465
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Floral nectar is prone to colonization by nectar-adapted yeasts and bacteria via air-, rain-, and animal-mediated dispersal. Upon colonization, microbes can modify nectar chemical constituents that are plant-provisioned or impart their own through secretion of metabolic by-products or antibiotics into the nectar environment. Such modifications can have consequences for pollinator perception of nectar quality, as microbial metabolism can leave a distinct imprint on olfactory and gustatory cues that inform foraging decisions. Furthermore, direct interactions between pollinators and nectar microbes, as well as consumption of modified nectar, have the potential to affect pollinator health both positively and negatively. Here, we discuss and integrate recent findings from research on plant–microbe–pollinator interactions and their consequences for pollinator health. We then explore future avenues of research that could shed light on the myriad ways in which nectar microbes can affect pollinator health, including the taxonomic diversity of vertebrate and invertebrate pollinators that rely on this reward. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Natural processes influencing pollinator health: from chemistry to landscapes’.more » « less
-
Abstract In flowering plants that produce concealed rewards, pollinator foraging preferences may select for floral advertisement traits that are correlated with rewards. To date, studies have not focused on the potential for honest signals to vary across populations, which could occur due to differences in pollinator communities or plant mating system.We tested for variation in honest signals across and within populations and mating systems inArabis alpina, a broadly distributed arctic‐alpine perennial herb that is visited by a variable community of insects. In a greenhouse common garden, we tested for correlations between corolla area, floral scent and nectar volume in 29 populations. In 12 field populations, we examined variation in pollen limitation and corolla area.Across and within populations and mating systems, larger flowers generally produced more nectar. Total scent emission was not correlated with nectar production, but two compounds—phenylacetaldehyde and benzyl alcohol—may be honest signals in some populations. Corolla area was correlated with pollen limitation only across populations.Our results suggest that honest signals may be similar across populations but may not result from contemporary direct selection on floral advertisements. Read the freePlain Language Summaryfor this article on the Journal blog.more » « less
-
Nectar contains antimicrobial constituents including hydrogen peroxide, yet it is unclear how widespread nectar hydrogen peroxide might be among plant species or how effective it is against common nectar microbes.Here, we surveyed 45 flowering plant species across 23 families and reviewed the literature to assess the field‐realistic range of nectar hydrogen peroxide (Aim 1). We experimentally explored whether plant defense hormones increase nectar hydrogen peroxide (Aim 2). Further, we tested the hypotheses that variation in microbial tolerance to peroxide is predicted by the microbe isolation environment (Aim 3); increasing hydrogen peroxide in flowers alters microbial abundance and community assembly (Aim 4), and that the microbial community context affects microbial tolerance to peroxide (Aim 5).Peroxide in sampled plants ranged from undetectable toc3000 μM, with 50% of species containing less than 100 μM. Plant defensive hormones did not affect hydrogen peroxide in floral nectar, but enzymatically upregulated hydrogen peroxide significantly reduced microbial growth.Together, our results suggest that nectar peroxide is a common but not pervasive antimicrobial defense among nectar‐producing plants. Microbes vary in tolerance and detoxification ability, and co‐growth can facilitate the survival and growth of less tolerant species, suggesting a key role for community dynamics in the microbial colonization of nectar.more » « less
-
Abstract Ecological restoration often targets plant community recovery, but restoration success may depend on the recovery of a complex web of biotic interactions to maintain biodiversity and promote ecosystem services. Specifically, management that drives resource availability, such as seeding richness and provenance, may alter species interactions across multiple trophic levels. Using experimentally seeded prairies, we examine three key groups—plants, pollinators and goldenrod crab spiders (Misumena vatia, predators of pollinators)—to understand the effects of species richness and admixture seed sourcing of restoration seed mixtures on multitrophic interactions.Working with prairie plants, we experimentally manipulated seed mix richness and the number of seed source regions (single‐source region or admixture seed sourcing). In each experimental prairie, we surveyed floral abundance and richness, pollinator visitation and plant–M. vatiainteractions.A high richness seed mix increased floral abundance when seeds were sourced from a single geographic region, and floral abundance strongly increased pollinator visitation,M. vatiaabundance and prey capture. Seeding richness and admixture seed sourcing of the seed mixture did not affect floral species richness, but floral species richness increased pollinator visitation.Pollinators interacted with different floral communities across seeding treatments, indicating a shift in visited floral species with restoration practices.Synthesis and applications. Long‐term success in prairie restoration requires the restoration of plant–arthropod interactions. We provide evidence that seed mix richness and admixture seed sourcing affect arthropod floral associations, but effective restoration of plant–arthropod interactions should consider total floral resource availability. Incorporating a food web perspective in restoration will strengthen approaches to whole ecosystem restoration.more » « less
