Caribbean Journal of Science, Vol. 42, No. 1, 75-80, 2006 Copyright 2006 College of Arts and Sciences University of Puerto Rico, Mayagu¨ez Flower Phenology and Sexual Maturation: Partial Protandrous Behavior in Three Species of Orchids RAYMOND L. TREMBLAY*, GRIZEL POMALES-HERNÁNDEZ AND MARÍA DE LOURDES MÉNDEZ-CINTRÓN Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico—Humacao, 100 carr. 908, Humacao, P.R., 00791 *Corresponding author: [email protected] ABSTRACT.—Plants have theoretically multiple alternatives for preventing self pollination and conse- quently the effect of inbreeding, such as sequential flowering, dichogamy and self–incompatibility to name a few. We investigated the reproductive biology of three sequentially flowering (acropetal) endemic orchids from Puerto Rico. Since sequential flowering is present in the studied species and very rarely (1.0%) is there more than one flower open simultaneously on an inflorescence, we hypothesized that the orchids should be self-compatible and show no effect of protandry (dichogamy). We performed hand self—and cross- pollinations and evaluated whether the species are self-compatible and whether the receptivity to pollination success (fruit set) is influenced by the age of flowers (protandry). We define protandry as pertaining to a hermaphroditic organism that assumes a functional male condition prior to shifting to a functional female state. We found that all three species are self-incompatible. Furthermore, flower age is important for pre- dicting the likelihood of fruits set. Older flowers (6+ days) are significantly more likely to produce fruits (functional protandry). The multiple mechanisms for preventing self-pollination (sequential flowering, di- chogamy and self-incompatibility) that are noted for these species suggest that the historical evolutionary processes for preventing inbreeding may be complex. We hypothesized that because multiple mechanisms are present for preventing self-pollination inbreeding depression is likely to be high. KEYWORDS.—Lepanthes, Puerto Rico, reproductive success, dichogamy, self-incompatible INTRODUCTION togyny) and solitary flowers (Delaporta and Calderón-Urrea 1993; Walker-Larson Low fruit set in many plant species is a and Harder 2000). consequence of pollinator limitation (Trem- In the Orchidaceae, pollinator limitation blay et al. 2005), or self-incompatibility, is frequently invoked as the cause of low which are perceived as mechanisms to pro- fruit set, but in self-compatible species low mote cross-pollination (Marshall and Fol- fruit set may additionally be attributed to som 1991). Promoting cross-pollination is incompatible self—and geitonogamous pol- believed to increase fitness by increasing linations, resulting in flower or fruit abor- genetic diversity, while self-pollination de- tion (Delaporta and Calderón-Urrea 1993; creases genetic diversity and can result in Walker-Larson and Harder 2000; Tremblay inbreeding depression (Lande and Schem- et al. 2005). In self-compatible orchids a ske 1985; Dudash 1990; Jarne and Charles- number of mechanisms for preventing self- worth 1993). Consequently, many species pollination (Johnson and Edwards 2000) probably evolved complex mechanisms in have been detected, including: sequential order to prevent self-pollination, including flowering (Psychilis spp., Ackerman (1989); self-incompatibility through sporophytic or Malaxis massonii (Ridl.) Kuntze, Aragón gametophytic processes, and through pre- and Ackerman (2001)), dichogamy/pro- visitation mechanisms, including sequen- tandry (Goodyera oblongifolia Raf., Acker- tial flowering, dichogamy (protandry, pro- man (1975); Listera cordata, Ackerman and Mesler (1979); Spiranthes, Catling (1983); ms. received October 2, 2004; accepted August 31, Sipes and Tepedino (1995); Prescottia 2005 stachyodes (Sw.) Lindl., Singer and Sazima 75 76 R. L. TREMBLAY ET AL. (2001a); Erythrodes arietina (Rchb. F. & manipulation (apomixis). No fruits were Warm.) Ames, Singer and Sazima (2001b); set unless flowers were hand pollinated. Sauroglossum elatum Lindl., Singer (2002); Mesadenella cuspidata (Lindl.) Garay, Singer Determination of the breeding system (2002); Notylia nemorosa Barb. Rodr., Singer and Koehler (2002); Warford (1992); Man- Cross pollination vs. self pollination.— niella cypripedioides Salazar, T. Franke, Flowers of the three species of Lepanthes Zapfack & Beenken, Salazar et al. (2002)), studied do not show any evidence of self- temporal variation in pollinarium size (Bul- pollination, but to determine if autogamous bophyllum weddelii (Lindl.) Rchb. f., B. ipane- pollinations produce viable fruits, we per- mense Hoehne and B. involutum Borba, formed a series of hand self-pollinations. Semir and F. Barros, Borba and Semir We self-pollinated 3-day old flowers of L. (1999a); Trigonidium obtusum Lindl., Singer rupestris (n = 33) and L. woodburyana (n = (2002)), and change in position of lip and 50), and 6-day old flowers for L. rubripetala column after pollinarium removal or after a (n = 14). few days if pollinarium is not removed Determination of protandry.—To test if (Sosa and Rodríguez-Angulo 2000). protandry is present in Lepanthes we made We investigated whether or not self- cross-pollinations at different time intervals incompatibility is present in three sequen- of the flower age from one to eight days. tially flowering tropical species of Lepanthes We compared the percentage of fruit pro- (Orhcidaceae). In addition we determined duction per pollination for two age treat- whether their flowers are protandrous. ments (1-5 days and 6+ days) and among Protandry is a dichogamous mechanism; it the three species. We used contingency is defined as the maturation of the male tables to evaluate the null hypothesis that (androecium) structure before the matura- the pattern was random among days and tion of the female (gymnoecium) structures species. (Kearns and Inouye 1993). RESULTS MATERIALS AND METHODS Flower development and fruit phenology From the time we noticed flower bud set, We determined the breeding system of these took 11 to 15 days to open in all three three endemic species of Lepanthes from species. Open flowers lasted up to 10 days Puerto Rico: L. woodburyana Stimson (53 in L. rupestris and L. woodburyana, and 11 individuals), L. rupestris Stimson (56 indi- days in L. rubripetala when not manipu- viduals), and L. rubripetala Stimson (35 in- lated. However, flowers manipulated dividuals). Each species was grown in a TM through pollinia removal or pollination re- Wardian case (Orchidarium Case )inthe duced the life span of open flowers. In gen- laboratory at the same temperature and hu- eral, removal of pollinia caused flowers to midity (18-24°C, 45-100% humidity). close and wither within 1 to 2 days, more- The phenology of flower buds, flowers over, pollination (deposition of pollinia (including anthesis), and fruits for each onto the stigma) resulted in flower closure plant was recorded. The age of flower the next day (Table 1). Mean life span (until buds, flowers and viable fruits along each dehiscence) of fruits was estimated at 31 inflorescence was recorded daily. We con- and 39 days for L. rubripetala and L. rupes- sidered a fruit viable as soon as we noticed tris, respectively. None of the fruits that the expansion of the ovary. As a control we were set aborted (abscission of fruit in early segregated four specimens of Lepanthes stages of development). rupestris and L. rubripetala and L. wood- buryana to determine the effect of flower Hand self and cross-pollinations longevity on non-manipulated flowers, the effect of pollinia removal on flower longev- Hand self pollination did not produce ity and the ability to self-fertilize without any fruits for any of the three species of PROTANDRY IN ORCHIDS 77 TABLE 1. Flower phenology of Lepanthes flowers. Time (in days with s.e., sample size in parentheses). Characteristics L. rubripetala L. rupestris Development of flower bud to anthesis 14.6 ± 0.3 (104) 11.7 ± 0.2 (150) Flower lifespan without manipulation 6.9 ± 0.5 (32) 5.8 ± 0.4 (36) Flower lifespan with pollinia removal only 1.2 ± 0.1 (11) 1.4 ± 0.1 (46) Flower lifespan when flower is pollinated 1.0 ± 0.0 (55) 1.0 ± 0.0 (61) Fruits life span 31.2 ± 2.2 (23) 39.3 ± 1.3 (34) orchids. On the other hand, fruit set by the flowers of Habenaria orbiculata (Pursch) cross-pollinations (irrespective of flower Torr. last about 12.7 days in the field. How- age) was 23.2% for L. rubripetala, 23.1% for ever, flowers of species such as Dendrobium L. rupestris and 41.1% for L. woodburyana. crumenatum Sw. and Sobralia macrantha Lindl. last only one day, while an extreme The effect of flower age on fruit set case are the flowers of Grammatophyllum multiflorum Lindl. which last nine months The number of hand cross-pollination in greenhouses. In Lepanthes flower longev- varied among species and was dependent ity is in the range of 6 – 8 days. When flow- on flower production. Three hundred sev- ers are manipulated (pollinaria removal enty-three pollinations were performed in and pollinaria deposited) flower age is L. rupestris, 142 in L. rubripetala and 192 in L. drastically reduce to one day. This phe- woodburyana. The pattern of fruit set and nomenon of shorten flower life span when flower age was consistent among species. flowers are manipulated is well known in Older flowers (6+ days) had significantly orchids. Given the small size of the flowers, higher fruit set in all three species as com- a reduction in the life span of open flowers pared from the expected proportion (Table may not simply be due to flower manipu- 2). Under the null hypothesis, the expected lation but also to actual physical damage to number of fruits (observed in brackets) delicate sexual structures. were all significantly lower than observed The effect of protandry has been ob- fruit set, 12 (17) for L. rubripetala, 22 (31) for served in orchids. In Goodyera oblongifolia L. rupestris, 38 (56) for L. woodburyana. pollen deposition is prevented by the prox- imity of the column to the lip in young DISCUSSION flowers. As flowers age the column be- comes exposed and thus receptive to pollen Flower longevity is often short (a few deposition (Ackerman 1975).