Influence of pollination and seed dispersal on the genetic population structure of two Commiphora species in Madagascar and South Africa

Pollination and seed dispersal are important ecological processes for the regeneration of plant populations and both vectors for gene exchange between plant populations. For my thesis, I studied the pollination ecology of the South African tree Commiphora harveyi (Burseraceae) and compared it with C. guillauminii from Madagascar. Both species have low visitation rates and a low number of pollinating insect species, resulting in a low fruit set. While their pollination ecology is very similar, they differ in their seed dispersal with a low seed dispersal rate in the Malagasy and a high seed dispersal rate in the South African species. This should be reflected in a stronger genetic differentiation among populations in the Malagasy than in the South African species. My results, based on AFLP markers, contradict these expectations, the overall differentiation was lower in the Malagasy (FST = 0.05) than in the South African species (FST = 0.16). However, at a smaller spatial scale (below 3 km), the Malagasy species was genetically more strongly differentiated than the South African species, which was reflected by the high inter-population variance within the sample site (C. guillauminii: 72.2 - 85.5 %; C. harveyi: 8.4 - 14.5 %). This strong differentiation could arise from limited gene flow, which was confirmed by spatial autocorrelation analyses. The shape of the autocorrelogram suggested that gene exchange between individuals occurred only up to 3 km in the Malagasy species, whereas up to 30 km in the South African species. These results on the genetic structure correspond to the expectations based on seed dispersal data. Thus, seed dispersal seems to be a key factor for the genetic structure in plant populations on a local scale.

The importance of visual and olfactory stimuli during flower visits in Apis mellifera

Flowers attract honeybees using colour and scent signals. Bimodality (having both scent and colour) in flowers leads to increased visitation rates, but how the signals influence each other in a foraging situation is still quite controversial. We studied four basic questions: When faced with conflicting scent and colour information, will bees choose by scent and ignore the “wrong” colour, or vice versa? To get to the bottom of this question, we trained bees on scent-colour combination AX (rewarded) versus BY (unrewarded) and tested them on AY (previously rewarded colour and unrewarded scent) versus BX (previously rewarded scent and unrewarded colour). It turned out that the result depends on stimulus quality: if the colours are very similar (unsaturated blue and blue-green), bees choose by scent. If they are very different (saturated blue and yellow), bees choose by colour. We used the same scents, lavender and rosemary, in both cases. Our second question was: Are individual bees hardwired to use colour and ignore scent (or vice versa), or can this behaviour be modified, depending on which cue is more readily available in the current foraging context? To study this question, we picked colour-preferring bees and gave them extra training on scent-only stimuli. Afterwards, we tested if their preference had changed, and if they still remembered the scent stimulus they had originally used as their main cue. We came to the conclusion that a colour preference can be reversed through scent-only training. We also gave scent-preferring bees extra training on colour-only stimuli, and tested for a change in their preference. The number of animals tested was too small for statistical tests (n = 4), but a common tendency suggested that colour-only training leads to a preference for colour. A preference to forage by a certain sensory modality therefore appears to be not fixed but flexible, and adapted to the bee’s surroundings. Our third question was: Do bees learn bimodal stimuli as the sum of their parts (elemental learning), or as a new stimulus which is different from the sum of the components’ parts (configural learning)? We trained bees on bimodal stimuli, then tested them on the colour components only, and the scent components only. We performed this experiment with a similar colour set (unsaturated blue and blue-green, as above), and a very different colour set (saturated blue and yellow), but used lavender and rosemary for scent stimuli in both cases. Our experiment yielded unexpected results: with the different colours, the results were best explained by elemental learning, but with the similar colour set, bees exhibited configural learning. Still, their memory of the bimodal compound was excellent. Finally, we looked at reverse-learning. We reverse-trained bees with bimodal stimuli to find out whether bimodality leads to better reverse-learning compared to monomodal stimuli. We trained bees on AX (rewarded) versus BY (unrewarded), then on AX (unrewarded) versus BY (rewarded), and finally on AX (rewarded) and BY (unrewarded) again. We performed this experiment with both colour sets, always using the same two scents (lavender and rosemary). It turned out that bimodality does not help bees “see the pattern” and anticipate the switch. Generally, bees trained on the different colour set performed better than bees trained on the similar colour set, indicating that stimulus salience influences reverse-learning.