Abstract
The mutualisms between plants and their seed-parasitic pollinators, such as the fig–fig wasp, yucca–yucca moth, and leafflower–leafflower moth mutualisms, provide textbook examples of specialized pollination systems (Weiblen 2002; Cook and Rasplus 2003; Pellmyr 2003; Kato et al. 2003). Remarkably, in all three systems, the pollinator insects actively collect and transport pollen between flowers in order to ensure food for their seed-feeding larvae. Reciprocal adaptation by plants to restrict floral access by other visitors resulted in extreme mutual dependence between plants and insects. Consequently, these mutualisms served as principal model systems for the studies of coevolution and mutualism.
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Evolution of Pollination by Seed Parasites
The mutualisms between plants and their seed-parasitic pollinators, such as the fig–fig wasp, yucca–yucca moth, and leafflower–leafflower moth mutualisms, provide textbook examples of specialized pollination systems (Weiblen 2002; Cook and Rasplus 2003; Pellmyr 2003; Kato et al. 2003). Remarkably, in all three systems, the pollinator insects actively collect and transport pollen between flowers in order to ensure food for their seed-feeding larvae. Reciprocal adaptation by plants to restrict floral access by other visitors resulted in extreme mutual dependence between plants and insects. Consequently, these mutualisms served as principal model systems for the studies of coevolution and mutualism.
Despite a wealth of documented examples of specialized pollination systems in angiosperms, however, pollination by obligate seed parasites is rare. This is because seed parasitism inflicts a heavy cost on plants, whereas abundant copollinator s swamp the mutualistic effect of pollination by seed parasite s (Thompson and Pellmyr 1992; Thompson and Cunningham 2002). In fact, exclusion of pollinators has not occurred in plants that were more recently found as being pollinated by seed parasites, including Lithophragma plants pollinated by Greya moths (Thompson and Pellmyr 1992), senita cactus pollinated by senita moth s (Fleming and Holland 1998), and Silene plants pollinated by Hadena and Perizoma moths (Kephart et al. 2006). Nevertheless, there are other plant–seed parasite associations that have evolved into reciprocal specialization (globeflower –globeflower fly and Rheum nobile –fungus gnat mutualisms; Jaeger and Després 1998; Song et al. 2014). Understanding of how and under what circumstances obligate pollination mutualism s evolve would thus benefit from exploring the origin of active pollination and mutualism in the Phyllantheae–Epicephala association.
In this chapter, we describe the pollination systems and associations with Epicephala of 26 Phyllantheae species studied during 2002–2007 in Southeast Asia , New Caledonia , Australia , Madagascar , Guinea , and North America (Table 6.1). Based on this information, we explore the origin of the Phyllantheae–Epicephala mutualism using robust molecular phylogenies for 46 species of Phyllantheae and associated Epicephala moths. Although the present analysis focuses on only a small proportion of the global diversity of Phyllantheae, the sampled species cover the entire range of taxonomic diversity within the tribe (Hoffmann et al. 2006; Kathriarachchi et al. 2006), allowing an overview of broad coevolutionary history of the Phyllantheae–Epicephala association. Overall, the results reveal an unexpectedly complex origin of the Phyllantheae–Epicephala pollination mutualism and provide important general insights into how a combination of evolutionary innovation and partner shifts shapes the evolutionary dynamics of mutualism in coevolving species interactions.
2 Diversity of Pollination Systems in Phyllantheae
As detailed in Chaps. 3 and 4, there are five Phyllantheae lineages that are obligately pollinated by host-specific Epicephala moths (Glochidion; Breynia; and New Caledonian Phyllanthus; Phyllanthus section Anisonema; and an unclassified group of Phyllanthus endemic to Madagascar). The remaining species are pollinated by diurnal insects that visit flowers for nectar and pollen, and do not have associations with pollinating Epicephala. However, Flueggea suffruticosa is parasitized by Conopomorpha flueggella, and three herbaceous Phyllanthus species are parasitized by seed-parasitic Epicephala species that do not pollinate the flowers (Chap. 5).
The plants that are not pollinated by Epicephala employ a variety of insects as pollinators. Species of Flueggea have the broadest range of flower visitors, including bee s, flies , beetle s, and butterflies , which all probably contribute to pollination. Although observation is limited, dipteran insects appear to be important pollinators of many other Phyllantheae, such as Phyllanthus flexuosus , P. oligospermus (both subgenus Kirganelia), P. liukiuensis (subgenus Eriococcus), P. roseus (subgenus Phyllanthodendron), Breynia retusa , and Sauropus quadrangularis . Notably, most herbaceous Phyllanthus, which are phylogenetically spread across the entire Phyllantheae phylogeny (Chap. 4), are pollinated by ant s that visit flowers for nectar . In a controlled experiment where only ants were allowed to visit flowers of P. lepidocarpus grown in cages, plants regularly attained full fruit set (Fig. 6.1), whereas they produced no fruits when insects were fully excluded. Because P. lepidocarpus is self-compatible , ants are probably sufficient to pollinate this species fully in wild conditions as well.
Whether a plant species is pollinated by Epicephala is most clearly reflected in style morphology. In species pollinated by the moths, styles are reduced and fused to form a narrow apical cavity into which moths insert the proboscis to deposit pollen. By contrast, species diurnally pollinated by various nectar-seeking insects usually have bifid styles that are spread horizontally, which facilitates passive pollen receipt from insect bodies (Fig. 6.2). Overall, species with different pollination syndrome s have nonoverlapping degrees of style spreading (Fig. 6.3); thus, pollination systems can be reliably assigned to plant species for which sufficient ecological data are not available.
3 Phylogeny of Phyllantheae and Epicephala
To investigate the origin of the Phyllantheae–Epicephala mutualism, pollination systems were mapped onto the molecular phylogeny of 46 Phyllantheae species. The phylogeny is based on the combined chloroplast matK, ndhF, atpB, and nuclear PHYC gene dataset for 92 species of Phyllanthaceae including the above 46 Phyllantheae species. Maximum parsimony, likelihood, and Bayesian analyses all produced a highly resolved and well-supported phylogeny for Phyllantheae (Fig. 6.4). Similarly, the phylogeny of 26 Epicephala species associated with the above Phyllantheae species were reconstructed based on the combined mitochondrial COI, nuclear ArgK, EF-1α, Wg, and the 18S rDNA gene dataset. This produced a well-resolved phylogeny, although the phylogenetic placement of Conopomorpha flueggella with respect to Epicephala remained ambiguous (Fig. 6.5).
These phylogenies provide important insights into the origin of mutualism and active pollination. First, Phyllantheae species pollinated by Epicephala are not monophyletic, indicating that there have been multiple shifts in pollination systems. Reconstruction of ancestral character state s for the pollination system along the Phyllantheae phylogeny suggest that there are five independent origin s of the obligate pollination mutualism in Phyllantheae, with a single reversal to non-Epicephala pollination in Breynia retusa (Fig. 6.6). The pollinator Epicephala species are also nonmonophyletic, and ancestral character state reconstruction indicated a likely single origin of pollination behavior with a single event of secondary loss (Fig. 6.6). Major clades of Epicephala generally have specific associations with well-defined taxonomic groups of Phyllantheae, but relationships at higher levels were largely incongruent, indicating that host shifts have occurred repeatedly (Fig. 6.6).
The above analysis of ancestral character state reconstruction indicates that Epicephala-pollinated Phyllantheae plants evolved multiple times independently. However, because the taxon sampling was limited to 46 species amid the global diversity of Phyllantheae (>1200 species), results of ancestral state reconstruction might change with the addition of more taxa. Therefore, divergence time s for the Phyllantheae and Epicephala phylogenies were estimated to test whether the multiple origins hypothesis is in fact the preferred scenario. If the age of the most recent common ancestor of moth-pollinated plants is contemporary to that of Epicephala, a single origin of the mutualism followed by multiple losses would still be a viable hypothesis. Alternatively, evolution of pollinating behavior postdating initial host divergence would provide strong support for the multiple origins hypothesis.
A major obstacle when estimating divergence times is the scarcity of fossil s, which is also the case for Phyllantheae and Epicephala. Nevertheless, there are several fossils of Phyllantheae and plants in other tribes of Phyllanthaceae that can be used to provide minimum age constraints on Phyllanthaceae phylogeny. The fossils used are Bischofia-type pollen from Bartonian , Middle Eocene (37.2 mya); Actephila-type pollen from Late Eocene (33.9 mya); Phyllanthus-type pollen from Early Eocene (48.6 mya) (Gruas-Cavagnetto and Köhler 1992); and Glochidion leaf impression s from Middle Miocene (11.6 mya; Prasad 1994; Antal and Prasad 1996). The root node (i.e., the node splitting Phyllanthaceae and Picrodendraceae) was assumed to be no older than 108 mya, which is the oldest estimate of the corresponding node in a study of Malpighiales radiation (Davis et al. 2005). Because attribution of some of the Phyllanthaceae fossils may still need refinement (Gruas-Cavagnetto and Köhler 1992), caution may be necessary when taking the precise dates resulting from this analysis. Because gracillariid moths are extremely scarce in the fossil record (Lopez-Vaamonde et al. 2006), Epicephala divergence times were obtained assuming a molecular clock of the COI gene. Only the COI clock was used because it is generally conserved across arthropod taxa (Gaunt and Miles 2002), has been widely used for dating in insects (Kandul et al. 2004; Quek et al. 2007; Ueda et al. 2008), and clusters at approximately 1.5% myr−1 in several arthropod groups (Farrell 2001; Quek et al. 2004; Sota and Hayashi 2007).
The analysis of divergence times indicates that the most recent common ancestor of Epicephala-pollinated plants occurred 41.0 mya (95% credibility interval, 39.3–48.3 mya; Fig. 6.6). In contrast, estimated ages of the split between Conopomorpha flueggella and Epicephala clustered within a timeframe between 20 and 30 mya. These estimates for the age of active pollination postdates initial host divergence by roughly 10–20 myr (Fig. 6.6), which is consistent with delayed radiation of Epicephala and hence multiple origins of the obligate pollination mutualism in Phyllantheae. Although the estimate of the timing of Epicephala divergence depends largely on the accuracy of the COI molecular clock, the assumed 1.5% myr−1 is among the slowest of known rates for the arthropod COI gene (1.3–2.3% myr−1; Brower 1994; Quek et al. 2004), and using higher rates would only give younger estimates for the age of the Epicephala root node; thus, the method employed is conservative with respect to providing young ages.
4 Origin of Active Pollination and Mutualism
The above phylogenetic analyses and divergence time estimations allowed a general overview of the evolutionary history of the Phyllantheae–Epicephala association. Because the taxon sampling was limited to 20% of the global diversity of Phyllantheae at the section level (Kathriarachchi et al. 2006) and less than 5% at the species level, the entire picture of the evolutionary history of Epicephala pollination in Phyllantheae is probably much more complex than as depicted here. However, inclusion of other lineages would likely only strengthen the conclusion of repeated independent evolution because these plants generally have bifid, horizontally spread styles that are characteristic of non-Epicephala-pollinated plants (Fig. 6.2). Exceptions are the New World Phyllanthus subgenus Xylophylla, which consists of approximately 60 species having reduced columnar styles (Webster 1958) and section Microglochidion, which consists of approximately 10 species occurring on the tepuis of the Guiana Highlands (Chap. 5). Field observation and examination of herbarium specimens indicate that they are also associated with seed-feeding Epicephala. It is thus tempting to clarify the pollination systems of these plants and phylogenetic positions of associated Epicephala, as they may represent additional origins of Epicephala moth pollination in Phyllantheae.
Our finding that the obligate pollination mutualism arose repeatedly in Phyllantheae is in stark contrast with the situations in the fig–fig wasp and yucca–yucca moth mutualisms. Coevolutionary analyses in the fig and yucca systems indicate that these associations arose only once in each partner lineage 40–60 mya (Pellmyr and Leebens-Mack 1999; Rønsted et al. 2005). An exception is Hesperoyucca whipplei , which is phylogenetically distant from the rest of the yuccas and independently established the mutualism with a yucca moth (Bogler et al. 1995; Pellmyr et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2008a). In the Phyllantheae–Epicephala system, major lineages of Phyllantheae had already emerged when Epicephala colonized these plants ~30 mya. Sequential radiation of Epicephala on an already diverged host lineage has likely provided opportunities for the moth pollinators to establish new mutualistic associations in distant host lineages. Thus, specialization to moth pollination occurred multiple times independently in Phyllantheae as Epicephala spread onto a broad range of the Phyllantheae lineage.
Our results also indicate that colonization of new host lineages by the pollinators sometimes results in a loss of mutualistic traits. A derived clade of Epicephala has completely lost the pollinating behavior after colonizing herbaceous species of Phyllanthus. These plants regularly attain full seed set through ant pollination (Fig. 6.1); thus, time and energetic costs required during pollination probably outweighed the benefit of assuring seed set in these moth lineages. At the same time, effective pollination by ants probably swamped the mutualistic effect of pollination by moths; thus, selection did not favor these Phyllanthus to specialize to moth pollination.
Taken together, the overall evolutionary history of Phyllantheae and Epicephala provides two general implications for the coevolutionary dynamics of mutualisms. First, although species associations are phylogenetically conserved in most coevolving interactions (Thompson 2005), rare shifts by a partner possessing the mutualistic trait can give rise to new mutualisms in phylogenetically distant partner lineages. In this sense, the active pollination behavior in Epicephala has been of critical importance for the establishment and maintenance of the Phyllantheae–Epicephala mutualism and thus represents a key innovation in this association. Second, the outcome of a species interaction can vary greatly depending on the community context in which it occurs (Thompson and Pellmyr 1992; Thompson and Cunningham 2002; Westerbergh 2004); thus, transitions between mutualism and antagonism can occur repeatedly within a single phylogenetic lineage. This parallels findings in other mutualisms where derived parasitic taxa are nested within ancestrally mutualistic clades (Pellmyr et al. 1996b; Machado et al. 2001; Als et al. 2004). Of particular relevance to future studies is our finding that the mutualism arose independently in several Phyllantheae lineages, which provides outstanding opportunities for comparative analyses of character evolution, diversification rates, and factors affecting mutualism establishment and stability.
Literature Cited
Als TD, Vila R, Kandul NP, Nash DR, Yen S-H, Hsu Y-F, Mignault AA, Boomsma JJ, Pierce NE (2004) The evolution of alternative parasitic life histories in large blue butterflies. Nature 432:386–390
Antal JS, Prasad M (1996) Some more leaf-impressions from the Himalayan foot-hills of Darjeeling District, West Bengal, India. Palaeobotanist 43:1–9
Bogler DJ, Neff JL, Simpson BB (1995) Multiple origins of the yucca–yucca moth association. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92:6864–6867
Brower AVZ (1994) Rapid morphological radiation and convergence among races of the butterfly Heliconius erato inferred from patterns of mitochondrial DNA evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 91:6491–6495
Cook JM, Rasplus JY (2003) Mutualists with attitude: coevolving fig wasps and figs. Trends Ecol Evol 18:241–248
Davis CC, Webb CO, Wurdack KJ, Jaramillo CA, Donoghue MJ (2005) Explosive radiation of Malpighiales supports a mid-cretaceous origin of modern tropical rain forests. Am Nat 165:E36–E65
Farrell BD (2001) Evolutionary assembly of the milkweed fauna: cytochrome oxidase I and the age of Tetraopes beetles. Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:467–478
Fleming TH, Holland JN (1998) The evolution of obligate pollination mutualisms: senita cactus and senita moth. Oecologia 114:368–375
Gaunt MW, Miles MA (2002) An insect molecular clock dates the origin of the insects and accords with palaeontological and biogeographical landmarks. Mol Biol Evol 19:748–761
Gruas-Cavagnetto CE, Köhler E (1992) Pollens fossils d’Euphorbiacées de l’Eocène français. Grana 31:291–304
Hoffmann P, Kathriarachchi H, Wurdack KJ (2006) A phylogenetic classification of Phyllantheae (Malpighiales; Euphorbiaceae sensu lato). Kew Bull 61:37–53
Jaeger N, Després L (1998) Obligate mutualism between Trollius europaeus and its seed-parasite pollinators Chiastocheta flies in the Alps. C R Acad Sci III 321:789–796
Kandul NP, Lukhtanov VA, Dantchenko AV, Coleman JW, Sekercioglu CH, Haig D, Pierce NE (2004) Phylogeny of Agrodiaetus Hüber 1822 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) inferred from mtDNA sequences of COI and COII and nuclear sequences of EF1-a: karyotype diversification and species radiation. Syst Biol 53:278–298
Kathriarachchi H, Samuel R, Hoffmann P, Mlinarec J, Wurdack KJ, Ralimanana H, Stuessy TF, Chase MW (2006) Phylogenetics of the tribe Phyllantheae (Phyllanthaceae; Euphorbiaceae sensu lato) based on nrITS and plastid matK DNA sequence data. Am J Bot 93:637–655
Kato M, Takimura A, Kawakita K (2003) An obligate pollination mutualism and reciprocal diversification in the tree genus Glochidion (Euphorbiaceae). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:5264–5267
Kawakita A (2010) Evolution of obligate pollination mutualism in the tribe Phyllantheae (Phyllanthaceae). Plant Spec Biol 25:3–19
Kawakita A, Kato M (2009) Repeated independent evolution of obligate pollination mutualism in the Phyllantheae–Epicephala association. Proc R Soc B 276:417–426
Kephart S, Reynolds RJ, Rutter MT, Fenster CB, Dudash MR (2006) Pollination and seed predation by moths on Silene and allied Caryophyllaceae: evaluating a model system to study the evolution of mutualisms. New Phytol 169:667–680
Lopez-Vaamonde C, Wikström N, Labandeira C, Godfray HCJ, Goodman SJ, Cook JM (2006) Fossil-calibrated molecular phylogenies reveal that leafmining moths radiated millions of years after their host plants. J Evol Biol 19:1314–1326
Machado CA, Jousselin E, Kjellberg F, Compton SG, Herre EA (2001) Phylogenetic relationships, historical biogeography and character evolution of fig-pollinating wasps. Proc R Soc B 268:685–694
Pellmyr O (2003) Yuccas, yucca moths, and coevolution: a review. Ann Mo Bot Gard 90:35–55
Pellmyr O, Leebens-Mack J (1999) Forty million years of mutualism: evidence for Eocene origin of the yucca–yucca moth association. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96:9178–9183
Pellmyr O, Leebens-Mack J, Huth CJ (1996b) Non-mutualistic yucca moths and their evolutionary consequences. Nature 380:155–156
Pellmyr O, Segraves KA, Althoff DM, Balcázar-Lara M, Leebens-Mack J (2007) The phylogeny of yuccas. Mol Phylogenet Evol 43:493–501
Prasad M (1994) Siwalik (Middle Miocene) leaf impressions from the foothills of the Himalayas, India. Tertiary Res 15:53–90
Quek SP, Davies SJ, Itino T, Pierce NE (2004) Codiversification in an ant–plant mutualism: stem texture and the evolution of host use in Crematogaster (Formicidae: Myrmicinae) inhabitants of Macaranga (Euphorbiaceae). Evolution 58:554–570
Quek SP, Davies SJ, Ashton PS, Itino T, Pierce NE (2007) The geography of diversification in mutualistic ants: a gene’s-eye view into the Neogene history of Sundaland rain forests. Mol Ecol 16:2045–2062
Rønsted N, Weiblen GD, Cook JM, Salamin N, Machado CA, Savolainen V (2005) 60 million years of co-divergence in the fig–wasp symbiosis. Proc R Soc B 272:2593–2599
Smith CI, Pellmyr O, Althoff DM, Balcazar-Lara M, Leebens-Mack JH, Segraves KA (2008a) Pattern and timing of diversification in Yucca (Agavaceae): specialized pollination does not escalate rates of diversification. Proc R Soc B 275:249–258
Song B, Chen G, Stöcklin J, Peng DL, Niu Y, Li ZM, Sun H (2014) A new pollinating seed-consuming mutualism between Rheum nobile and a fly fungus gnat, Bradysia sp., involving pollinator attraction by a specific floral compound. New Phytol 203:1109–1018
Sota T, Hayashi M (2007) Comparative historical biogeography of Plateumaris leaf beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in Japan: interplay between fossil and molecular data. J Biogeogr 34:977–993
Thompson JN (2005) The geographic mosaic of coevolution. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Thompson JN, Cunningham BM (2002) Geographic structure and dynamics of coevolutionary selection. Nature 417:735–738
Thompson JN, Pellmyr O (1992) Mutualism with pollinating seed parasites amid co-pollinators: constraints on specialization. Ecology 73:1780–1791
Ueda S, Quek SP, Itioka T, Inamori K, Sato Y, Murase K, Itino T (2008) An ancient tripartite symbiosis of plants, ants and scale insects. Proc R Soc B 275:2319–2326
Webster GL (1958) A monographic study of the West Indian species of Phyllanthus. J Arnold Arbor 39(49–100):111–212
Weiblen GD (2002) How to be a fig wasp. Annu Rev Entomol 47:299–330
Westerbergh A (2004) An interaction between a specialized seed predator moth and its dioecious host plant shifting from parasitism to mutualism. Oikos 105:564–574
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Japan KK
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kawakita, A., Kato, M. (2017). Origin of Active Pollination and Mutualism. In: Kato, M., Kawakita, A. (eds) Obligate Pollination Mutualism. Ecological Research Monographs. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-56532-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-56532-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Tokyo
Print ISBN: 978-4-431-56530-7
Online ISBN: 978-4-431-56532-1
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)