Ecological implications of reduced pollen deposition in alpine plants: a case study using a dominant cushion plant species

Anya Reid; Robyn Hooper; Olivia Molenda; Christopher J. Lortie

doi:10.12688/f1000research.4382.1

Home Browse Ecological implications of reduced pollen deposition in alpine plants:...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Ecological implications of reduced pollen deposition in alpine plants: a case study using a dominant cushion plant species

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Anya Reid¹, Robyn Hooper¹, Olivia Molenda², Christopher J. Lortie³

PUBLISHED 19 Jun 2014

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada
² Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, M5S 3E5, Canada
³ Department of Biology, York University, Toronto, M3J 1P3, Canada

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

The reproductive assurance hypothesis states that self-incompatible female plants must produce twice the number of seeds relative to their self-compatible hermaphroditic counterparts to persist in gynodioecious populations. This is a viable life-history strategy, provided that pollination rates are sufficiently high. However, reduced pollination rates in alpine plants are likely due to climate induced plant-pollinator mismatches and general declines in pollinators. Using a gynodioecious population of the dominant plant Silene acaulis (Caryophyllaceae), we tested the reproductive assurance hypothesis and also the stress gradient hypothesis with a series of pollinator exclusion trials and extensive measurements of subsequent reproductive output (gender ratio, plant size, percent fruit-set, fruit weight, seeds per fruit, total seeds, seed weight, and seed germination). The reproductive assurance hypothesis was supported with female plants being more sensitive to and less likely to be viable under reductions in pollination rates. These findings are the first to show that the stress gradient hypothesis is also supported under a gradient of pollen supply instead of environmental limitations. Beneficiary abundance was negatively correlated to percent fruit-set under current pollen supply, but became positive under reduced pollen supply suggesting that there are important plant-plant-pollinator interactions related to reproduction in these alpine plant species.

Keywords

alpine, cushion plant, pollination, climate induced mismatch, pollinator decline

Corresponding author: Christopher J. Lortie

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This research was funded by an NSERC DG and an NSERC Canadian Pollination Initiative (CANPOLIN) grant to CJL. AR was funded by an Ontario Graduate Scholarship and two York University Faculty of Graduate Studies research grants. RH was funded by NSERC URSA. OM was funded through York University Department of Biology.

Copyright: © 2014 Reid A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

How to cite: Reid A, Hooper R, Molenda O and Lortie CJ. Ecological implications of reduced pollen deposition in alpine plants: a case study using a dominant cushion plant species [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2014, 3:130 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.4382.1) First published: 19 Jun 2014, 3:130 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.4382.1) Latest published: 07 Aug 2014, 3:130 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.4382.2)

Introduction

At least two future climate change scenarios predict that pollination rates will be directly reduced, and these are due to either pollinator declines (Potts et al., 2010) and/or plant-pollinator mismatches (Hegland et al., 2009). Recently there has been concern over general global trends of reduced pollinator species abundance and diversity that are both predicted to reduce pollination rates to plants (Memmott et al., 2007; Potts et al., 2010). Climate induced plant-pollinator mismatch can reduce pollination rates by creating a temporal mismatch in pollinator emergence and plant flowering times (Hegland et al., 2009). Pollinator emergence is regulated by temperature, whereas plant bloom time is regulated by photoperiod (Hegland et al., 2009). If climate warming shifts pollinator emergence but not plant bloom time, then a temporal mismatch between plants and pollinators occurs (Hegland et al., 2009). This scenario is likely more pronounced in alpine and polar environments that are experiencing a more rapid increase in annual temperature than the global average (very high confidence; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2013). Conceivably, both of these reductions in pollination rates occur simultaneously and thus adaptability of different sexual morphs in alpine plants can be an important consideration in predicting responsiveness and variation in reproductive output.

Hypotheses associated with pollen availability in alpine environments are controversial. It has been assumed that pollination rates are inherently low in alpine environments (Larson & Barrett, 2000; Totland & Sottocornola, 2001; Torres-Díaz et al., 2011). This is attributed to low temperatures, overcast conditions, strong winds, and relatively unpredictable weather being challenging for insect pollinators (Körner, 1999). These harsh conditions generally lead to lower pollinator diversity, abundance, and activity in alpine ecosystems relative to milder ecosystems (Kevan, 1972; Primack, 1978; Moldenke & Lincoln, 1979; Arroyo et al., 1982; Primack, 1983; Billings, 1987; Totland, 1993). Alternatively, pollination rates can increase with elevations, suggesting adequate pollen availability under current conditions (Arroyo et al., 1985; Arroyo & Squeo, 1990; Bingham & Orthner, 1998; Utelli & Roy, 2000).

The reproductive assurance hypothesis (RAH) and the stress gradient hypothesis (SGH) are thus highly relevant hypotheses to explore in better understanding climate change effects on alpine communities. The RAH proposes that when pollen supply is low, self-compatible plants are favored over self-incompatible plants (Lloyd, 1992; Lloyd & Schoen, 1992). This is because self-compatible plants create their own pollen thereby being more adapted to low or variable pollination rates (Larson & Barrett, 2000; Muñoz & Arroyo, 2006; García-Camacho & Totland, 2009). Further, it has been proposed that self-compatible plants are less likely to become extinct if pollinators drastically decrease or disappear from a given system (Richards, 1997; Morgan et al., 2005). Therefore, self-compatible plants may become favored in the future if pollination supply declines. The SGH is also an important ecological theory to consider with respect to potential climate impacts on pollinators. The SGH states that facilitation between plant species is more common when resources are limited (Bertness & Callaway, 1994). Typically, the SGH is tested using environmental limitations such as temperature or moisture in the alpine (He et al., 2013; Liczner & Lortie, 2014; McIntire & Fajardo, 2014), but has not been applied to the concept of pollen supply as an important limitation for plants in stressful environments. Taken together, these ecological theories provide a solid platform to build pollen limitation studies upon and also provide a set of potential ecological drivers that can help better predict pollination rate changes in the alpine.

Here, we use a gynodioecious population of Silene acaulis to assess the sensitivity of different genders to pollen limitation. We test the following predictions associated with the reproductive assurance hypothesis: (1) that the reproduction of self-incompatible plants is more sensitive to reduced pollen deposition than self-compatible plants and (2) that self-incompatible plants will be less viable under experimentally reduced pollen loads compared to self-compatible plants. In doing so, we also explore whether the SGH applies to the plant-pollinator system in the alpine. Specifically, we predict that facilitation between plants is more common under reduced pollen, i.e. that less pollen can be a novel stressor for alpine plants and that this can in turn relate to plant-plant interactions.

Materials and methods

Study species

S. acaulis (L.) Jacq. (Caryophyllacae), commonly known as moss campion, is a common long-lived evergreen cushion that is found throughout the northern hemisphere (Hitchcock & Maguire, 1947). Each plant has a single strong taproot, and there is no clonal reproduction (Morris & Doak, 1998). Small pink flowers can be abundant. S. acaulis is visited by bumblebees (Shykoff, 1988; Shykoff, 1992; Marr, 1997; Delph et al., 1999; Delph & Carroll, 2001), moths, beetles, ants (Marr, 1997; Delph & Carroll, 2001), flies (Totland, 1993; Delph & Carroll, 2001), butterflies and Osmia bees (Reid & Lortie, 2012). S. acaulis is a nurse plant species that, like many other cushion forming plants, benefits other plant species (called beneficiaries) by reducing abiotic stress (Arroyo et al., 2003; Bertness & Callaway, 1994; Callaway & Walker, 1997; Cavieres et al., 2006). Recent beneficiary removal studies suggest that by facilitating the beneficiaries, cushions bear a cost in reduced reproductive success (Cranston et al., 2012; Schöb et al., 2014).

S. acaulis is sexually polymorphic (Hitchcock & Maguire, 1947), and the population examined here was gynodioecious with plants that only have hermaphrodite flowers and other that only have female flowers. Female flowers have three styles with stigmatic lobes and hermaphrodite flowers have ten stamens. Male-sterility in female morphs of S. acaulis is predominantly under nuclear-cytoplasmic control (Delph & Carroll, 2001); the gene for male-sterility is passed on through the female gamete (Lewis, 1941). In addition to S. acaulis, the flowering plant species Antennaria alpina, Arnica sp., Carex sp., Erigeron sp., Luzula sp., Phacelia sericea, Phlox diffusa, Phyllodoce spp., Poa alpina, Potentilla diversifolia, P. heptaphila, P. villosa, Ranunculus eschsoltzii, Saxifraga bronchialis, and Solidago multiradiata were present at relatively high densities.

Study site

The experiments were conducted on the Whistler Mountain in British Columbia 50°03′31.68″N, 122°57′22.53″W, 2168m elevation), Canada, during the snow-free season of July and August 2010. This area is classified as alpine tundra with ten months of snow cover per year (Pojar et al., 1987). A total of 273 S. acaulis plants were measured. Three S. acaulis plants were excluded from the study because they were infected with the pollinator-transmitted anther smut-fungus Microbotryum violaceum that renders the flowers of both genders sterile (Baker, 1947; Alexander & Antonovics, 1988; Hermanutz & Innes, 1994; Marr, 1997).

Treatments

Before bud-burst, S. acaulis plants were covered with cloth mesh to prevent pollinators contacting the flowers (Donnelly et al., 1998). As the plant gender was unknown when initially covering, 60 plants were covered to ensure that there would be sufficient replicate plants of each gender. Plant gender was established after bud-burst, and at that time, plants were randomly assigned a treatment such as covered with mesh or open to insect pollinators and marked with a unique identification code. Reduced pollination treatments were the ones covered with mesh and were applied to 20 hermaphrodite and 20 female plants. The first 20 female and male plants found were used as replicates with the additional 20 plants being uncovered. The 40 plants (20 of each gender) selected for the reduced pollination treatments remained covered with mesh for the entire flowering season to exclude all insect pollination.

All flowers of the reduced-pollination treatment plants were hand-pollinated with pollen collected from S. acaulis plants within 10 meters from the treatment plants. All hermaphrodite flowers with mature anthers were collected in the morning of the hand pollination days. Pollen was then applied using small paintbrushes or by directly touching the anthers to the stigmas of all the treatment-plant flowers. We found that direct contact of the anthers to the stigmas was the most effective method of hand pollination. The exact amount of pollen applied to each flower at each hand-pollination event was not quantified. Hand pollination was repeated on three different days between July 20^th and August 1^st, 2010.

Reproductive output measures

Reproductive output measures were collected from the 40 hand-pollinated treatment plants as well as 231 naturally pollinated S. acaulis plants. These measures included total number of flowers, total number of fruits, percent fruit-set, seeds per fruit, fruit weight, and seed weight. The percentage of germination was calculated on a subset of 60 plants, including the 40 treatment plants and 20 naturally pollinated plants.

The total number of flowers was counted during fruit collection including both successfully and unsuccessfully (i.e. no fruit) pollinated flowers. Fruits were collected when mature but not yet dehiscing, so that the seeds remained in the fruit capsule. This occurred between August 11^th and 25^th. All fruits were placed in small labeled paper envelopes and were allowed to dry at room temperature to avoid decomposition. The percentage of fruit-set was calculated using the measures of total number of fruits and total number of flowers. The mean fruit weight (g) was calculated by averaging the weight of five randomly selected fruits per plant. These five fruits were dissected and the seed counted. The mean seed number per fruit was calculated from the seed counts. The total seed number per plant was estimated by multiplying total number of fruits with mean seed number per fruit. Mean seed weight (mg) was calculated by averaging the weight of ten randomly selected seeds per plant. All weighing was done to four significant digits. When a plant produced less than five fruits or ten seeds, the average was based on the maximum number of fruit or seed produced. Weighed seed was stored separately and cold-stratified at 4°C for two months. A test germination trial was conducted with limited success likely because the cold stratification was not sufficient. Therefore, seeds were then stored at 0°C for two additional months in preparation for germination trials.

Germination trials were conducted on the weighed and cold stratified seeds from the 40 S. acaulis plants in reduced pollination treatments and the remaining 20 labeled plants that were left open to natural pollination. Growth chambers were set to standard optimum growing conditions of 20°C and light for 12 hours, then 10°C and dark for the remaining 12 hours of the day (Baskin & Baskin, 1998). Relative humidity was set to 90%. The ten seeds from an individual plant were placed on a labeled filter paper in a Petri dish. Seeds were checked weekly for three months, after which germination is rare (Milbau et al., 2009). Germination was considered to have occurred when the radical broke open the seed (Milbau et al., 2009). Germinated seeds were removed to speed-up counting during the subsequent weeks and reduce counting errors (Milbau et al., 2009). Percent germination was expressed as the fraction of total number of germinated seeds with respect to the total number of seeds per Petri dish.

Cushion area and floral density were measured because of their possible effect on reproductive output. Cushion area was defined by the external boundary of vegetation and calculated as an ellipse with the formula,

cushion area = (a/2)*(b/2)*π

where a is the longest diameter of the plant and b the diameter perpendicular to a. We calculated the floral density by dividing the total flower number by the cushion area.

Beneficiary abundance

To test if facilitation became more common under reduced pollen loads (stress gradient hypothesis), we measured beneficiary abundance on all cushion plants. Beneficiary abundance is the total number of individual plants living on the cushions.

Statistical analysis

To assess the sensitivity of female and hermaphrodite reproductive output under reduced pollen deposition, we calculated the percent change of reproductive success measures within each gender between current and reduced pollen deposition. Percent change was calculated using the following equation:

percent change = (T-C)/C*100

where T is the reproductive output measures under the reduced pollination treatments and C is the reproductive output measures under the current pollination rates (Ayres, 1993). Negative numbers indicate that reduced pollination treatments decrease reproductive success and positive numbers indicate that reduced pollination treatments increase reproductive success. This method facilitates comparisons of the direction and magnitude of change.

To statistically test if reduced pollination, gender, and their interaction effects significantly explained the variation in the reproductive output measures, we used a generalized linear model (GLM) with Poisson distribution and a log link function. Covariate measures of S. acaulis included surface area, S. acaulis floral density and beneficiary abundance.

Hermaphrodites provide one-half of the genetic material to the population through pollen production. Therefore, female plants must produce at least twice the number of seeds as hermaphrodite plants to persist in the population (Charnov, 1982) or have offspring that are more fit (Lewis, 1941). To statistically analyze the viability of females under current and reduced pollen deposition levels, we compared female reproductive output to twice that of hermaphrodite reproductive output. In this way, if female reproduction (F) is greater than two times hermaphrodite reproduction (2H), then females are viable in the population. For females to be viable, not all measures of reproductive success need to be twice that of hermaphrodites, but all measures are shown to be comprehensive. GLMs were also used to test if gender significantly affected reproductive output measures under the current ambient and experimentally reduced pollination regimes.

Instead of testing the effect of beneficiaries on measures of reproductive success over a range of environmental gradients (Bertness & Callaway, 1994) we tested whether variation in the current and experimentally reduced pollen supply can be viewed as potential stressor. To test the stress gradient hypothesis in this plant-pollinator system, we conducted correlation analysis and tested for significance in the interaction term between the effect pollination and beneficiary abundance on percent fruit set in a GLM. A significant p-value (p<0.05) indicates that the response of percent fruit set to beneficiary abundance significantly differs between plants in the current and reduce pollination regimes. All analyses are appropriate for dealing with the unbalanced number of replicates between the current and reduced pollination regimes and were done in JMP 10 (SAS, 2012).

Results

Pollination regime significantly influenced percent fruit-set, seeds per fruit, fruit weight and percent germination (Table 1). Percent fruit-set, seeds per fruit, fruit weight, and percent germination decreased in both genders with reduced pollen deposition (Figure 1). There was a significant interaction effect between gender and pollination regime for percent fruit set, and percent germination (Table 1) indicating that these measures differed in their response. The direction of these differences was significant and is illustrated in the percent change calculations. Percent fruit-set was more significantly reduced in females relative to hermaphrodites (Figure 1), whereas percent germination reduced to a greater in hermaphrodites compared to females (Figure 1).

Table 1.

Summary of GLM results testing the effect of gender, pollination regime, and the gender by pollination regime interaction on measures of reproductive success with covariate measures of S. acaulis surface area (SA), S. acaulis floral density, and beneficiary abundance indicated by *. Significance is considered at p < 0.05 and is indicated in bold.

		% fruit-set		seeds/fruit		fruit weight		seed weight		% germination
Factor	DF	ChiSq	p>ChiSq	ChiSq	p>ChiSq	ChiSq	p>ChiSq	ChiSq	p>ChiSq	ChiSq	p>ChiSq
Gender	1	193.10	<.0001	6.92	0.0085	0.66	0.4163	0.81	0.3672	0.02	0.8865
Pollination regime	1	279.27	<.0001	32.43	<.0001	11.60	0.0007	1.32	0.2505	14.49	0.0001
Gender*pollination regime	1	240.93	<.0001	3.80	0.0513	0.31	0.5753	0.05	0.8213	40.02	<.0001
S. acaulis SA*	1	20.79	<.0001	6.89	0.0087	0.70	0.4022	0.21	0.6489	142.30	<.0001
S. acaulis floral density*	1	18.64	<.0001	0.16	0.6914	0.75	0.3862	0.20	0.6521	28.80	<.0001
Beneficiary abundance*	1	8.72	0.0031	1.12	0.2897	4.39	0.0362	3.96	0.0466	3.91	0.0479

Figure 1. Percent change of female (white) and hermaphrodite (grey) reproductive output measures between current and reduced pollination regimes (p < 0.05).

± 1 standard error bars shown.

Under current pollination rates, female plants had more than twice (2.98 times) the percent fruit-set compared to hermaphrodites (Figure 2). Female plants had less than twice the seeds/fruit, fruit weight, seed weight and percent germination compared to hermaphrodites (Figure 2). Under current pollination rates, all reproductive output measures were significantly different between females and two times hermaphrodite reproductive measures (Table 2).

Figure 2. Reproductive output measures for female plants (white) and two times that of hermaphrodite plants (grey) under current and reduced pollination regimes (p < 0.05).

± 1 standard error bars shown.

Table 2.

Summary of GLM results testing the effect of gender on measures of reproductive success under the current pollination regime with covariate measures of S. acaulis surface area (SA), S. acaulis floral density, and beneficiary abundance indicated by *. Reproductive measures for hermaphrodites are doubled. Significance is considered at p < 0.05 and is indicated in bold.

		% fruit-set		seeds/fruit		fruit weight		seed weight		% germination
Factor	DF	ChiSq	p>ChiSq	ChiSq	p>ChiSq	ChiSq	p>ChiSq	ChiSq	p>ChiSq	ChiSq	p>ChiSq
Gender (F and 2H)	1	394.83	<.0001	288.96	<.0001	159.83	<.0001	20.42	<.0001	68.09	<.0001
S. acaulis SA*	1	10.63	0.0011	6.64	0.0099	0.52	0.469	0.11	0.7395	13.05	0.0003
S. acaulis floral density*	1	28.74	<.0001	0.47	0.4912	0.31	0.5793	0.02	0.892	2.42	0.1198
Beneficiary abundance*	1	69.30	<.0001	1.82	0.1775	2.28	0.1313	6.89	0.0087	6.99	0.0082

Under reduced pollination rates, none of the female reproductive measures were greater than two times that of hermaphrodites (Figure 2). Under reduced pollination rates, all reproductive output measures, except seed weight and percent germination, were significantly different between females and two times hermaphrodite reproductive measures (Table 3).

Table 3.

Summary of GLM results testing the effect of gender on measures of reproductive success under the reduced pollination regime with covariate measures of S. acaulis surface area (SA), S. acaulis floral density, and beneficiary abundance indicated by *. Reproductive measures for hermaphrodites are doubled. Significance is considered at p > 0.05 and indicated in bold.

		% fruit-set		seeds/fruit		fruit weight		seed weight		% germination
Factor	DF	ChiSq	p>ChiSq	ChiSq	p>ChiSq	ChiSq	p>ChiSq	ChiSq	p>ChiSq	ChiSq	p>ChiSq
Gender (F and 2H)	1	54.79	<.0001	41.64	<.0001	15.03	0.0001	2.29	0.1298	3.45	0.0632
S. acaulis SA*	1	6.66	0.0099	3.30	0.0694	1.68	0.1945	2.78	0.0957	298.72	<.0001
S. acaulis floral density*	1	68.02	<.0001	24.68	<.0001	18.14	<.0001	3.74	0.053	71.77	<.0001
Ben. abundance*	1	61.84	<.0001	22.57	<.0001	8.62	0.0033	0.43	0.511	2.97	0.0847

Beneficiary abundance had a significant effect on percent fruit-set (Table 1). Under the current pollination rates, percent fruit-set and beneficiary abundance are negatively related (slope = -0.48, R² = 0.04, Figure 3). In contrast, under reduced pollination rates, percent fruit-set and beneficiary abundance are positively related (slope = 0.24, R² = 0.06, Figure 3). The slopes of these lines significantly differ (Chi² 161.25, p-value <0.0001).

Figure 3. Percent fruit set and beneficiary abundance on individual S. acaulis plants under current pollination regime (white circles) and reduced pollination regime (grey squares).

The linear best-fit line for plants under current pollination regime (black dashed line) has a negative slope of -0.48 and R² value of 0.04. The linear best-fit line for plants under reduced pollination regime (grey line) has a positive slope of 0.24 and R² value of 0.06. The slopes of these lines significantly differ (Chi² 161.25, p-value <0.0001).

pollen regime	rep #	gender	surface area of cushion (cm2)	floral density	% fruit set	seeds/fruit	fruit weight (g)	seed weight (mg)	beneficiary abundance	% germinantion
reduced	1	f	482.97	0.385114898	50.5	5.6	4.76	1.5	30	0
reduced	2	f	475.61	0.401586527	20.4	4.8	5.14	2.5	17	10
reduced	3	f	176.68	0.628243196	36.0	3.2	3.66	1.9	11	30
reduced	4	f	253.60	0.390382839	23.2	3.4	2.9	1.4	19	20
reduced	5	f	167.17	0.221328932	43.2	5.0	4.5	2.3	19	20
reduced	6	f	381.99	0.14398424	9.1	0.6	2.24	3.3	15	0
reduced	7	f	201.47	0.357372709	45.8	7.4	4.32	1.7	19	0
reduced	8	f	790.42	0.142961117	29.2	9.6	4.02	1.1	41	0
reduced	9	f	304.11	0.282795973	43.0	8.6	4.74	1.2	76	0
reduced	10	f	261.14	0.168488842	13.6	1.8	3.44	2.7	28	40
reduced	11	f	106.19	0	0.0	0.0	0	0.0	42	0
reduced	12	f	161.03	0	0.0	0.0	0	0.0	19	0
reduced	13	f	150.56	0.325449858	12.2	1.8	2.9	1.5	17	0
reduced	14	f	138.10	0.470658385	7.7	1.0	2.1	1.0	10	0
reduced	15	f	805.82	0.331340115	43.1	4.4	4.16	2.1	91	20
reduced	16	f	352.86	0.045343289	0.0	0.0	0	0.0	24	0
reduced	17	f	230.91	0.004330747	100.0	0.6	0.72	1.3	32	0
reduced	18	f	505.44	0.257200126	16.2	5.4	5.34	2.2	25	0
reduced	19	f	500.30	0.055966573	0.0	0.0	0	0.0	42	0
reduced	20	f	449.56	0.27582408	15.3	5.8	4.22	1.9	11	44.44444444
reduced	21	f			27.2	11.0	4.5	0.9	37	0
reduced	22	f	72.26	0.678138453	22.4	1.8	2.46	1.1	0	0
reduced	1	h	220.87	0.43464546	0.0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0
reduced	2	h	842.06	0.138945498	0.0	0.0	0	0.0	16	0
reduced	3	h	263.89	0.636619772	3.6	5.6	4.72	1.8	26	0
reduced	4	h	450.66	0.412726656	28.5	6.2	4.98	1.7	32	0
reduced	5	h	530.14	0.309350052	13.4	5.8	5.04	1.7	82	0
reduced	6	h	76.58	1.149180307	9.1	5.2	4.18	0.9	3	0
reduced	7	h	276.46	0.318309886	20.5	8.6	5.04	1.6	36	0
reduced	8	h	283.61	0.370230275	25.7	4.8	4.66	2.2	18	0
reduced	9	h	67.39	0.786499952	7.5	2.4	2.2	1.2	6	0
reduced	10	h	511.29	0.097791056	34.0	12.4	6.48	1.5	55	10
reduced	11	h	136.35	0.249367192	0.0	0.0	0	0.0	25	0
reduced	12	h	163.36	0.202004351	0.0	0.0	0	0.0	26	0
reduced	13	h	791.68	0.54820036	81.3	19.0	5.58	2.0	45	50
reduced	14	h	1171.62	0.099008404	12.1	3.4	3.58	2.4	61	10
reduced	15	h	538.67	0.07611294	7.3	9.0	3.6	1.4	28	0
reduced	16	h	102.42	0.244083955	12.0	3.0	2.14	1.4	8	0
reduced	17	h	2224.64	0.240488316	28.8	9.0	5.72	2.6	73	46.66666667
reduced	18	h	181.43	0.303152273	21.8	7.0	5.26	1.8	16	0
reduced	19	h	206.95	0.758628495	33.8	5.2	4.08	2.2	9	10
reduced	20	h	634.99	0.437799126	35.3	6.8	5.02	2.0	13	37.5
current	1	f	787.75	0.232305919	61.2	13.4	6.44	1.0	35	0
current	3	f	82.47	1.915922363	11.4	2.2	3.64	1.2	52	0
current	5	f	502.65	0.521232439	74.8	5.6	3.66	0.9	32	10
current	7	f	1286.48	0.15468539	48.7	5.4	5.62	2.3	51	36.36363636
current	11	f	163.56	0.324041757	84.9	4.0	4.04	1.6	14	0
current	12	f	1088.56	0.037664373	51.2	8.0	3.6	0.9	85	0
current	13	f	133.52	0.344523642	60.9	11.2	4.8	1.2	20	9.090909091
current	15	f	65.74	0.45635826	56.7	13.4	4.1	0.5	13	0
current	19	f	717.46	0.485043636	94.5	9.0	4.6	1.8	50	40
current	22	f	197.92	0.085893144	35.3	2.6	3.28	2.6	19
current	24	f	226.19	0.181259796	85.4	8.2	5.46	1.4	16
current	29	f	198.71	0.266726071	49.1	2.6	3.70	1.4	18
current	31	f	75.40	1.4456574	58.7	3.8	3.72	2.3	10
current	32	f	49.48	0.303152273	33.3	2.6	3.70	0.9	5
current	33	f	918.92	0.145824016	75.4	4.0	5.00	1.6	22
current	34	f	200.28	0.459364855	71.7	4.8	4.42	0.8	6
current	43	f	98.96	0.222311667	77.3	6.6	4.58	1.8	5
current	45	f	190.07	0.352508469	68.7	8.2	5.80	1.6	17
current	46	f	296.88	0.444623333	62.9	8.2	5.06	2.0	29
current	48	f	190.07	0.347247149	54.5	4.0	5.30	2.7	10
current	49	f	120.95	0.22323031	88.9	8.6	4.48	1.6	1
current	50	f	207.35	0.043405894	33.3	0.7	3.60	2.0	5
current	51	f	461.81	0.550004837	90.9	9.8	7.76	2.7	17
current	53	f	785.40	0.247008472	75.8	2.8	4.14	1.7	52
current	54	f	507.37	0.183299191	80.6	2.0	3.70	1.8	25
current	67	f	56.55	0.035367765	100.0	7.0	4.65	1.2	7
current	68	f	186.92	0.203290347	60.5	12.8	5.05	1.5	3
current	69	f	282.74	0.049514871	85.7	12.8	6.72	1.4	7
current	70	f	131.95	0.85640517	72.6	4.0	5.76	1.6	1
current	71	f	294.52	0.162974662	87.5	8.8	5.94	1.8	13
current	72	f	650.31	0.27064029	93.8	0.0	0.00	2.2	9
current	73	f	435.90	0.059647258	65.4	7.8	5.74	1.9	19
current	74	f	164.93	0.030315227	40.0	4.0	4.35	0.0	5
current	75	f	345.58	0.549807985	81.1	2.0	4.62	2.6	8
current	76	f	197.92	0.111155833	90.9	10.6	5.68	1.4	2
current	77	f	981.75	0.073338598	58.3	2.6	3.56	1.5	30
current	79	f	883.57	0.297655111	81.7	4.2	5.98	1.5	32
current	81	f	466.53	0.237928602	57.7	5.8	3.80	0.9	15
current	85	f	176.71	0.101859164	55.6	4.0	3.54	0.7	11
current	90	f	276.46	0.217029468	81.7	6.8	3.90	0.9	1
current	91	f	125.66	0.214859173	88.9	9.8	5.40	0.9	22
current	92	f	285.88	0.468720052	97.8	12.6	5.86	1.0	16
current	95	f	282.74	0.208669814	76.3	7.0	5.04	1.7	17
current	96	f	268.61	0.342508883	65.2	12.4	5.78	1.0	9
current	99	f	195.49	0.260888778	68.6	6.4	4.88	1.0	4
current	102	f	169.80	0.329793777	23.2	1.8	2.80	1.8	5
current	103	f	224.31	0.254112934	64.9	3.8	3.78	2.1	6
current	104	f	180.25	0.51595328	17.2	7.8	2.74	0.8	4
current	105	f	97.39	0.626351712	67.2	2.8	4.02	0.6	3
current	106	f	193.52	0.356548411	73.9	6.4	3.26	0.8	4
current	107	f	151.19	0.277797719	85.7	1.6	1.92	0.7	5
current	108	f	250.15	0.515691998	84.5	9.0	4.88	1.0	2
current	110	f	130.70	0.160675623	33.3	3.8	3.06	1.4	2
current	113	f	197.61	0.318815943	68.3	2.0	2.22	0.8	3
current	114	f	434.50	0.370542581	88.8	8.0	2.68	0.6	6
current	115	f	116.83	1.155545133	62.2	3.2	3.22	1.6	3
current	116	f	88.12	2.03128234	78.8	1.0	2.76	0.9	4
current	118	f	201.44	0.704928319	45.1	2.0	4.22	1.4	1
current	119	f	336.15	0.080321186	29.6	2.8	1.98	0.5	9
current	120	f	34.62	0.375501681	15.4	2.5	2.50	0.8	6
current	121	f	157.08	0.553859202	43.7	2.2	1.88	0.3	1
current	122	f	252.82	1.305278191	89.7	4.0	4.52	1.2	7
current	123	f	172.63	0.550308265	74.7	4.4	5.26	0.5	2
current	124	f	122.99	1.748061955	88.8	0.2	2.48	1.0	3
current	125	f	157.14	0.241818786	73.7	3.0	2.56	1.0	2
current	126	f	158.06	0.790832015	32.0	8.6	4.18	0.9	3
current	127	f	138.10	0.499621978	59.4	10.2	4.70	0.8	3
current	129	f	74.22	2.533005655	80.3	8.6	3.56	0.4	2
current	130	f	86.79	0.149792888	76.9	9.2	3.36	0.7	4
current	131	f	524.84	0.059065359	80.6	12.8	4.58	0.6	8
current	132	f	178.68	0.755548741	94.8	6.2	4.32	0.7	6
current	139	f	340.05	0.297018648	96.0	9.0	3.96	1.0	8
current	140	f	244.85	0.163366742	80.0	4.6	2.62	0.9	3
current	141	f	726.18	0.169379693	91.9	8.8	3.12	1.1	4
current	142	f	198.53	0.649791911	55.0	6.6	3.56	0.5	4
current	143	f	141.02	0.503480967	90.1	10.0	5.10	1.3	1
current	144	f	84.32	0.426943215	52.8	11.0	3.28	0.6	3
current	145	f	190.38	0.168084428	81.3	6.4	2.90	0.8	3
current	146	f	190.85	0.33533881	98.4			0.0	2
current	149	f	484.48	0.072242298	71.4	9.6	3.80	0.8	5
current	150	f	539.41	0.876881632	83.9	4.8	3.26	0.7	3
current	151	f	679.02	0.40057504	88.6	6.6	3.96	0.9	2
current	152	f	249.76	0.016015592	100.0	6.0	2.95	0.6	4
current	154	f	150.80	1.253345177	98.4	7.4	3.38	0.7	3
current	155	f	387.99	0.440736765	76.6	5.6	3.30	1.3	6
current	157	f	371.10	0.239827131	87.6	4.4	3.14	0.7	4
current	158	f	340.23	0.352697935	76.7	3.0	3.24	0.9	7
current	159	f	512.47	0.076101674	69.2	14.6	4.34	0.6	4
current	161	f	234.83	0.306599489	65.3	7.2	4.76	0.7	5
current	162	f	257.61	0.698729018	79.4	9.2	3.74	0.8	2
current	164	f	4655.84	0.003651328	88.2	7.4	2.72	0.7	2
current	165	f	122.52	0.865149947	89.6	7.4	4.44	1.1	4
current	167	f	325.15	0.282942121	85.9	6.2	3.82	1.5	7
current	170	f	235.62	0.51353995	75.2	5.2	6.84	0.0	4
current	171	f	791.68	0.133892254	52.8	6.4	4.50	0.9	4
current	172	f	329.87	1.11256884	78.2	6.2	5.48	2.5	6
current	176	f	227.77	0.452219562	70.9	7.2	4.84	1.7	4
current	179	f	2453.58	0.255952124	95.5	9.4	6.30	1.1	4
current	180	f	1539.38	0.002598448	50.0	6.5	2.70	0.6	7
current	182	f	934.62	0.02674873	80.0	9.6	4.28	0.4	4
current	188	f	785.40	0.049656342	84.6	7.0	4.00	0.8	3
current	190	f	224.62	0.30718017	55.1	9.4	4.72	0.8	7
current	192	f	367.57	0.29382451	67.6	5.8	4.60	1.0	2
current	195	f	846.66	0.053150074	86.7	10.0	5.44	1.2	5
current	196	f	255.65	0.426369003	71.6	14.6	4.74	0.7	2
current	197	f	681.73	0.529538566	91.7	10.8	5.42	0.9	5
current	198	f	667.59	0.193232825	82.2	8.6	5.28	1.0	4
current	201	f	176.24	0.068087676	41.7	1.6	2.62	1.3	4
current	202	f	388.77	0.097743642	63.2	2.2	3.40	1.1	4
current	204	f	712.75	0.54156525	94.8	5.0	3.08	0.8	1
current	206	f	180.64	0.503759994	96.7	8.2	3.16	0.5	2
current	207	f	507.37	0.161618642	78.0	5.8	3.60	1.1	2
current	208	f	447.48	0.306158522	88.3	10.0	3.86	1.2	2
current	209	f	1092.10	0.137350544	70.7	10.4	4.18	0.8	11
current	210	f	471.24	0.568713663	86.6	8.2	4.06	1.2	1
current	212	f	741.02	0.07152273	58.5	3.4	3.70	0.7	11
current	219	f			55.6	1.8	2.36	0.7
current	220	f			77.9	6.2	3.44	1.3
current	221	f			89.3	6.0	3.66	0.7
current	222	f			78.2	5.6	4.04	1.1
current	223	f			96.2	11.0	5.06	0.8
current	226	f			95.1	9.6	4.28	1.2
current	228	f			84.3	8.0	4.54	0.5
current	230	f			86.0	5.0	3.04	0.4
current	2	h	969.97	0.095879577	3.2	4.2	3.46	1.0	22	0
current	4	h	387.12	0.408139274	38.6	6.8	4.52	1.9	35	40
current	6	h	215.98	0.041669658	88.9	6.2	4.64	2.1	18	37.5
current	8	h	388.77	0.324097339	52.4	8.0	5.6	2.0	32	10
current	9	h	411.23	0.148333866	31.1	6.0	4.22	1.1	41	10
current	10	h	302.38	0.314175992	62.1	10.0	5.34	1.6	29	0
current	14	h	161.67	0.303078638	44.9	11.0	5	1.6	12	44.44444444
current	16	h	828.20	0.068823759	19.3	10.8	4.38	1.2	22	0
current	17	h	221.01	0.085968555	0.0	0.0	0	0.0	15	0
current	18	h	524.02	0.274799902	0.0	0.0	0	0.0	17	0
current	20	h	596.12	0.379120075	9.3	7.2	3.98	1.4	14	20
current	21	h	175.93	0.426307883	0.0	0.0	0.00	0.0	18
current	23	h	94.25	0.732112738	27.5	2.6	5.34	2.5	10
current	25	h	201.06	0.397887358	0.0	0.0	0.00	0.0	27
current	26	h	160.22	0.174758369	0.0	0.0	0.00	0.0	19
current	27	h	197.92	0.202101515	5.0	6.0	4.70	1.2	23
current	28	h	175.93	0.625251562	0.0	0.0	0.00	0.0	9
current	30	h	91.89	0.968532645	32.6	6.8	5.92	1.2	11
current	35	h	501.08	0.18958896	10.5	13.2	6.50	1.7	59
current	36	h	412.33	0.368633163	24.3	8.6	6.66	1.3	28
current	37	h	285.88	0.164401809	4.3	14.0	7.30	0.6	7
current	38	h	477.52	0.117272063	21.4	10.0	6.58	1.8	44
current	39	h	212.06	0.188628081	70.0	11.4	5.96	0.3	5
current	40	h	373.06	0.23052337	9.3	16.7	7.70	1.0	21
current	41	h	753.98	0.214859173	7.4	8.0	6.58	1.8	61
current	42	h	659.73	0.171281034	55.8	12.6	5.50	0.5	21
current	44	h	223.84	0.397608139	58.4	5.0	5.24	1.6	8
current	47	h	213.63	0.402568385	12.8	18.4	7.90	1.6	25
current	52	h	628.32	0.022281692	14.3	6.0	6.80	1.5	11
current	55	h	333.79	0.107850879	33.3	3.2	3.68	2.0	20
current	56	h	628.32	0.031830989	5.0	1.0	3.20	0.0	19
current	57	h	471.24	0.265258238	52.0	6.4	5.50	1.3	28
current	58	h	824.67	0.1067096	3.4	5.3	3.33	0.6	19
This is a portion of the data; to view all the data, please download the file.

Dataset 1.The reproductive effects of reduced pollen deposition via exclosures and hand pollination on the cushion plant S. acaulis.

S. acaulis is an important alpine plant species commonly demonstrated to have positive impacts on other plants and insects. In this experiment, we covered sets of plants (gynodioecious species with hermaphrodite and female flowers) with mesh with hand pollination only to examine the relative importance of pollen load as a potential stressor in alpine ecosystems.

Discussion

Pollinator declines and climate mismatches are important in understanding the capacity for alpine plants to respond to possible future scenarios with reduced pollen loads. Using the cushion plant S. acaulis, we tested two predictions associated with the reproductive assurance hypothesis and more broadly we investigated whether pollination stress influences plant-plant interactions. All predictions were supported. Females were more sensitive than hermaphrodites to reduced pollen loads resulting in reproductive output dropping to below twice that of hermaphrodites. As the pollen supply conditions became more stressful (i.e. reduced), beneficiary plant species on these cushions positively related to the percent fruit-set of the cushions. Hence, the reproductive assurance hypothesis and use of pollen reduction experiments can be important tools for ecological experiments on the responsiveness of alpine plant-pollinator systems to future changes in pollen availability. Importantly, loss of keystone alpine plant species such as cushions may in turn have significant and reciprocal negative impacts on the pollinator communities.

Pollinator declines and plant-pollinator mismatches are important potential drivers of broad plant-community dynamics in the alpine if dominant cushion plant species are impacted because they often function as keystone plant species (Arroyo et al., 2003; Bertness & Callaway, 1994; Callaway & Walker, 1997; Cavieres et al., 2006; Molenda et al., 2012; Butterfield et al., 2013; McIntire & Fajardo, 2014). Current trends of decreasing native pollinator populations are a pressing concern globally (Memmott et al., 2007; Potts et al., 2010; Bartomeus & Winfree, 2013). In these alpine environments, bumblebees in particular are suggested to be critical because they are the most effective alpine pollinator in these ecosystems (Bingham & Orthner, 1998; Chittka et al., 1999; Gegear & Laverty, 1998), and for instance, because some alpine bumblebee populations are in decline (Colla & Ratti, 2010). The future scenario that pollinators may emerge before flowers are in bloom due to a warming climate has also been proposed (Hegland et al., 2009) and shown in the alpine environments of Japan (Kudo, 2013). Although it may not mimic the exact future pollen deposition rates, the experimental design tested herein begins to explore how alpine plants may respond to reduced-pollen loads. Differences in reproduction between alpine plant genders are thus a critical avenue of research and are important because cushion plants are common facilitators (for instance, see meta-analysis in Liczner & Lortie, 2014).

Two findings were particularly useful from an ecological perspective. Female cushion plants became less viable under reduced pollen loads and the stress gradient hypothesis was supported as means to model a gradient of pollen deposition rates because it is also clearly a potential limitation in some stressful ecosystems. Percent fruit-set was the only measure that indicated a drop in female viability. Indeed, this more than compensated for female plants’ reproductive disadvantage over hermaphrodite plants. Hence, a reasonable proxy or single measure to consider in similar future studies using dominant cushion plants is percent fruit-set only. Interestingly, our results also supported the application of the stress gradient hypothesis to pollen limitation in addition to its original formulation for environmental stress or consumer pressure. The relationship between beneficiary abundance and percent fruit-set shifted from negative to positive as the pollination rates were reduced. This supports previous findings that under current pollination to the plant community, beneficiary plants living on cushions generally have a cost associated with the cushion plants’ reproductive fitness (Cranston et al., 2012; Schöb et al., 2013). The findings here however also further suggest that under reduced pollen loads this cost of facilitation can be diminished likely because competition between cushions and the other species is significantly reduced. Clearly, additional research is needed to identify the causal relationships between plant-plant interactions and plant-pollinator interactions with dominant plant species that host other species in stressful environments such as the alpine.

Data availability

F1000Research: Dataset 1. The reproductive effects of reduced pollen deposition via exclosures and hand pollination on the cushion plant Silene acaulis, 10.5256/f1000research.4382.d29313 (Reid et al., 2014).

Author contributions

AR and CJL wrote the paper and analyzed the data. AR, RH and OM performed the experiments and collected the data. All authors read and approved the final content of the manuscript.

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This research was funded by an NSERC DG and an NSERC Canadian Pollination Initiative (CANPOLIN) grant to CJL. AR was funded by an Ontario Graduate Scholarship and two York University Faculty of Graduate Studies research grants. RH was funded by NSERC URSA. OM was funded through York University Department of Biology.

Acknowledgements

This is publication #26 of NSERC-CANPOLIN.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

Alexander HM, Antonovics J: Disease spread and population dynamics of anther-smut infection of Silene alba cause by the fungus Ustilago violacea. J Ecol. 1988; 76: 91–104. Publisher Full Text
Arroyo MTK, Armesto JJ, Primack RB: Community studies in pollination ecology in the high temperate Andes of Central Chile II. Effect of temperature on visitation rates on pollination possibilities. Plant Syst Evol. 1985; 149(3–4): 187–203. Publisher Full Text
Arroyo MTK, Cavieres LA, Peñaloza A, et al.: Positive associations between the cushion plant Azorella monantha (Apiaceae) and alpine plant species in the Chilean Patagonian Andes. Plant Ecol. 2003; 169(1): 121–129. Publisher Full Text
Arroyo MTK, Primack R, Armesto J: Community studies in pollination ecology in the high temperate Andes of Central Chile. I. Pollination mechanisms and altitudinal variation. Amer J Bot. 1982; 69(1): 82–97. Publisher Full Text
Arroyo MTK, Squeo F: Relationship between plant breeding systems and pollination. Academic Press, London. 1990. Reference Source
Ayres MP: Plant defense, herbivory, and climate change. in Kareiva, P.M., Kingsolver, J.G. and Huey, R.B., editors. Biotic interactions and global change. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, M.A. 1993; 75–94. Reference Source
Baker HG: Infection of species of Melandrium by Ustilago violacea (Pers) Fuckel and the transmission of the resultant disease. Ann Bot. 1947; 11(3): 333–348. Reference Source
Bartomeus I, Winfree R: Pollinator declines: reconciling scales and implications for ecosystem services. F1000Research. 2013; 2: 146. Publisher Full Text
Baskin CC, Baskin JM: Seeds: ecology, biogeography, and evolution of dormancy and germination. Academic Press, London. 1998. Reference Source
Bertness M, Callaway RM: Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol Evol. 1994; 9(5): 191–193. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Billings WD: Constraints to plant growth, reproduction, and establishment in arctic environments. Arct Alp Res. 1987; 19(4): 357–365. Publisher Full Text
Bingham RA, Orthner AR: Efficient pollination of alpine plants. Nature. 1998; 391: 238–239. Publisher Full Text
Butterfield BJ, Cavieres LA, Callaway RM, et al.: Alpine cushion plants inhibit the loss of phylogenetic diversity in severe environments. Ecol Lett. 2013; 16(4): 478–486. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Callaway RM, Walker LR: Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology. 1997; 78(7): 1958–1965. Publisher Full Text
Cavieres LA, Badano EI: Do facilitative interactions increase species richness at the entire community level? J Ecol 2009; 97(6): 1181–1191. Publisher Full Text
Cavieres LA, Badano EI, Sierra-Almeida A, et al.: Positive interactions between alpine plant species and the nurse cushion plant Laretia acaulis do not increase with elevation in the Andes of central Chile. New Phytol. 2006; 169(1): 59–69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Charnov EL: The theory of sex allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. 1982. Reference Source
Chittka L, Thomson JD, Waser NM: Flower constancy, insect psychology, and plant evolution. Naturwissenschaften. 1999; 86(8): 361–377. Publisher Full Text
Colla SR, Ratti CM: Evidence for the decline of the western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis Greene) in British Columbia. Pan-Pacific Entomologist. 2010; 86(2): 32–34. Publisher Full Text
Cranston BH, Callaway RM, Monks A, et al.: Gender and abiotic stress affect community-scale intensity of facilitation and its costs. J Ecol. 2012; 100: 915–922. Publisher Full Text
Delph LF, Bailey MF, Marr DL: Seed provisioning in gynodioecious Silene acaulis (Caryophyllaceae). Am J Bot. 1999; 86(1): 140–144. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Delph LF, Carroll SB: Factors affecting relative seed fitness and female frequency in a gynodioecious species, Silene acaulis. Evol Ecol Res. 2001; 3: 487–505. Reference Source
Donnelly SE, Lortie CJ, Aarssen LW: Pollination in Verbascum thapsus (Scrophulariaceae): the advantages of being tall. Am J Bot. 1998; 85(11): 1618–1625. PubMed Abstract
García-Camacho R, Totland Ø: Pollen limitation in the alpine: A meta-analysis. Arct Antarc Alp Res. 2009; 41(1): 103–111. Publisher Full Text
Gegear RJ, Laverty TM: How many flower types can bumble bees work at the same time? Can J Zool. 1998; 76(7): 1358–1365. Publisher Full Text
He Q, Bertness MD, Altieri AH: Global shifts towards positive species interactions with increasing environmental stress. Ecol Lett. 2013; 16(5): 695–706. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Hegland SJ, Nielsen A, Lázaro A, et al.: How does climate warming affect plant-pollinator interactions? Ecol Lett. 2009; 12(2): 184–195. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Hermanutz LA, Innes DJ: Gender variation in Silene acaulis (Caryophyllaceae). Plant Syst Evol. 1994; 191(1–2): 69–81. Publisher Full Text
Hitchcock CL, Maguire B: A revision of the North American species of Silene. Seattle University of Washington Press, Seattle. 1947.
IPCC. 5th Annual Report. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. 2013. Reference Source
Kevan PG: Insect pollination of high arctic flowers. J Ecol. 1972; 60(3): 831–847. Publisher Full Text
Körner C: Alpine plant life. 2nd edition. Springer, Berlin. 1999. Publisher Full Text
Kudo G: Vulnerability of phenological synchrony between plants and pollinators in an alpine ecosystem. Ecol Res. 2013. Publisher Full Text
Larson BMH, Barrett SCH: A comparative analysis of pollen limitation in flowering plants. Biol J Linn Soc. 2000; 69(4): 503–520. Publisher Full Text
Lewis DG: Male sterility in natural populations of hermaphrodite plants. New Phytologist. 1941; 40(1): 56–63. Publisher Full Text
Liczner AR, Lortie CJ: A global meta-analytic contrast of cushion-plant effects on plants and on arthropods. PeerJ. 2014; 2: e265. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Lloyd DG: Self- and cross-fertilization in plants. II. The selection of self-fertilization. Int J Plant Sci. 1992; 153(3): 370–380. Publisher Full Text
Lloyd DG, Schoen DJ: Self- and cross-fertilization in plants. I. Functional dimensions. Int J Plant Sci. 1992; 153(3): 358–369. Publisher Full Text
Marr DL: Impact of a pollinator-transmitted disease on reproduction in healthy Silene acaulis. Ecology. 1997; 78(5): 1471–1480. Publisher Full Text
McIntire EJB, Fajardo A: Facilitation as a ubiquitous driver of biodiversity. New Phytol. 2014; 201(2): 403–416. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Memmott J, Craze PG, Waser NM, et al.: Global warming and the disruption of plant-pollinator interactions. Ecol Lett. 2007; 10(8): 710–717. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Milbau A, Graae BJ, Shevtsova A, et al.: Effects of a warmer climate on seed germination in the subarctic. Ann Bot. 2009; 104(2): 287–296. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Moldenke AR, Lincoln PG: Pollination Ecology in Montane Colorado: A Community Analysis. Phytologia. 1979; 42(4): 349–379. Reference Source
Molenda O, Reid A, Lortie CJ: The alpine cushion plant Silene acaulis as foundation species: a bug’s-eye view to facilitation and microclimate. PLoS One. 2011; 7(5): e37223. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Morgan MT, Wilson WG, Knight TM: Plant population dynamics, pollinator foraging, and the selection of self-fertilization. Am Nat. 2005; 166(2): 169–183. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Morris WF, Doak DF: Life history of the long-lived gynodioecious cushion plant Silene acaulis (Caryophyllaceae), inferred from size-based population projection matrices. Am J Bot. 1998; 85(6): 784–793. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Muñoz AA, Arroyo MTK: Pollen limitation and spatial variation of reproductive success in the insect-pollinated shrub Chuquiraga oppositifolia (Asteraceae) in the Chilean Andes. Arct Antarc Alp Res 2006; 38(4): 608–613. Publisher Full Text
Pojar J, Klinka K, Meidinger DV: Biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification in British Columbia. For Ecol Manage. 1987; 22(1–2): 119–154. Publisher Full Text
Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, et al.: Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010; 25(6): 345–353. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Primack RB: Variability in New Zealand montane and alpine pollinator assemblages. N Z J Ecol. 1978; 1: 66–73. Reference Source
Primack RB: Insect pollination in the New Zealand mountain flora. N Z J Ecol. 1983; 21(3): 317–333. Publisher Full Text
Reid AM, Hooper R, Molenda O, et al.: The reproductive effects of reduced pollen deposition via exclosures and hand pollination on the cushion plant Silene acaulis. 2014. Data Source
Reid AM, Lortie CJ: Cushion plants are foundation species with positive effects extending to higher trophic levels. Ecosphere. 2012; 3(11). Publisher Full Text
Richards AJ: Plant Breeding Systems: Second edition. Chapman & Hall, London. 1997. Reference Source
SAS. Jmp SAS Institute Inc. 2012. Reference Source
Schöb C, Michalet R, Cavieres L, et al.: A global analysis of bidirectional interactions in alpine plant communities show facilitators experiencing strong reciprocal fitness costs. New Phytol. 2014; 202(1): 95–105. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Shykoff JA: Maintenance of gynodioecy in Silene acaulis (Caryophyllaceae): stage-specific fecundity and viability selection. Am J Bot. 1988; 75(6): 844–850. Publisher Full Text
Shykoff JA: Sex polymorphism in Silene acaulis (Caryophyllaceae) and the possible role of sexual selection in maintaining females. Am J Bot. 1992; 79(2): 138–143. Publisher Full Text
Torres-Díaz C, Gómes-González S, Stotz GC, et al.: Extremely long-lived stigmas allow extended cross-pollination opportunities in a high Andean plant. PLoS One. 2011; 6(5): e19497. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Totland Ø: Pollination in alpine Norway: Flowering phenology, insect visitors, and visitation rates in two plant communities. Can J Bot. 1993; 71(8): 1072–1079. Publisher Full Text
Totland Ø, Sottocornola M: Pollen limitation of reproductive success in two sympatric alpine willows (Salicaceae) with contrasting pollination strategies. Am J Bot. 2001; 88(6): 1011–1015. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Utelli AB, Roy BA: Pollinator abundance and behavior on Aconitum lycoctonum (Ranunculaceae): an analysis of the quantity and quality components of pollination. Oikos. 2000; 89(3): 461–470. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 19 Jun 2014

Author details Author details

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 07 Aug 2014, 3:130

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.4382.2

version 1

Published: 19 Jun 2014, 3:130

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.4382.1

© 2014 Reid A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Reid A, Hooper R, Molenda O and Lortie CJ. Ecological implications of reduced pollen deposition in alpine plants: a case study using a dominant cushion plant species [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2014, 3:130 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.4382.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 19 Jun 2014

Views

Reviewer Report 04 Jul 2014

Ernesto Badano, Division of Environmental Sciences, Potosinian Institute of Scientific and Technological Research (IPICYT), San Luis Potosi, Mexico

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.4691.r5194

This is an interesting study dealing with the effects that facilitated plants may have on the performance of the reproductive success of the nurse species. As far as I am aware, this is the first study reporting such effects. The article is well written and is easy to read. The arguments provided in the introduction section support the hypotheses raised by the authors, and the methods used to test these hypotheses are sound. I believe that this paper makes an important contribution to the conceptual framework of positive interactions among plants along environmental gradients, mainly because it helps one to understand the outcome of these interactions in future climate change scenarios. I just have a few comments and queries about the methods used by the authors. The other sections of the article are clear and would not require major improvement.

Materials and Methods: Specific comments

In the subsection “Study species”, several sentences begin with the abbreviated scientific name of species (S. acaulis). Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to use the abbreviated name of the species for beginning a sentence. In this case, the full name of the species should be provided (Silene acaulis) while its abbreviated form (S. acaulis) must be used when the species is mentioned in the middle of a sentence.
In the second paragraph of the subsection “Study species” the authors indicate that, besides S. acaulis, several other plant species are relatively abundant. My question on this issue is: Are all these other species beneficiary of S. acaulis or they are just sharing the habitat with this cushion plant? This should be clarified to understand the aim of testing the Stress Gradient Hypothesis.
In the first paragraph of the subsection “Treatments” the authors indicate that they choose 20 female and male plants for the experiment. This caught my attention because in the previous sections of the article the authors stated that they used a gynodioecious population of S. acaulis and, therefore, male plants should not exist. I think that there is a mistake in this sentence, where instead of “20 female and male plants” the authors should say “20 female plants and plants with hermaphroditic flowers”.

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 07 Jul 2014

Christopher Lortie, York University, Toronto, Canada

07 Jul 2014

Author Response
Our response to Dr Badano’s comments:
1. Completed. Thank you.
2. These species were present both on and beside S. acaulis cushions. This is now clarified.
3. Yes, you are correct. This is now fixed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Our response to Dr Badano’s comments:
Completed. Thank you.

These species were present both on and beside S. acaulis cushions. This is now clarified.

Yes, you are correct. This is now fixed.
Our response to Dr Badano’s comments:
Completed. Thank you.

These species were present both on and beside S. acaulis cushions. This is now clarified.

Yes, you are correct. This is now fixed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 07 Jul 2014

Christopher Lortie, York University, Toronto, Canada

07 Jul 2014

Author Response
Our response to Dr Badano’s comments:
1. Completed. Thank you.
2. These species were present both on and beside S. acaulis cushions. This is now clarified.
3. Yes, you are correct. This is now fixed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Our response to Dr Badano’s comments:
Completed. Thank you.

These species were present both on and beside S. acaulis cushions. This is now clarified.

Yes, you are correct. This is now fixed.
Our response to Dr Badano’s comments:
Completed. Thank you.

These species were present both on and beside S. acaulis cushions. This is now clarified.

Yes, you are correct. This is now fixed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 02 Jul 2014

He Qiang, School of Environment, State Key Laboratory of Water Environment Simulation, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.4691.r5192

This is a well conducted experiment and well written manuscript. It is the first experimental test of the stress-gradient hypothesis under pollen limitation stress, showing how we can further our understanding of plant-plant interactions with a new perspective. In my view, this is a neat paper, though I have some concerns that I hope the author can address in a revision.

The main limitation of this paper is that plant-plant interactions are inferred by association, not experimental removal of neighbours. Although a number of studies from alpine habitats suggest that facilitation can be indicated by positive association relationships, this limitation I feel should be clarified in the paper.

It is also a bit confusing to me why the authors did hand pollination for reduced-pollination treatment plants - was this because reduced-pollination treatment plants did not receive pollination at all without hand pollination? If so, the question would be how the authors controlled the magnitude of hand pollination as compared to natural pollination.

A third issue is that the pollen reduction treatments lacked procedural control. For example, one cannot tell the effect of mesh on the data. Also surely, the authors need to provide some details about the cloth mesh they used, such as mesh size etc.

It is unclear what can be the potential mechanisms for facilitation under pollen limitation. Facilitation in physically stressful habitats is produced by neighbours’ relief of abiotic stress, and in biologically stressful habitats by associational defence. It is not a must for the authors to experimentally demonstrate this in the paper but I think they should at least discuss some of the possibilities. The authors may also want to include descriptions to encourage future research that experimentally tests for these possibilities.

I have several more specific comments:

"Before bud-burst ..." Clarify the start and end dates of your experimental treatments. What is the total duration?
"The first 20 female and male plants found were ..." Does the male here mean "hermaphrodite"? Use terms consistently.
For treatments, how many plants in current pollination treatments are female and male, respectively?
"Reproductive output measures were collected from the 40 ..." 40 hand pollinated, 231 naturally pollinated, this is 271 in total. So this number is inconsistent with the numbers described above: 273 plants were measured. There are three plants that were excluded?
Clarify when the beneficiary abundance was quantified and how this was done. It is the total number of plants living within the cushion. Shouldn't it be density per unit area?
How many beneficiary species occurred within your 273 study cushions? Would it be possible that beneficiary diversity rather than abundance is more likely to affect cushion plant reproductive success?
Actually, the beneficiary increased cushion plant fruit set under reduced pollen limitation. This means the beneficiary was actually a benefactor. This is a bit confusing; might it use neighbours instead?
"we used a generalized linear model (GLM) with Poisson distribution ..." Poisson distribution is often used for positive integer response variables. How about over-dispersion? Over-dispersion can substantially affect significance tests.
"Under the current pollination rates, percent fruit-set and beneficiary abundance are negatively related ..." Did pollination reduction affect the relationship between other reproductive variables and beneficiary abundance?

Overall, this is a great paper. The publication of this paper can be a stimulator of a new direction of positive species interactions with environmental stress.

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Reader Comment 02 Jul 2014

Christopher Lortie, York University, Toronto, Canada

02 Jul 2014

Reader Comment

Fantastic feedback. Thank you. We will address all these comments and revise appropriately.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Fantastic feedback. Thank you. We will address all these comments and revise appropriately.
Fantastic feedback. Thank you. We will address all these comments and revise appropriately.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Author Response 07 Jul 2014

Christopher Lortie, York University, Toronto, Canada

07 Jul 2014

Author Response
Our response to Dr He’s comments:
- The main limitation of this paper is that plant-plant interactions are inferred by association, not experimental removal of neighbors. Although a number of studies from
... Continue reading
Our response to Dr He’s comments:
The main limitation of this paper is that plant-plant interactions are inferred by association, not experimental removal of neighbors. Although a number of studies from alpine habitats suggest that facilitation can be indicated by positive association relationships, this limitation I feel should be clarified in the paper.

The following sentence was added to the ‘Data analysis’ section, “As there was no experimental removal of beneficiaries, interactions are inferred by association”.

...how the authors controlled the magnitude of hand pollination as compared to natural pollination.

The following sentences were added to the ‘Treatment’ section, “To experimentally reduce plant pollination, plants were covered with mesh and hand pollinated three times over the duration of the snow-free season. It is assumed that plants that are covered and hand pollinated three times receive less pollen than the plant open to natural pollination during the 33 snow-free days.”

A third issue is that the pollen reduction treatments lacked procedural control. ...Also surely, the authors need to provide some details about the cloth mesh they used, such as mesh size etc.

It is not really possible to put mesh on without influencing pollinators so this was not conducted. We used fine cloth mesh purchased from a fabric store. It was flexible and durable. This was added to the methods section. See reference Donnelly et al. 1998.

It is unclear what can be the potential mechanisms for facilitation under pollen limitation. ...It's not a must for the authors to experimentally demonstrate this in the paper. But I think at least they should discuss some of the possibilities. The authors may also want to include descriptions to encourage future research that experimentally tests for these possibilities.

Good point. I think it may be too premature to assert possible reasons for this response. We do highlight the need for further research on this topic in the sentence, “Clearly, additional research is needed to identify the causal mechanisms between plant-plant interactions and plant-pollinator interactions with dominant plant species that host other species.”

Responses to specific comments:
Added from June 26^th to August 29^th, 2010.
Yes, great point. Revised.
Added; 124 were female and 107 were hermaphrodites.
A total of 271 S. acaulis plants were measured.
Yes, but we do not have % area covered unfortunately. We took measures of beneficiary abundance and richness.
We checked beneficiary diversity and found that it was not strongly related, but that beneficiary abundance was a more informative measure. There were 16 other plant species growing on the cushions.
I think introducing a new term would cause confusion not add clarity. They are the same plants they just appear to switch roles (competitor to facilitator) depending on pollen supply.
The over-dispersion tests in the GLM did change some of the p-values of the factors but not near the alpha of p < 0.05.
This pattern is consistent in the measure of seeds/fruit but not the other measures of reproductive output.
Our response to Dr He’s comments:
The main limitation of this paper is that plant-plant interactions are inferred by association, not experimental removal of neighbors. Although a number of studies from alpine habitats suggest that facilitation can be indicated by positive association relationships, this limitation I feel should be clarified in the paper.

The following sentence was added to the ‘Data analysis’ section, “As there was no experimental removal of beneficiaries, interactions are inferred by association”.

...how the authors controlled the magnitude of hand pollination as compared to natural pollination.

The following sentences were added to the ‘Treatment’ section, “To experimentally reduce plant pollination, plants were covered with mesh and hand pollinated three times over the duration of the snow-free season. It is assumed that plants that are covered and hand pollinated three times receive less pollen than the plant open to natural pollination during the 33 snow-free days.”

A third issue is that the pollen reduction treatments lacked procedural control. ...Also surely, the authors need to provide some details about the cloth mesh they used, such as mesh size etc.

It is not really possible to put mesh on without influencing pollinators so this was not conducted. We used fine cloth mesh purchased from a fabric store. It was flexible and durable. This was added to the methods section. See reference Donnelly et al. 1998.

It is unclear what can be the potential mechanisms for facilitation under pollen limitation. ...It's not a must for the authors to experimentally demonstrate this in the paper. But I think at least they should discuss some of the possibilities. The authors may also want to include descriptions to encourage future research that experimentally tests for these possibilities.

Good point. I think it may be too premature to assert possible reasons for this response. We do highlight the need for further research on this topic in the sentence, “Clearly, additional research is needed to identify the causal mechanisms between plant-plant interactions and plant-pollinator interactions with dominant plant species that host other species.”

Responses to specific comments:
Added from June 26^th to August 29^th, 2010.
Yes, great point. Revised.
Added; 124 were female and 107 were hermaphrodites.
A total of 271 S. acaulis plants were measured.
Yes, but we do not have % area covered unfortunately. We took measures of beneficiary abundance and richness.
We checked beneficiary diversity and found that it was not strongly related, but that beneficiary abundance was a more informative measure. There were 16 other plant species growing on the cushions.
I think introducing a new term would cause confusion not add clarity. They are the same plants they just appear to switch roles (competitor to facilitator) depending on pollen supply.
The over-dispersion tests in the GLM did change some of the p-values of the factors but not near the alpha of p < 0.05.
This pattern is consistent in the measure of seeds/fruit but not the other measures of reproductive output.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Reader Comment 02 Jul 2014

Christopher Lortie, York University, Toronto, Canada

02 Jul 2014

Reader Comment

Fantastic feedback. Thank you. We will address all these comments and revise appropriately.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Fantastic feedback. Thank you. We will address all these comments and revise appropriately.
Fantastic feedback. Thank you. We will address all these comments and revise appropriately.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Author Response 07 Jul 2014

Christopher Lortie, York University, Toronto, Canada

07 Jul 2014

Author Response
Our response to Dr He’s comments:
- The main limitation of this paper is that plant-plant interactions are inferred by association, not experimental removal of neighbors. Although a number of studies from
... Continue reading
Our response to Dr He’s comments:
The main limitation of this paper is that plant-plant interactions are inferred by association, not experimental removal of neighbors. Although a number of studies from alpine habitats suggest that facilitation can be indicated by positive association relationships, this limitation I feel should be clarified in the paper.

The following sentence was added to the ‘Data analysis’ section, “As there was no experimental removal of beneficiaries, interactions are inferred by association”.

...how the authors controlled the magnitude of hand pollination as compared to natural pollination.

The following sentences were added to the ‘Treatment’ section, “To experimentally reduce plant pollination, plants were covered with mesh and hand pollinated three times over the duration of the snow-free season. It is assumed that plants that are covered and hand pollinated three times receive less pollen than the plant open to natural pollination during the 33 snow-free days.”

A third issue is that the pollen reduction treatments lacked procedural control. ...Also surely, the authors need to provide some details about the cloth mesh they used, such as mesh size etc.

It is not really possible to put mesh on without influencing pollinators so this was not conducted. We used fine cloth mesh purchased from a fabric store. It was flexible and durable. This was added to the methods section. See reference Donnelly et al. 1998.

It is unclear what can be the potential mechanisms for facilitation under pollen limitation. ...It's not a must for the authors to experimentally demonstrate this in the paper. But I think at least they should discuss some of the possibilities. The authors may also want to include descriptions to encourage future research that experimentally tests for these possibilities.

Good point. I think it may be too premature to assert possible reasons for this response. We do highlight the need for further research on this topic in the sentence, “Clearly, additional research is needed to identify the causal mechanisms between plant-plant interactions and plant-pollinator interactions with dominant plant species that host other species.”

Responses to specific comments:
Added from June 26^th to August 29^th, 2010.
Yes, great point. Revised.
Added; 124 were female and 107 were hermaphrodites.
A total of 271 S. acaulis plants were measured.
Yes, but we do not have % area covered unfortunately. We took measures of beneficiary abundance and richness.
We checked beneficiary diversity and found that it was not strongly related, but that beneficiary abundance was a more informative measure. There were 16 other plant species growing on the cushions.
I think introducing a new term would cause confusion not add clarity. They are the same plants they just appear to switch roles (competitor to facilitator) depending on pollen supply.
The over-dispersion tests in the GLM did change some of the p-values of the factors but not near the alpha of p < 0.05.
This pattern is consistent in the measure of seeds/fruit but not the other measures of reproductive output.
Our response to Dr He’s comments:
The main limitation of this paper is that plant-plant interactions are inferred by association, not experimental removal of neighbors. Although a number of studies from alpine habitats suggest that facilitation can be indicated by positive association relationships, this limitation I feel should be clarified in the paper.

The following sentence was added to the ‘Data analysis’ section, “As there was no experimental removal of beneficiaries, interactions are inferred by association”.

...how the authors controlled the magnitude of hand pollination as compared to natural pollination.

The following sentences were added to the ‘Treatment’ section, “To experimentally reduce plant pollination, plants were covered with mesh and hand pollinated three times over the duration of the snow-free season. It is assumed that plants that are covered and hand pollinated three times receive less pollen than the plant open to natural pollination during the 33 snow-free days.”

A third issue is that the pollen reduction treatments lacked procedural control. ...Also surely, the authors need to provide some details about the cloth mesh they used, such as mesh size etc.

It is not really possible to put mesh on without influencing pollinators so this was not conducted. We used fine cloth mesh purchased from a fabric store. It was flexible and durable. This was added to the methods section. See reference Donnelly et al. 1998.

It is unclear what can be the potential mechanisms for facilitation under pollen limitation. ...It's not a must for the authors to experimentally demonstrate this in the paper. But I think at least they should discuss some of the possibilities. The authors may also want to include descriptions to encourage future research that experimentally tests for these possibilities.

Good point. I think it may be too premature to assert possible reasons for this response. We do highlight the need for further research on this topic in the sentence, “Clearly, additional research is needed to identify the causal mechanisms between plant-plant interactions and plant-pollinator interactions with dominant plant species that host other species.”

Responses to specific comments:
Added from June 26^th to August 29^th, 2010.
Yes, great point. Revised.
Added; 124 were female and 107 were hermaphrodites.
A total of 271 S. acaulis plants were measured.
Yes, but we do not have % area covered unfortunately. We took measures of beneficiary abundance and richness.
We checked beneficiary diversity and found that it was not strongly related, but that beneficiary abundance was a more informative measure. There were 16 other plant species growing on the cushions.
I think introducing a new term would cause confusion not add clarity. They are the same plants they just appear to switch roles (competitor to facilitator) depending on pollen supply.
The over-dispersion tests in the GLM did change some of the p-values of the factors but not near the alpha of p < 0.05.
This pattern is consistent in the measure of seeds/fruit but not the other measures of reproductive output.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 02 Jul 2014

Fabio Bulleri, Dipartimento di Biologia, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.4691.r5191

This is an interesting article reporting on a study investigating how reduced pollen supply influences reproduction of self-compatible versus self-incompatible plants of an alpine cushion species and its interaction with associated species. The main strength of the study is that of providing hints on the potential role that factors other than environmental conditions can play in modulating species interactions. In a relatively recent work by Maestre et al. (2009), stress has been divided into two major types, resource and non-resource. I am not sure whether pollen availability can be seen as a resource, but I would not have major issues with viewing pollinator availability as a quantifiable, limiting resource. Maybe, these concepts could be touched upon somewhere in the Introduction.

The main weakness of the study is the lack of quantification of pollen delivery in different treatments: I think the authors should try to give the reader, at the very least, a gross idea of the order of magnitude of differences between natural and artificial pollen supply. The second point is that there is not a formal gradient of pollen supply, as this implies more than two levels. This does not impinge on the robustness of the results, but limits the insight the study offers into the Stress Gradient Hypothesis.

Finally, both in the Abstract and M&M I did not get clearly who the benefactors and beneficiary were. Actually, only from the Results did I understand that you were analyzing the effects of species hosted by the cushion on the cushion-forming species. I sense that referring to the cushion and associated species might be a better solution.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Introduction

It is not clear what grounds the alternative model for pollinator abundance (increasing with elevation) in alpine environments builds upon.
In the Introduction, you refer to the stress source sometimes as ‘pollination supply’ and sometimes as ‘reduced pollen’ or ‘less pollen’. It would be useful to specify if the limiting resource is pollen supply (which implies reduced production by plants) or pollinator abundance (I guess the second, from the model you propose in the Introduction).
Is there any evidence of competition between hermaphrodite and female plants when pollen is not limiting?

Material & Methods

You need to be consistent in the way you refer to hermaphrodite plants.
Some plants could receive pollen from insects while others were covered with mesh and hand-pollinated. It is not clear how insect versus hand pollination generated a gradient of pollen supply. Do you assume that delivery of pollen by insect was much higher? If so, which order of magnitude?
“Instead of testing the effect of beneficiaries on measures of reproductive success over a range of environmental gradients (Bertness & Callaway, 1994) we tested whether variation in the current and experimentally reduced pollen supply can be viewed as potential stressor.” Again, it is not clear here who is expected to be facilitated and by whom (see my general comments). Likely, it would be useful to be more specific in your predictions at the end of the Introduction. Also, switch beneficiary and % fruit set in the last sentence of the Abstract (the way it is, it suggests that you are mainly looking at effect of fruit set on beneficiary abundance).

Results

Estimates of effects could be reported in Tables, so as to give an idea of their direction.
The relationship with beneficiary abundance explains little variation in % fruit set (Fig. 3), suggesting that other factors are of overwhelming importance. This point should be made clear in the Discussion.

Discussion

It would be interesting if the authors could offer a possible explanation for a positive relationship between beneficiary abundance and % fruit set under reduced pollen supply. What are the potential mechanisms?

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Reader Comment 02 Jul 2014

Christopher Lortie, York University, Toronto, Canada

02 Jul 2014

Reader Comment

Thank you for the suggestions. We will address all of them and provide a revised version.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Thank you for the suggestions. We will address all of them and provide a revised version.
Thank you for the suggestions. We will address all of them and provide a revised version.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Author Response 08 Jul 2014

Christopher Lortie, York University, Toronto, Canada

08 Jul 2014

Author Response
Our response to Dr Bulleri’s comments:
- I am not sure whether pollen availability can be seen as a resource, but I would not have major issues with viewing pollinator availability as
... Continue reading
Our response to Dr Bulleri’s comments:
I am not sure whether pollen availability can be seen as a resource, but I would not have major issues with viewing pollinator availability as a quantifiable, limiting resource. Maybe, these concepts could be touched upon somewhere in the Introduction.

This is a good point. This is now added in the Abstract and made clearer in the introduction.

I think the authors should try to give the reader, at the very least, a gross idea of the order of magnitude of differences between natural and artificial pollen supply.

Unfortunately this is very difficult as there is no estimation of current pollen deposition rates. This limitation has been more clearly stated now in the following sentence, “It is assumed that plants that are covered and hand pollinated three times receive less pollen than the plant open to natural pollination during the 33 snow-free days”.

The second point is that there is not a formal gradient of pollen supply, as this implies more than two levels. This does not impinge on the robustness of the results, but limits the insight the study offers into the Stress Gradient Hypothesis.

Agreed. This is clearly stated in the following sentence, “Instead of testing the effect of beneficiaries on measures of reproductive success over a range of environmental gradients (Bertness and Callaway 1994) we test this effect under two pollen regimes: current and reduced”.

It is not clear what grounds the alternative model for pollinator abundance (increasing with elevation) in alpine environments builds upon.

Good question. Unfortunately, there is really no model for pollinator abundance in the alpine/on elevation gradients. We would love to develop one though but likely not in the context of this outcrossing experiment as it is focused on botany and ecology. We hope that the proposal that pollen limitation is a potential stressor can lead to the expansion of this set of theory. Nice opportunity for the future.

In the Introduction, you refer to the stress source sometimes as ‘pollination supply’ and sometimes as ‘reduced pollen’ or ‘less pollen’. It would be useful to specify if the limiting resource is pollen supply (which implies reduced production by plants) or pollinator abundance (I guess the second, from the model you propose in the Introduction).

Yes, great. Thank you.

Is there any evidence of competition between hermaphrodite and female plants when pollen is not limiting?

Yes. See Figure 3 and the following sentence in the results, “Under the current pollination rates, percent fruit-set and beneficiary abundance are negatively related (slope = -0.48, R²= 0.04, Figure 3).”

Material & Methods
You need to be consistent in the way you refer to hermaphrodite plants.

Revised.

Some plants could receive pollen from insects while others were covered with mesh and hand-pollinated. It is not clear how insect versus hand pollination generated a gradient of pollen supply. Do you assume that delivery of pollen by insect was much higher? If so, which order of magnitude?

Yes, the assumption is that the plants that had pollen delivered by insects received more pollen because they could receive pollen every day compared to the three hand-pollination events. The order of magnitude of this difference would be purely a guess. This is a very important assumption and limitation of this study.

Again, it is not clear here who is expected to be facilitated and by whom (see my general comments). Likely, it would be useful to be more specific in your predictions at the end of the Introduction.

Revised, thank you. “Specifically, we predict facilitation between cushions and beneficiaries to increase when pollen supply is reduced.”

Also, switch beneficiary and % fruit set in the last sentence of the Abstract (the way it is, it suggests that you are mainly looking at effect of fruit set on beneficiary abundance).

Revised and clearer now.

Results
Estimates of effects could be reported in Tables, so as to give an idea of their direction.

Good idea Fabio. We chose to do stats on the primary dataset and not calculate derived data such as effect size measures (Rii) for two reasons. We were not confident that Rii, now common in facilitation studies, was appropriate to the treatments here and secondly that we elected to visualize percent change in Figure 1. We feel that figure one does a good job of showing the strength of evidence, i.e. effects, and that a table was thus not needed. Let us know if you think we should also include the data from this figure in a table but we think the current figure gives a good overview of the evidence/biological significance.

The relationship with beneficiary abundance explains little variation in % fruit set (Fig. 3), suggesting that other factors are of overwhelming importance. This point should be made clear in the Discussion.

The following sentence has been added to the discussion, “That beneficiary abundance explains little variation in percent fruit-set (low correlation coefficients), suggests that other variables are of greater importance in determining percent fruit-set.”

Discussion
It would be interesting if the authors could offer a possible explanation for a positive relationship between beneficiary abundance and % fruit set under reduced pollen supply. What are the potential mechanisms?

Good point. I think it may be too premature to assert possible reasons for this response. We do highlight the need for further research on this topic in the sentence, “Clearly, additional research is needed to identify the causal mechanisms between plant-plant interactions and plant-pollinator interactions with dominant plant species that host other species.”
Our response to Dr Bulleri’s comments:
I am not sure whether pollen availability can be seen as a resource, but I would not have major issues with viewing pollinator availability as a quantifiable, limiting resource. Maybe, these concepts could be touched upon somewhere in the Introduction.

This is a good point. This is now added in the Abstract and made clearer in the introduction.

I think the authors should try to give the reader, at the very least, a gross idea of the order of magnitude of differences between natural and artificial pollen supply.

Unfortunately this is very difficult as there is no estimation of current pollen deposition rates. This limitation has been more clearly stated now in the following sentence, “It is assumed that plants that are covered and hand pollinated three times receive less pollen than the plant open to natural pollination during the 33 snow-free days”.

The second point is that there is not a formal gradient of pollen supply, as this implies more than two levels. This does not impinge on the robustness of the results, but limits the insight the study offers into the Stress Gradient Hypothesis.

Agreed. This is clearly stated in the following sentence, “Instead of testing the effect of beneficiaries on measures of reproductive success over a range of environmental gradients (Bertness and Callaway 1994) we test this effect under two pollen regimes: current and reduced”.

It is not clear what grounds the alternative model for pollinator abundance (increasing with elevation) in alpine environments builds upon.

Good question. Unfortunately, there is really no model for pollinator abundance in the alpine/on elevation gradients. We would love to develop one though but likely not in the context of this outcrossing experiment as it is focused on botany and ecology. We hope that the proposal that pollen limitation is a potential stressor can lead to the expansion of this set of theory. Nice opportunity for the future.

In the Introduction, you refer to the stress source sometimes as ‘pollination supply’ and sometimes as ‘reduced pollen’ or ‘less pollen’. It would be useful to specify if the limiting resource is pollen supply (which implies reduced production by plants) or pollinator abundance (I guess the second, from the model you propose in the Introduction).

Yes, great. Thank you.

Is there any evidence of competition between hermaphrodite and female plants when pollen is not limiting?

Yes. See Figure 3 and the following sentence in the results, “Under the current pollination rates, percent fruit-set and beneficiary abundance are negatively related (slope = -0.48, R²= 0.04, Figure 3).”

Material & Methods
You need to be consistent in the way you refer to hermaphrodite plants.

Revised.

Some plants could receive pollen from insects while others were covered with mesh and hand-pollinated. It is not clear how insect versus hand pollination generated a gradient of pollen supply. Do you assume that delivery of pollen by insect was much higher? If so, which order of magnitude?

Yes, the assumption is that the plants that had pollen delivered by insects received more pollen because they could receive pollen every day compared to the three hand-pollination events. The order of magnitude of this difference would be purely a guess. This is a very important assumption and limitation of this study.

Again, it is not clear here who is expected to be facilitated and by whom (see my general comments). Likely, it would be useful to be more specific in your predictions at the end of the Introduction.

Revised, thank you. “Specifically, we predict facilitation between cushions and beneficiaries to increase when pollen supply is reduced.”

Also, switch beneficiary and % fruit set in the last sentence of the Abstract (the way it is, it suggests that you are mainly looking at effect of fruit set on beneficiary abundance).

Revised and clearer now.

Results
Estimates of effects could be reported in Tables, so as to give an idea of their direction.

Good idea Fabio. We chose to do stats on the primary dataset and not calculate derived data such as effect size measures (Rii) for two reasons. We were not confident that Rii, now common in facilitation studies, was appropriate to the treatments here and secondly that we elected to visualize percent change in Figure 1. We feel that figure one does a good job of showing the strength of evidence, i.e. effects, and that a table was thus not needed. Let us know if you think we should also include the data from this figure in a table but we think the current figure gives a good overview of the evidence/biological significance.

The relationship with beneficiary abundance explains little variation in % fruit set (Fig. 3), suggesting that other factors are of overwhelming importance. This point should be made clear in the Discussion.

The following sentence has been added to the discussion, “That beneficiary abundance explains little variation in percent fruit-set (low correlation coefficients), suggests that other variables are of greater importance in determining percent fruit-set.”

Discussion
It would be interesting if the authors could offer a possible explanation for a positive relationship between beneficiary abundance and % fruit set under reduced pollen supply. What are the potential mechanisms?

Good point. I think it may be too premature to assert possible reasons for this response. We do highlight the need for further research on this topic in the sentence, “Clearly, additional research is needed to identify the causal mechanisms between plant-plant interactions and plant-pollinator interactions with dominant plant species that host other species.”
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Reader Comment 02 Jul 2014

Christopher Lortie, York University, Toronto, Canada

02 Jul 2014

Reader Comment

Thank you for the suggestions. We will address all of them and provide a revised version.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Thank you for the suggestions. We will address all of them and provide a revised version.
Thank you for the suggestions. We will address all of them and provide a revised version.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Author Response 08 Jul 2014

Christopher Lortie, York University, Toronto, Canada

08 Jul 2014

Author Response
Our response to Dr Bulleri’s comments:
- I am not sure whether pollen availability can be seen as a resource, but I would not have major issues with viewing pollinator availability as
... Continue reading
Our response to Dr Bulleri’s comments:
I am not sure whether pollen availability can be seen as a resource, but I would not have major issues with viewing pollinator availability as a quantifiable, limiting resource. Maybe, these concepts could be touched upon somewhere in the Introduction.

This is a good point. This is now added in the Abstract and made clearer in the introduction.

I think the authors should try to give the reader, at the very least, a gross idea of the order of magnitude of differences between natural and artificial pollen supply.

Unfortunately this is very difficult as there is no estimation of current pollen deposition rates. This limitation has been more clearly stated now in the following sentence, “It is assumed that plants that are covered and hand pollinated three times receive less pollen than the plant open to natural pollination during the 33 snow-free days”.

The second point is that there is not a formal gradient of pollen supply, as this implies more than two levels. This does not impinge on the robustness of the results, but limits the insight the study offers into the Stress Gradient Hypothesis.

Agreed. This is clearly stated in the following sentence, “Instead of testing the effect of beneficiaries on measures of reproductive success over a range of environmental gradients (Bertness and Callaway 1994) we test this effect under two pollen regimes: current and reduced”.

It is not clear what grounds the alternative model for pollinator abundance (increasing with elevation) in alpine environments builds upon.

Good question. Unfortunately, there is really no model for pollinator abundance in the alpine/on elevation gradients. We would love to develop one though but likely not in the context of this outcrossing experiment as it is focused on botany and ecology. We hope that the proposal that pollen limitation is a potential stressor can lead to the expansion of this set of theory. Nice opportunity for the future.

In the Introduction, you refer to the stress source sometimes as ‘pollination supply’ and sometimes as ‘reduced pollen’ or ‘less pollen’. It would be useful to specify if the limiting resource is pollen supply (which implies reduced production by plants) or pollinator abundance (I guess the second, from the model you propose in the Introduction).

Yes, great. Thank you.

Is there any evidence of competition between hermaphrodite and female plants when pollen is not limiting?

Yes. See Figure 3 and the following sentence in the results, “Under the current pollination rates, percent fruit-set and beneficiary abundance are negatively related (slope = -0.48, R²= 0.04, Figure 3).”

Material & Methods
You need to be consistent in the way you refer to hermaphrodite plants.

Revised.

Some plants could receive pollen from insects while others were covered with mesh and hand-pollinated. It is not clear how insect versus hand pollination generated a gradient of pollen supply. Do you assume that delivery of pollen by insect was much higher? If so, which order of magnitude?

Yes, the assumption is that the plants that had pollen delivered by insects received more pollen because they could receive pollen every day compared to the three hand-pollination events. The order of magnitude of this difference would be purely a guess. This is a very important assumption and limitation of this study.

Again, it is not clear here who is expected to be facilitated and by whom (see my general comments). Likely, it would be useful to be more specific in your predictions at the end of the Introduction.

Revised, thank you. “Specifically, we predict facilitation between cushions and beneficiaries to increase when pollen supply is reduced.”

Also, switch beneficiary and % fruit set in the last sentence of the Abstract (the way it is, it suggests that you are mainly looking at effect of fruit set on beneficiary abundance).

Revised and clearer now.

Results
Estimates of effects could be reported in Tables, so as to give an idea of their direction.

Good idea Fabio. We chose to do stats on the primary dataset and not calculate derived data such as effect size measures (Rii) for two reasons. We were not confident that Rii, now common in facilitation studies, was appropriate to the treatments here and secondly that we elected to visualize percent change in Figure 1. We feel that figure one does a good job of showing the strength of evidence, i.e. effects, and that a table was thus not needed. Let us know if you think we should also include the data from this figure in a table but we think the current figure gives a good overview of the evidence/biological significance.

The relationship with beneficiary abundance explains little variation in % fruit set (Fig. 3), suggesting that other factors are of overwhelming importance. This point should be made clear in the Discussion.

The following sentence has been added to the discussion, “That beneficiary abundance explains little variation in percent fruit-set (low correlation coefficients), suggests that other variables are of greater importance in determining percent fruit-set.”

Discussion
It would be interesting if the authors could offer a possible explanation for a positive relationship between beneficiary abundance and % fruit set under reduced pollen supply. What are the potential mechanisms?

Good point. I think it may be too premature to assert possible reasons for this response. We do highlight the need for further research on this topic in the sentence, “Clearly, additional research is needed to identify the causal mechanisms between plant-plant interactions and plant-pollinator interactions with dominant plant species that host other species.”
Our response to Dr Bulleri’s comments:
I am not sure whether pollen availability can be seen as a resource, but I would not have major issues with viewing pollinator availability as a quantifiable, limiting resource. Maybe, these concepts could be touched upon somewhere in the Introduction.

This is a good point. This is now added in the Abstract and made clearer in the introduction.

I think the authors should try to give the reader, at the very least, a gross idea of the order of magnitude of differences between natural and artificial pollen supply.

Unfortunately this is very difficult as there is no estimation of current pollen deposition rates. This limitation has been more clearly stated now in the following sentence, “It is assumed that plants that are covered and hand pollinated three times receive less pollen than the plant open to natural pollination during the 33 snow-free days”.

The second point is that there is not a formal gradient of pollen supply, as this implies more than two levels. This does not impinge on the robustness of the results, but limits the insight the study offers into the Stress Gradient Hypothesis.

Agreed. This is clearly stated in the following sentence, “Instead of testing the effect of beneficiaries on measures of reproductive success over a range of environmental gradients (Bertness and Callaway 1994) we test this effect under two pollen regimes: current and reduced”.

It is not clear what grounds the alternative model for pollinator abundance (increasing with elevation) in alpine environments builds upon.

Good question. Unfortunately, there is really no model for pollinator abundance in the alpine/on elevation gradients. We would love to develop one though but likely not in the context of this outcrossing experiment as it is focused on botany and ecology. We hope that the proposal that pollen limitation is a potential stressor can lead to the expansion of this set of theory. Nice opportunity for the future.

In the Introduction, you refer to the stress source sometimes as ‘pollination supply’ and sometimes as ‘reduced pollen’ or ‘less pollen’. It would be useful to specify if the limiting resource is pollen supply (which implies reduced production by plants) or pollinator abundance (I guess the second, from the model you propose in the Introduction).

Yes, great. Thank you.

Is there any evidence of competition between hermaphrodite and female plants when pollen is not limiting?

Yes. See Figure 3 and the following sentence in the results, “Under the current pollination rates, percent fruit-set and beneficiary abundance are negatively related (slope = -0.48, R²= 0.04, Figure 3).”

Material & Methods
You need to be consistent in the way you refer to hermaphrodite plants.

Revised.

Some plants could receive pollen from insects while others were covered with mesh and hand-pollinated. It is not clear how insect versus hand pollination generated a gradient of pollen supply. Do you assume that delivery of pollen by insect was much higher? If so, which order of magnitude?

Yes, the assumption is that the plants that had pollen delivered by insects received more pollen because they could receive pollen every day compared to the three hand-pollination events. The order of magnitude of this difference would be purely a guess. This is a very important assumption and limitation of this study.

Again, it is not clear here who is expected to be facilitated and by whom (see my general comments). Likely, it would be useful to be more specific in your predictions at the end of the Introduction.

Revised, thank you. “Specifically, we predict facilitation between cushions and beneficiaries to increase when pollen supply is reduced.”

Also, switch beneficiary and % fruit set in the last sentence of the Abstract (the way it is, it suggests that you are mainly looking at effect of fruit set on beneficiary abundance).

Revised and clearer now.

Results
Estimates of effects could be reported in Tables, so as to give an idea of their direction.

Good idea Fabio. We chose to do stats on the primary dataset and not calculate derived data such as effect size measures (Rii) for two reasons. We were not confident that Rii, now common in facilitation studies, was appropriate to the treatments here and secondly that we elected to visualize percent change in Figure 1. We feel that figure one does a good job of showing the strength of evidence, i.e. effects, and that a table was thus not needed. Let us know if you think we should also include the data from this figure in a table but we think the current figure gives a good overview of the evidence/biological significance.

The relationship with beneficiary abundance explains little variation in % fruit set (Fig. 3), suggesting that other factors are of overwhelming importance. This point should be made clear in the Discussion.

The following sentence has been added to the discussion, “That beneficiary abundance explains little variation in percent fruit-set (low correlation coefficients), suggests that other variables are of greater importance in determining percent fruit-set.”

Discussion
It would be interesting if the authors could offer a possible explanation for a positive relationship between beneficiary abundance and % fruit set under reduced pollen supply. What are the potential mechanisms?

Good point. I think it may be too premature to assert possible reasons for this response. We do highlight the need for further research on this topic in the sentence, “Clearly, additional research is needed to identify the causal mechanisms between plant-plant interactions and plant-pollinator interactions with dominant plant species that host other species.”
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 19 Jun 2014

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 2 (revision) 07 Aug 14	read
Version 1 19 Jun 14	read	read	read

Fabio Bulleri, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
He Qiang, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
Ernesto Badano, Potosinian Institute of Scientific and Technological Research (IPICYT), San Luis Potosi, Mexico

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

22 Views

14 Aug 2014 | for Version 2

Fabio Bulleri, Dipartimento di Biologia, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy

22 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

I think this new version reads well and no further changes are required. This study will hopefully inspire further research on the mechanisms regulating the impacts of reduced pollination rates on plant communities.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

55 Views

04 Jul 2014 | for Version 1

Ernesto Badano, Division of Environmental Sciences, Potosinian Institute of Scientific and Technological Research (IPICYT), San Luis Potosi, Mexico

55 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

In the subsection “Study species”, several sentences begin with the abbreviated scientific name of species (S. acaulis). Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to use the abbreviated name of the species for beginning a sentence. In this case, the full name of the species should be provided (Silene acaulis) while its abbreviated form (S. acaulis) must be used when the species is mentioned in the middle of a sentence.
In the second paragraph of the subsection “Study species” the authors indicate that, besides S. acaulis, several other plant species are relatively abundant. My question on this issue is: Are all these other species beneficiary of S. acaulis or they are just sharing the habitat with this cushion plant? This should be clarified to understand the aim of testing the Stress Gradient Hypothesis.
In the first paragraph of the subsection “Treatments” the authors indicate that they choose 20 female and male plants for the experiment. This caught my attention because in the previous sections of the article the authors stated that they used a gynodioecious population of S. acaulis and, therefore, male plants should not exist. I think that there is a mistake in this sentence, where instead of “20 female and male plants” the authors should say “20 female plants and plants with hermaphroditic flowers”.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

52 Views

02 Jul 2014 | for Version 1

He Qiang, School of Environment, State Key Laboratory of Water Environment Simulation, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

52 Views Cite this report Responses(2)

Approved

"Before bud-burst ..." Clarify the start and end dates of your experimental treatments. What is the total duration?
"The first 20 female and male plants found were ..." Does the male here mean "hermaphrodite"? Use terms consistently.
For treatments, how many plants in current pollination treatments are female and male, respectively?
"Reproductive output measures were collected from the 40 ..." 40 hand pollinated, 231 naturally pollinated, this is 271 in total. So this number is inconsistent with the numbers described above: 273 plants were measured. There are three plants that were excluded?
Clarify when the beneficiary abundance was quantified and how this was done. It is the total number of plants living within the cushion. Shouldn't it be density per unit area?
How many beneficiary species occurred within your 273 study cushions? Would it be possible that beneficiary diversity rather than abundance is more likely to affect cushion plant reproductive success?
Actually, the beneficiary increased cushion plant fruit set under reduced pollen limitation. This means the beneficiary was actually a benefactor. This is a bit confusing; might it use neighbours instead?
"we used a generalized linear model (GLM) with Poisson distribution ..." Poisson distribution is often used for positive integer response variables. How about over-dispersion? Over-dispersion can substantially affect significance tests.
"Under the current pollination rates, percent fruit-set and beneficiary abundance are negatively related ..." Did pollination reduction affect the relationship between other reproductive variables and beneficiary abundance?

Overall, this is a great paper. The publication of this paper can be a stimulator of a new direction of positive species interactions with environmental stress.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (2)

Author Response

07 Jul 2014

Christopher Lortie, York University, Toronto, Canada

Our response to Dr He’s comments:

The main limitation of this paper is that plant-plant interactions are inferred by association, not experimental removal of neighbors. Although a number of studies from alpine habitats suggest that facilitation can be indicated by positive association relationships, this limitation I feel should be clarified in the paper.

The following sentence was added to the ‘Data analysis’ section, “As there was no experimental removal of beneficiaries, interactions are inferred by association”.
...how the authors controlled the magnitude of hand pollination as compared to natural pollination.

The following sentences were added to the ‘Treatment’ section, “To experimentally reduce plant pollination, plants were covered with mesh and hand pollinated three times over the duration of the snow-free season. It is assumed that plants that are covered and hand pollinated three times receive less pollen than the plant open to natural pollination during the 33 snow-free days.”
A third issue is that the pollen reduction treatments lacked procedural control. ...Also surely, the authors need to provide some details about the cloth mesh they used, such as mesh size etc.

It is not really possible to put mesh on without influencing pollinators so this was not conducted. We used fine cloth mesh purchased from a fabric store. It was flexible and durable. This was added to the methods section. See reference Donnelly et al. 1998.
It is unclear what can be the potential mechanisms for facilitation under pollen limitation. ...It's not a must for the authors to experimentally demonstrate this in the paper. But I think at least they should discuss some of the possibilities. The authors may also want to include descriptions to encourage future research that experimentally tests for these possibilities.

Good point. I think it may be too premature to assert possible reasons for this response. We do highlight the need for further research on this topic in the sentence, “Clearly, additional research is needed to identify the causal mechanisms between plant-plant interactions and plant-pollinator interactions with dominant plant species that host other species.”

Responses to specific comments:

Added from June 26^th to August 29^th, 2010.
Yes, great point. Revised.
Added; 124 were female and 107 were hermaphrodites.
A total of 271 S. acaulis plants were measured.
Yes, but we do not have % area covered unfortunately. We took measures of beneficiary abundance and richness.
We checked beneficiary diversity and found that it was not strongly related, but that beneficiary abundance was a more informative measure. There were 16 other plant species growing on the cushions.
I think introducing a new term would cause confusion not add clarity. They are the same plants they just appear to switch roles (competitor to facilitator) depending on pollen supply.
The over-dispersion tests in the GLM did change some of the p-values of the factors but not near the alpha of p < 0.05.
This pattern is consistent in the measure of seeds/fruit but not the other measures of reproductive output.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

57 Views

02 Jul 2014 | for Version 1

Fabio Bulleri, Dipartimento di Biologia, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy

57 Views Cite this report Responses(2)

Approved With Reservations

It is not clear what grounds the alternative model for pollinator abundance (increasing with elevation) in alpine environments builds upon.
In the Introduction, you refer to the stress source sometimes as ‘pollination supply’ and sometimes as ‘reduced pollen’ or ‘less pollen’. It would be useful to specify if the limiting resource is pollen supply (which implies reduced production by plants) or pollinator abundance (I guess the second, from the model you propose in the Introduction).
Is there any evidence of competition between hermaphrodite and female plants when pollen is not limiting?

Material & Methods

You need to be consistent in the way you refer to hermaphrodite plants.
Some plants could receive pollen from insects while others were covered with mesh and hand-pollinated. It is not clear how insect versus hand pollination generated a gradient of pollen supply. Do you assume that delivery of pollen by insect was much higher? If so, which order of magnitude?
“Instead of testing the effect of beneficiaries on measures of reproductive success over a range of environmental gradients (Bertness & Callaway, 1994) we tested whether variation in the current and experimentally reduced pollen supply can be viewed as potential stressor.” Again, it is not clear here who is expected to be facilitated and by whom (see my general comments). Likely, it would be useful to be more specific in your predictions at the end of the Introduction. Also, switch beneficiary and % fruit set in the last sentence of the Abstract (the way it is, it suggests that you are mainly looking at effect of fruit set on beneficiary abundance).

Results

Estimates of effects could be reported in Tables, so as to give an idea of their direction.
The relationship with beneficiary abundance explains little variation in % fruit set (Fig. 3), suggesting that other factors are of overwhelming importance. This point should be made clear in the Discussion.

Discussion

It would be interesting if the authors could offer a possible explanation for a positive relationship between beneficiary abundance and % fruit set under reduced pollen supply. What are the potential mechanisms?

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Respond to this report

Responses (2)

Author Response

08 Jul 2014

Christopher Lortie, York University, Toronto, Canada

Our response to Dr Bulleri’s comments:

I am not sure whether pollen availability can be seen as a resource, but I would not have major issues with viewing pollinator availability as a quantifiable, limiting resource. Maybe, these concepts could be touched upon somewhere in the Introduction.

This is a good point. This is now added in the Abstract and made clearer in the introduction.
I think the authors should try to give the reader, at the very least, a gross idea of the order of magnitude of differences between natural and artificial pollen supply.

Unfortunately this is very difficult as there is no estimation of current pollen deposition rates. This limitation has been more clearly stated now in the following sentence, “It is assumed that plants that are covered and hand pollinated three times receive less pollen than the plant open to natural pollination during the 33 snow-free days”.
The second point is that there is not a formal gradient of pollen supply, as this implies more than two levels. This does not impinge on the robustness of the results, but limits the insight the study offers into the Stress Gradient Hypothesis.

Agreed. This is clearly stated in the following sentence, “Instead of testing the effect of beneficiaries on measures of reproductive success over a range of environmental gradients (Bertness and Callaway 1994) we test this effect under two pollen regimes: current and reduced”.
It is not clear what grounds the alternative model for pollinator abundance (increasing with elevation) in alpine environments builds upon.

Good question. Unfortunately, there is really no model for pollinator abundance in the alpine/on elevation gradients. We would love to develop one though but likely not in the context of this outcrossing experiment as it is focused on botany and ecology. We hope that the proposal that pollen limitation is a potential stressor can lead to the expansion of this set of theory. Nice opportunity for the future.
In the Introduction, you refer to the stress source sometimes as ‘pollination supply’ and sometimes as ‘reduced pollen’ or ‘less pollen’. It would be useful to specify if the limiting resource is pollen supply (which implies reduced production by plants) or pollinator abundance (I guess the second, from the model you propose in the Introduction).

Yes, great. Thank you.
Is there any evidence of competition between hermaphrodite and female plants when pollen is not limiting?

Yes. See Figure 3 and the following sentence in the results, “Under the current pollination rates, percent fruit-set and beneficiary abundance are negatively related (slope = -0.48, R²= 0.04, Figure 3).”

Material & Methods

You need to be consistent in the way you refer to hermaphrodite plants.

Revised.
Some plants could receive pollen from insects while others were covered with mesh and hand-pollinated. It is not clear how insect versus hand pollination generated a gradient of pollen supply. Do you assume that delivery of pollen by insect was much higher? If so, which order of magnitude?

Yes, the assumption is that the plants that had pollen delivered by insects received more pollen because they could receive pollen every day compared to the three hand-pollination events. The order of magnitude of this difference would be purely a guess. This is a very important assumption and limitation of this study.
Again, it is not clear here who is expected to be facilitated and by whom (see my general comments). Likely, it would be useful to be more specific in your predictions at the end of the Introduction.

Revised, thank you. “Specifically, we predict facilitation between cushions and beneficiaries to increase when pollen supply is reduced.”
Also, switch beneficiary and % fruit set in the last sentence of the Abstract (the way it is, it suggests that you are mainly looking at effect of fruit set on beneficiary abundance).

Revised and clearer now.

Results

Estimates of effects could be reported in Tables, so as to give an idea of their direction.

Good idea Fabio. We chose to do stats on the primary dataset and not calculate derived data such as effect size measures (Rii) for two reasons. We were not confident that Rii, now common in facilitation studies, was appropriate to the treatments here and secondly that we elected to visualize percent change in Figure 1. We feel that figure one does a good job of showing the strength of evidence, i.e. effects, and that a table was thus not needed. Let us know if you think we should also include the data from this figure in a table but we think the current figure gives a good overview of the evidence/biological significance.
The relationship with beneficiary abundance explains little variation in % fruit set (Fig. 3), suggesting that other factors are of overwhelming importance. This point should be made clear in the Discussion.

The following sentence has been added to the discussion, “That beneficiary abundance explains little variation in percent fruit-set (low correlation coefficients), suggests that other variables are of greater importance in determining percent fruit-set.”

Discussion

It would be interesting if the authors could offer a possible explanation for a positive relationship between beneficiary abundance and % fruit set under reduced pollen supply. What are the potential mechanisms?

Good point. I think it may be too premature to assert possible reasons for this response. We do highlight the need for further research on this topic in the sentence, “Clearly, additional research is needed to identify the causal mechanisms between plant-plant interactions and plant-pollinator interactions with dominant plant species that host other species.”

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

$cdnUrl/4382/c22d1088-4171-4dc4-8da5-c7e757f6713a_Reid_etal_2014_dataset.csv The reproductive effects of reduced pollen deposition via exclosures and hand pollination on the cushion plant Silene acaulis Silene acaulis is an important alpine plant species commonly demonstrated to have positive impacts on other plants and insects. In this experiment, we covered sets of plants (gynodioecious species with hermaphrodite and female flowers) with mesh with hand pollination only to examine the relative importance of pollen load as a potential stressor in alpine ecosystems. 3,4,9 5,6,7,8,10 9

Click here to access the data.

Downloaded data do not display as expected? Download the data (14.59KB)

[1] Alexander HM, Antonovics J: Disease spread and population dynamics of anther-smut infection of Silene alba cause by the fungus Ustilago violacea. J Ecol. 1988; 76: 91–104. Publisher Full Text

[2] Arroyo MTK, Armesto JJ, Primack RB: Community studies in pollination ecology in the high temperate Andes of Central Chile II. Effect of temperature on visitation rates on pollination possibilities. Plant Syst Evol. 1985; 149(3–4): 187–203. Publisher Full Text

[3] Arroyo MTK, Cavieres LA, Peñaloza A, et al.: Positive associations between the cushion plant Azorella monantha (Apiaceae) and alpine plant species in the Chilean Patagonian Andes. Plant Ecol. 2003; 169(1): 121–129. Publisher Full Text

[4] Arroyo MTK, Primack R, Armesto J: Community studies in pollination ecology in the high temperate Andes of Central Chile. I. Pollination mechanisms and altitudinal variation. Amer J Bot. 1982; 69(1): 82–97. Publisher Full Text

[5] Arroyo MTK, Squeo F: Relationship between plant breeding systems and pollination. Academic Press, London. 1990. Reference Source

[6] Ayres MP: Plant defense, herbivory, and climate change. in Kareiva, P.M., Kingsolver, J.G. and Huey, R.B., editors. Biotic interactions and global change. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, M.A. 1993; 75–94. Reference Source

[7] Baker HG: Infection of species of Melandrium by Ustilago violacea (Pers) Fuckel and the transmission of the resultant disease. Ann Bot. 1947; 11(3): 333–348. Reference Source

[8] Bartomeus I, Winfree R: Pollinator declines: reconciling scales and implications for ecosystem services. F1000Research. 2013; 2: 146. Publisher Full Text

[9] Baskin CC, Baskin JM: Seeds: ecology, biogeography, and evolution of dormancy and germination. Academic Press, London. 1998. Reference Source

[10] Bertness M, Callaway RM: Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol Evol. 1994; 9(5): 191–193. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] Billings WD: Constraints to plant growth, reproduction, and establishment in arctic environments. Arct Alp Res. 1987; 19(4): 357–365. Publisher Full Text

[12] Bingham RA, Orthner AR: Efficient pollination of alpine plants. Nature. 1998; 391: 238–239. Publisher Full Text

[13] Butterfield BJ, Cavieres LA, Callaway RM, et al.: Alpine cushion plants inhibit the loss of phylogenetic diversity in severe environments. Ecol Lett. 2013; 16(4): 478–486. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] Callaway RM, Walker LR: Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology. 1997; 78(7): 1958–1965. Publisher Full Text

[15] Cavieres LA, Badano EI: Do facilitative interactions increase species richness at the entire community level? J Ecol 2009; 97(6): 1181–1191. Publisher Full Text

[16] Cavieres LA, Badano EI, Sierra-Almeida A, et al.: Positive interactions between alpine plant species and the nurse cushion plant Laretia acaulis do not increase with elevation in the Andes of central Chile. New Phytol. 2006; 169(1): 59–69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] Charnov EL: The theory of sex allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. 1982. Reference Source

[18] Chittka L, Thomson JD, Waser NM: Flower constancy, insect psychology, and plant evolution. Naturwissenschaften. 1999; 86(8): 361–377. Publisher Full Text

[19] Colla SR, Ratti CM: Evidence for the decline of the western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis Greene) in British Columbia. Pan-Pacific Entomologist. 2010; 86(2): 32–34. Publisher Full Text

[20] Cranston BH, Callaway RM, Monks A, et al.: Gender and abiotic stress affect community-scale intensity of facilitation and its costs. J Ecol. 2012; 100: 915–922. Publisher Full Text

[21] Delph LF, Bailey MF, Marr DL: Seed provisioning in gynodioecious Silene acaulis (Caryophyllaceae). Am J Bot. 1999; 86(1): 140–144. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] Delph LF, Carroll SB: Factors affecting relative seed fitness and female frequency in a gynodioecious species, Silene acaulis. Evol Ecol Res. 2001; 3: 487–505. Reference Source

[23] Donnelly SE, Lortie CJ, Aarssen LW: Pollination in Verbascum thapsus (Scrophulariaceae): the advantages of being tall. Am J Bot. 1998; 85(11): 1618–1625. PubMed Abstract

[24] García-Camacho R, Totland Ø: Pollen limitation in the alpine: A meta-analysis. Arct Antarc Alp Res. 2009; 41(1): 103–111. Publisher Full Text

[25] Gegear RJ, Laverty TM: How many flower types can bumble bees work at the same time? Can J Zool. 1998; 76(7): 1358–1365. Publisher Full Text

[26] He Q, Bertness MD, Altieri AH: Global shifts towards positive species interactions with increasing environmental stress. Ecol Lett. 2013; 16(5): 695–706. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[27] Hegland SJ, Nielsen A, Lázaro A, et al.: How does climate warming affect plant-pollinator interactions? Ecol Lett. 2009; 12(2): 184–195. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] Hermanutz LA, Innes DJ: Gender variation in Silene acaulis (Caryophyllaceae). Plant Syst Evol. 1994; 191(1–2): 69–81. Publisher Full Text

[29] Hitchcock CL, Maguire B: A revision of the North American species of Silene. Seattle University of Washington Press, Seattle. 1947.

[30] IPCC. 5th Annual Report. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. 2013. Reference Source

[31] Kevan PG: Insect pollination of high arctic flowers. J Ecol. 1972; 60(3): 831–847. Publisher Full Text

[32] Körner C: Alpine plant life. 2nd edition. Springer, Berlin. 1999. Publisher Full Text

[33] Kudo G: Vulnerability of phenological synchrony between plants and pollinators in an alpine ecosystem. Ecol Res. 2013. Publisher Full Text

[34] Larson BMH, Barrett SCH: A comparative analysis of pollen limitation in flowering plants. Biol J Linn Soc. 2000; 69(4): 503–520. Publisher Full Text

[35] Lewis DG: Male sterility in natural populations of hermaphrodite plants. New Phytologist. 1941; 40(1): 56–63. Publisher Full Text

[36] Liczner AR, Lortie CJ: A global meta-analytic contrast of cushion-plant effects on plants and on arthropods. PeerJ. 2014; 2: e265. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[37] Lloyd DG: Self- and cross-fertilization in plants. II. The selection of self-fertilization. Int J Plant Sci. 1992; 153(3): 370–380. Publisher Full Text

[38] Lloyd DG, Schoen DJ: Self- and cross-fertilization in plants. I. Functional dimensions. Int J Plant Sci. 1992; 153(3): 358–369. Publisher Full Text

[39] Marr DL: Impact of a pollinator-transmitted disease on reproduction in healthy Silene acaulis. Ecology. 1997; 78(5): 1471–1480. Publisher Full Text

[40] McIntire EJB, Fajardo A: Facilitation as a ubiquitous driver of biodiversity. New Phytol. 2014; 201(2): 403–416. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[41] Memmott J, Craze PG, Waser NM, et al.: Global warming and the disruption of plant-pollinator interactions. Ecol Lett. 2007; 10(8): 710–717. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[42] Milbau A, Graae BJ, Shevtsova A, et al.: Effects of a warmer climate on seed germination in the subarctic. Ann Bot. 2009; 104(2): 287–296. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[43] Moldenke AR, Lincoln PG: Pollination Ecology in Montane Colorado: A Community Analysis. Phytologia. 1979; 42(4): 349–379. Reference Source

[44] Molenda O, Reid A, Lortie CJ: The alpine cushion plant Silene acaulis as foundation species: a bug’s-eye view to facilitation and microclimate. PLoS One. 2011; 7(5): e37223. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[45] Morgan MT, Wilson WG, Knight TM: Plant population dynamics, pollinator foraging, and the selection of self-fertilization. Am Nat. 2005; 166(2): 169–183. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[46] Morris WF, Doak DF: Life history of the long-lived gynodioecious cushion plant Silene acaulis (Caryophyllaceae), inferred from size-based population projection matrices. Am J Bot. 1998; 85(6): 784–793. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[47] Muñoz AA, Arroyo MTK: Pollen limitation and spatial variation of reproductive success in the insect-pollinated shrub Chuquiraga oppositifolia (Asteraceae) in the Chilean Andes. Arct Antarc Alp Res 2006; 38(4): 608–613. Publisher Full Text

[48] Pojar J, Klinka K, Meidinger DV: Biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification in British Columbia. For Ecol Manage. 1987; 22(1–2): 119–154. Publisher Full Text

[49] Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, et al.: Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010; 25(6): 345–353. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[50] Primack RB: Variability in New Zealand montane and alpine pollinator assemblages. N Z J Ecol. 1978; 1: 66–73. Reference Source

[51] Primack RB: Insect pollination in the New Zealand mountain flora. N Z J Ecol. 1983; 21(3): 317–333. Publisher Full Text

[52] Reid AM, Hooper R, Molenda O, et al.: The reproductive effects of reduced pollen deposition via exclosures and hand pollination on the cushion plant Silene acaulis. 2014. Data Source

[53] Reid AM, Lortie CJ: Cushion plants are foundation species with positive effects extending to higher trophic levels. Ecosphere. 2012; 3(11). Publisher Full Text

[54] Richards AJ: Plant Breeding Systems: Second edition. Chapman & Hall, London. 1997. Reference Source

[55] SAS. Jmp SAS Institute Inc. 2012. Reference Source

[56] Schöb C, Michalet R, Cavieres L, et al.: A global analysis of bidirectional interactions in alpine plant communities show facilitators experiencing strong reciprocal fitness costs. New Phytol. 2014; 202(1): 95–105. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[57] Shykoff JA: Maintenance of gynodioecy in Silene acaulis (Caryophyllaceae): stage-specific fecundity and viability selection. Am J Bot. 1988; 75(6): 844–850. Publisher Full Text

[58] Shykoff JA: Sex polymorphism in Silene acaulis (Caryophyllaceae) and the possible role of sexual selection in maintaining females. Am J Bot. 1992; 79(2): 138–143. Publisher Full Text

[59] Torres-Díaz C, Gómes-González S, Stotz GC, et al.: Extremely long-lived stigmas allow extended cross-pollination opportunities in a high Andean plant. PLoS One. 2011; 6(5): e19497. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[60] Totland Ø: Pollination in alpine Norway: Flowering phenology, insect visitors, and visitation rates in two plant communities. Can J Bot. 1993; 71(8): 1072–1079. Publisher Full Text

[61] Totland Ø, Sottocornola M: Pollen limitation of reproductive success in two sympatric alpine willows (Salicaceae) with contrasting pollination strategies. Am J Bot. 2001; 88(6): 1011–1015. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[62] Utelli AB, Roy BA: Pollinator abundance and behavior on Aconitum lycoctonum (Ranunculaceae): an analysis of the quantity and quality components of pollination. Oikos. 2000; 89(3): 461–470. Publisher Full Text

Ecological implications of reduced pollen deposition in alpine plants: a case study using a dominant cushion plant species

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and methods

Study species

Study site

Treatments

Reproductive output measures

Beneficiary abundance

Statistical analysis

Results

Table 1.

Figure 1. Percent change of female (white) and hermaphrodite (grey) reproductive output measures between current and reduced pollination regimes (p < 0.05).

Figure 2. Reproductive output measures for female plants (white) and two times that of hermaphrodite plants (grey) under current and reduced pollination regimes (p < 0.05).

Table 2.

Table 3.

Figure 3. Percent fruit set and beneficiary abundance on individual S. acaulis plants under current pollination regime (white circles) and reduced pollination regime (grey squares).

Discussion

Data availability

Author contributions

Competing interests

Grant information

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

The problem

How to fix it

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated