Research

Conflicting selection on floral scent emission in the orchid

1 1 1 1,2 1 Elodie Chapurlat , Jon Agren , Joseph Anderson , Magne Friberg and Nina Sletvold 1Department of Ecology and Genetics, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyv€agen 18D, 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden; 2Department of Biology, Lund University, SE-223 62 Lund, Sweden

Summary Author for correspondence: Floral scent is a crucial trait for pollinator attraction. Yet only a handful of studies have esti- Nina Sletvold mated selection on scent in natural populations and no study has quantified the relative Tel: +46 18 471 2871 importance of pollinators and other agents of selection. Email: [email protected] In the fragrant orchid Gymnadenia conopsea, we used electroantennographic data to iden- Received: 12 November 2018 tify floral scent compounds detected by local pollinators and quantified pollinator-mediated Accepted: 4 February 2019 selection on emission rates of 10 target compounds as well as on flowering start, visual display and spur length. New Phytologist (2019) 222: 2009–2022 Nocturnal pollinators contributed more to reproductive success than diurnal pollinators, but doi: 10.1111/nph.15747 there was significant pollinator-mediated selection on both diurnal and nocturnal scent emis- sion. Pollinators selected for increased emission of two compounds and reduced emission of Key words: agents of selection, conflicting two other compounds, none of which were major constituents of the total bouquet. In three selection, diurnal and nocturnal scent cases, pollinator-mediated selection was opposed by nonpollinator-mediated selection, lead- emission, floral evolution, floral scent, ing to weaker or no detectable net selection. pollinator-mediated selection, volatile Our study demonstrates that minor scent compounds can be targets of selection, that polli- organic compounds. nators do not necessarily favour stronger scent signalling, and that some scent compounds are subject to conflicting selection from pollinators and other agents of selection. Hence, including floral scent traits into selection analysis is important for understanding the mecha- nisms behind floral evolution.

needed to understand the relative role of pollinators and other Introduction selective agents in the evolution of floral scent (Delle-Vedove Floral scent is a complex trait mediating plant– interac- et al., 2017). tions and is considered particularly crucial for pollinator attrac- A variety of volatile organic compounds have been shown to tion (Raguso, 2008; Friberg et al., 2014; Bischof et al., 2015). attract pollinators (e.g. Huber et al., 2004; Byers et al., 2014; The amount, composition and timing of floral scent emission are Friberg et al., 2014; Bischof et al., 2015) and both scent compo- ^ therefore expected to evolve in response to pollinator-mediated sition (Omura et al., 1999; Cunningham, 2004; Theis, 2006) selection. This is supported by convergence in scent traits across and quantitative variation in emission (Ashman et al., 2005; unrelated species with similar pollination modes (Fenster et al., Wright et al., 2005) can affect pollinator responses. Some com- ^ 2004; Dobson, 2006; Junker & Parachnowitsch, 2015), diver- pounds may even repel pollinators (e.g. Omura et al., 2000), gence in scent traits across closely related taxa or populations of whereas others can attract or repel antagonists (e.g. Kessler et al., the same species that differ in dominating pollinators (Dobson 2013). Depending on the species, specific compounds et al., 1997; Byers et al., 2014; Chapurlat et al., 2018) and scent have been reported to be both attractant and repellent, such as ^ divergence in response to artificial selection by different pollina- 2-phenylethanol (Omura et al., 1999; Ashman et al., 2005; tors (Gervasi & Schiestl, 2017). However, floral scent can also Galen et al., 2011), methyl eugenol (Tan & Nishida, 2012) and mediate biotic interactions besides pollination (e.g. Theis, 2006; p-cresol (Kite et al., 1998; Mishra & Sihag, 2009). Moreover, Kessler et al., 2013; Burdon et al., 2018; Knauer et al., 2018), studies have found that some compounds can mediate interac- and vary with abiotic factors (Majetic et al., 2009a, 2017; Farre- tions with both pollinators and antagonists, either attracting Armengol et al., 2014; Friberg et al., 2014). Selection on scent both categories (Theis, 2006; Andrews et al., 2007) or repelling emission could thus be a result of agents other than pollinators both (Kessler et al., 2008; Galen et al., 2011), making such com- (Theis & Adler, 2012; Schiestl, 2015) and could be influenced pounds likely targets of conflicting selection. For example, in by abiotic conditions. Studies that link variation in floral scent to Polemonium viscosum, increased emission of 2-phenylethanol can pollinator-mediated variation in fitness in natural populations are protect plants from ant larcenists but, at the same time, reduce

Ó 2019 The Authors New Phytologist (2019) 222: 2009–2022 2009 New Phytologist Ó 2019 New Phytologist Trust www.newphytologist.com New 2010 Research Phytologist

pollen delivery by bumblebees if present in high concentrations In this study, we experimentally quantified pollinator- (Galen et al., 2011). Finally, attractive and repellent components mediated and nonpollinator-mediated selection on floral scent, of floral scent can act synergistically on both pollinators and flowering phenology and flower morphology in a population antagonists (Kessler et al., 2008). Taken together, this complex- of the fragrant orchid Gymnadenia conopsea s.s. in southern ity indicates that it will often be difficult to predict both Sweden. This orchid species emits a complex bouquet with the direction and the agent of selection on specific scent com- more than 60 compounds described (Jersakova et al., 2010; pounds. Chapurlat et al., 2018). Scent composition differs between day In contrast to well-documented effects of scent variation on and night, with an increase in aromatics driving an overall pollinator and herbivore behaviour, little is known about how increase in floral scent emission at night (Chapurlat et al., such responses translate into effects on plant fitness. The few 2018). G. conopsea s.s. has a semigeneralized pollination sys- studies that conclusively linked scent and fitness variation found tem: it is mostly visited by lepidopteran species (Claessens & mixed results, ranging from no significant relationship (Acker- Kleynen, 2011), which include both diurnal and nocturnal man et al., 1997; Valdivia & Niemeyer, 2006; Salzmann et al., species belonging to similar functional groups (sensu Fenster 2007) to marked effects (Galen, 1985; Galen & Newport, 1988; et al., 2004). In southern Sweden, nocturnal visitors are more Miyake & Yafuso, 2003; Kessler et al., 2008). Only a handful of frequent than diurnal visitors and tend to contribute more to studies have attempted to quantify phenotypic selection on floral reproductive success (Chapurlat et al., 2015, 2018). We con- scent in the field (Majetic et al., 2009b; Schiestl et al., 2010; ducted a selective pollinator exclusion experiment to test if this Ehrlen et al., 2012; Parachnowitsch et al., 2012; Gross et al., was the case in the focal population as well, and if so, whether 2016). These studies document selection on floral scent emission pollinator-mediated selection is stronger on nocturnal than on rate, measured as total scent (Majetic et al., 2009b; Parachnow- diurnal scent emission rates. To identify the active compounds itsch et al., 2012), groups of compounds (Schiestl et al., 2010; in the floral scent bouquet, we used coupled GC- Gross et al., 2016) or specific compounds (Ehrlen et al., 2012; electroantennographic detection (GC-EAD) on diurnal Aglais Parachnowitsch et al., 2012). All studies found that selection urticae (Nymphalidae) and nocturnal porcellus (Sph- favoured increased scent signalling of at least some compounds, ingidae), two species that pollinate G. conopsea in the study as expected if the primary function of floral scent is to attract pol- population (Chapurlat et al., 2018). To decide which com- linators or to repel antagonists. However, three studies reported pounds to include in the selection analysis, we combined these selection for reduced emission of particular compounds or groups data with GC-EAD data available in the literature for these of compounds (Schiestl et al., 2010; Ehrlen et al., 2012; Gross two pollinator species as well as for Autographa gamma (Noc- et al., 2016), suggesting that these either repel pollinators or tuidae), another frequent nocturnal pollinator. attract antagonists or that the cost of producing the compounds To quantify pollinator-mediated selection on scent emission outweighs the benefit for the plant. However, to test these rates and other floral traits, we subtracted estimates of selection hypotheses, there is a need for experimental approaches that gradients among plants receiving supplemental hand- determine the strength and direction of pollinator-mediated pollination (nonpollinator-mediated selection) from estimates selection and its contribution to net selection on floral scent in obtained for open-pollinated control plants (net selection; San- natural populations. dring & Agren 2009; Sletvold & Agren, 2010). Supplemental Quantifying selection on emission rates of individual scent hand-pollination removes possible variation in pollen limitation compounds is difficult because floral scent bouquets can com- within a population, and remaining variation in female fitness prise tens of compounds (e.g. Schiestl et al., 2010) and the bio- will depend on differences in resource status and selection logical function of each compound is often unknown. Previous mediated by agents other than pollinators. In plants dependent studies have used either total scent emission rate (Majetic et al., on pollinators for pollen transfer, the difference in selection 2009b; Parachnowitsch et al., 2012) or statistical methods such observed between the two pollination treatments thus quanti- as principal component analysis (PCA; Schiestl et al., 2010; fies the contribution of the interaction between plant and polli- Gross et al., 2016) or model selection criteria (Ehrlen et al., 2012; nators to net selection observed in the natural population. The Parachnowitsch et al., 2012) to reduce the number of variables difference can result from the removal of any functional rela- included in phenotypic selection analysis. Such approaches tionship between floral trait and pollinator visitation or effi- reduce comparability among studies, and using PCA or total ciency of pollen transfer per visit in the hand-pollination scent makes it difficult to link selection to specific scent com- treatment, but also from indirect effects of changes in mean pounds. When pollinators are the main agent of interest, an alter- pollination intensity. Hand-pollination should reduce the vari- native approach is to use electroantennography to identify which ance in relative fitness (the opportunity of selection; Sletvold & compounds are detected by the pollinators and are thus potential Agren, 2016; Trunschke et al., 2017), it may increase allocation targets of pollinator-mediated selection. Surprisingly, electroan- to seed production to a level where costs of floral traits are tennography is rarely used in combination with studies of expressed, and it may influence other biotic interactions intraspecific scent variation (Delle-Vedove et al., 2017) and has affected by the amount of fruit and seed production (Sletvold not been used as a criterion to identify and reduce the number of et al., 2015). Our estimate of pollinator-mediated selection thus potential targets of pollinator-mediated selection in previous includes both the direct and indirect effects of differences in studies of selection on floral scent. the intensity of plant–pollinator interactions.

New Phytologist (2019) 222: 2009–2022 Ó 2019 The Authors www.newphytologist.com New Phytologist Ó 2019 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist Research 2011

mosquito net wrapped around a wire cylinder of c. 10 cm diame- Materials and Methods ter. Caging per se does not affect female reproductive success (Sletvold et al., 2012). Study species and population Gymnadenia conopsea s.s. is a terrestrial orchid distributed across Dynamic headspace scent sampling, scent sample Eurasia (Hulten & Fries, 1986). It occurs on calcareous soils in preparation and GC-MS analysis grazed meadows and the margins of marshes and fens. The species is a tuberous, nonclonal and long-lived perennial (Øien Scent sampling took place over a period of 8 d between 18 and 27 & Moen, 2002). The fragrant flowers vary in colour from pale to June 2016, corresponding to the peak to late flowering. In both bright pink, and rarely white. Flowers open sequentially from the pollination treatments, plants were sampled, on average, 10 d after bottom to the top of a single inflorescence of 10–100 flowers. flowering start. For each open- and hand-pollinated individual, Individual flowers remain open for up to 1 wk, and individual floral volatiles were sampled for 1 h during both the day and the plants may flower for a month. A long, narrow spur contains nec- night, where night sampling was conducted the evening following tar that is produced throughout anthesis (Stpiczynska & the day sampling (no damage effect of sampling was detected in a Matusiewicz, 2001). Each flower contains two pollinaria, which previous study; Chapurlat et al., 2018). Day sampling started are situated above the spur entrance. Plants are self-compatible, between 12:30 and 15:45 h, and night sampling between but depend on pollinators for successful fruit set (Sletvold et al., 21:30 and 23:00 h, corresponding to periods of peak pollinator 2012). activity (Chapurlat et al., 2018). Up to 50 plants were sampled We conducted our study in summer 2016 in a G. conopsea simultaneously. We recorded air temperature twice during each € population located at Folkeslunda on the island of Oland in sampling occasion (Supporting Information Table S1). Inflores- ® southern Sweden (56°430N, 16°440E). During this field season, cences were enclosed in ICA (ICA Sverige AB, Solna, Sweden) the most frequent nocturnal pollinators were Deilephila porcellus oven bags together with a Teflon tube scent trap filled with 10 mg – ® and A. gamma (90% of total visits, 6.1 visits h 1, based on 20 h of a Tenax GR filter (Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA). Air of video recordings during peak visitation at night), but pollina- was extracted from the bags through a small hole at the top of the tor catches showed that specimens of Cucullia umbratica were bag by a battery-operated vacuum pump (GroTech, Gothenburg, – also carrying Gymnadenia pollinia. During the day, we observed Sweden) maintaining a steady flow of 200 ml min 1. The air flow both A. urticae and A. gamma flying in the population, but diur- was continuously monitored by Cole-Parmer (Vernon Hills, IL, nal visits were rare (no visit documented in 17 h of video record- USA) 65 mm direct-reading flow meter. At each sampling occa- ing during daytime). sion, a control sample of ambient air was collected to identify background contamination. Elution, concentration, storage and GC-MS runs of scent samples were identical to those of Chapurlat Field experiments et al. (2018). To quantify pollinator-mediated selection on flowering phenol- The floral volatile peaks in the chromatograms were automati- ogy, floral display, spur length and floral scent, we compared cally integrated using the MS manufacturer’s software (XCALIBUR selection in open-pollinated control plants and in plants receiving v.1.4; Thermo Electron Corp. 1998–2003, San Jose, CA, USA). supplemental hand-pollination. Before flowering, 400 plants The Avalon peak integration method was used for all compounds with flower buds were randomly chosen and individually tagged. except toluene, the internal standard, for which we used the ICIS The plants were randomly assigned to two treatments of equal integration method which was more appropriate given the size sample size: natural pollination (control, C) of all flowers or sup- and asymmetric shape of the toluene peak. To develop the auto- plemental hand-pollination (HP) of all flowers. We visited the matic scoring, a test sample of 36 chromatograms was also scored population daily and supplemental hand-pollinations were con- manually using the list of compounds identified in a previous ducted as flowers opened. We collected pollinia with cocktail study of floral scent of G. conopsea (Chapurlat et al., 2018), with sticks from untagged individuals located more than 5 m away the addition of one unidentified compound (Table S2). Because from the recipient plant. Each flower was pollinated at least twice the automatic scoring method sometimes overestimated or by rubbing one to two pollinia across each stigma, saturating the wrongly integrated peak area as a result of contaminations during surface with pollen. Hand-pollinated plants were exposed to pol- the GC-MS runs, we looked for outliers in scent emission rates linators throughout the flowering period, and received additional estimated by the automatic scoring for each scent compound and pollen transferred by . for each sampling period (day and night). We manually checked To quantify the respective contribution of diurnal and noctur- the composition of these outlier peaks by examining mass spectra nal pollinators to reproductive success, 60 additional plants were before validating the final dataset. When outliers did not corre- tagged and randomly assigned to two treatments: diurnal pollina- spond to the targeted compound but to a contamination, we tion (D) or nocturnal pollination (N). Plants in the D treatment manually checked if the compound was completely missing, in were caged during the night (18:00–06:00 h), receiving only which case the value of the automatic scoring was set to 0, or if it diurnal visits, and plants in the N treatment were caged during was present in a smaller peak missed by the automatic scoring, in the day (06:00–18:00 h), receiving only nocturnal visits. Caging which case we replaced the value of the automatic scoring with continued until all flowers had wilted. The cages were made of that of the manually integrated area of the peak of the targeted

Ó 2019 The Authors New Phytologist (2019) 222: 2009–2022 New Phytologist Ó 2019 New Phytologist Trust www.newphytologist.com New 2012 Research Phytologist

compound. The emission rate per inflorescence of each com- antennae was inserted into a first glass electrode, and another, pound was calculated as follows (internal standard toluene, sharper electrode was used to pierce the club of the antennae. The 1300 ng added to each scent sample before the GC-MS runs): results are based on a total of six GC-EAD runs, conducted on four antennae from four different A. urticae individuals (one Emission rate per inflorescence of compound i ðng h 1Þ antennal preparation was used for three runs). We considered that a compound elicited an antennal response when we observed con- ¼ peak area of compound i peak area of internal standard sistent EAD responses in more than half of the runs, that is, when : the EAD response was observed in at least five of the eight GC- amount of internal standard in ng EAD runs for D. porcellus, and four of the six runs for A. urticae. To confirm the identity of the compounds eliciting signals in Details of the identification method and average proportion of the insect antennae, the floral scent blend was analysed on a each compound during the day and night in each pollination Hewlett-Packard 5972 mass-selective detector, coupled to a treatment are given in Table S2. Hewlett-Packard 5890II gas chromatograph equipped with the same column and same temperature programme as the gas chro- GC-EAD and literature survey matograph used for the GC-EAD analysis, and hydrogen used as carrier gas. To determine which floral scent compounds elicit electrophysio- We also searched the literature for GC-EAD data for all the logical responses in the antennae of two of the pollinators of different pollinator species observed in the study population (i.e. G. conopsea present in the study population, we performed GC- A. urticae, A. gamma, C. umbratica and D. porcellus). We did not EAD with a nocturnal pollinator, D. porcellus () and a find any data for C. umbratica. We recorded all documented diurnal pollinator, A. urticae (Nymphalidae). To ensure that all antennal responses and nonresponses to volatiles present in the G. conopsea floral scent compounds were represented in the tested floral scent bouquet of our G. conopsea study population. sample, we blended several dynamic headspace samples collected in 2013 and 2015. The A. urticae individuals were reared in growth chambers from larvae provided by Worldwide Butterflies Floral traits included in the selection analysis Ltd (Dorchester, Dorset, UK) (http://www.wwb.co.uk/). The We visited the population daily and recorded the flowering start D. porcellus individuals were caught in the wild using a light trap for each individual as the day on which the first flower opened. placed close to the research station Linne located 18 km from the € On one of the three lowermost flowers we measured spur length study population on Oland a few days before the GC-EAD anal- (distance from corolla to spur tip) and maximum corolla width yses were performed at the Department of Biology, Lund Univer- and height to the nearest 0.1 mm with digital callipers. Corolla sity, in May 2015. Analyses with A. urticae were performed in size was quantified as the product of corolla width and height. July 2015. We recorded plant height (distance from ground to topmost The GC-EAD system consisted of an Agilent 7890A gas chro- flower) at the end of the flowering season and counted the num- matograph (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, USA) ber of flowers at fruiting. equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) and EAD setup. There was a large number of potential scent traits (emission ° One microlitre of the odour sample was injected at 50 C and this rates of 54 compounds during the day and night, giving a total of initial temperature was held for 3 min, followed by heating at a 108 variables), and before the analysis we used the following crite- ° –1 ° rate of 10 Cmin up to 220 C. The end temperature was held ria to reduce the set of variables included in the selection model: for 10 min. An HP INNOWAX 50–220 column was used for the analyses (length 30 m, inner diameter 0.25 mm, film thick- (1) We selected compounds for which we have GC-EAD evi- l ness 0.25 m; Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, CA, USA). At the end dence of response in at least one of the pollinator species (Table 1). of the column, a split allowed a 1 : 1 division of the sample to the (2) We used only compounds present in at least 20% of the FID and the antennal preparation. The GC effluent passed scent samples collected in the day (for compounds detected by ° through a heated transfer line (225 C) and was mixed with char- A. gamma or A. urticae) or at night (for compounds detected by coal-filtered and humidified air before passing over the antennal –1 D. porcellus or A. gamma). preparation at a flow rate of 100 ml min . For the EAD of (3) We removed three variables because correlations with D. porcellus antennae, both sides of an excised antenna, the tip of another volatile compound were stronger than 0.60 in both polli- which was cut at c. 1 mm from the end, were mounted on a nation treatments: PRG-2 EAG (109 gain) probe (Syntech, Kirchzarten, Germany) using conductive gel (Blagel; Cefar, Malm€o, Sweden). The results (a) nocturnal emission rates of phenylacetaldehyde and 2- are based on a total of eight GC-EAD runs, conducted on four phenylethanol – we excluded phenylacetaldehyde because it antennae from three different D. porcellus individuals (some had a higher variance inflation factor (VIF > 5) than 2- antennal preparations were used for two or three runs). For the phenylethanol when included in the multiple regression model. EAD of A. urticae antennae, we used glass micropipette electrodes (b) diurnal and nocturnal emission rates of 2-phenylethyl filled with insect Ringer’s solution (8.0 g l 1 NaCl, 0.4 g l 1 KCl, acetate – we excluded the diurnal rate, as pollination was 1 4gl CaCl2) and connected to silver wires. The base of the mainly nocturnal (see later).

New Phytologist (2019) 222: 2009–2022 Ó 2019 The Authors www.newphytologist.com New Phytologist Ó 2019 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist Research 2013

Table 1 Floral scent compounds detected in the samples collected in the present study, for which electrophysiological data were available for pollinator species present in the Gymnadenia conopsea population at Folkeslunda in 2016.

Compound Deilephila porcellus Autographa gamma Aglais urticae

Aliphatics 6-Methyl-5-hepten-2-one NA +4 Decyl acetate +2 Dodecyl acetate +2 +2 Z-5-Dodecenyl acetate (D) +1,2 +2 Tetradecyl acetate (D) +2 E-11 and Z-11-hexadecenyl acetates +1 Aromatics Benzaldehyde +3 +4 Phenylacetaldehyde (D and N) +1 NA +1,4 Benzyl acetate +2 +3 +4 Benzyl alcohol (D and N) +1,2 +2,3 +4 2-phenyl ethanol (D and N) +1 +3 +1,4 2-phenylethyl acetate (D and N) +1 NA +1 Methyl eugenol (N) +2 +2 +4 p-Cresol (D) +4 Z-methylisoeugenol +1 Eugenol +1,2 +2 +1,4 E-methylisoeugenol +1,2 +2 2-Aminobenzaldehyde (D and N) +1,2 +2 Elemicin (D and N) +2 +2 E-isoeugenol +2 +2 Indole (D and N) +1,2 +2,3 +1 Vanillin +2 Terpenes a-Farnesene +4 Geraniol NA +4

No data were available for Cucullia umbratica. In bold: compounds that are present in at least 20% of the diurnal (D) and/or nocturnal (N) scent samples of this study. +, response detected; , no response detected; NA, compound not tested (absent from floral scent in other studies). References: 1this study; 2 Jersakov a et al. (2010); 3 Plepys et al. (2002); 4 Andersson (2003).

Table 2 Flowering phenology, morphological traits and reproductive pollinators for this compound than for 2- performance (mean SD) for plants receiving supplemental hand- pollination (HP) and open-pollinated control plants (C) in the Gymnadenia aminobenzaldehyde. conopsea population of Folkeslunda in 2016. This protocol resulted in 14 scent variables being included in Pollination the selection analysis.

Trait C (n = 169) HP (n = 139) F or v2 P Female reproductive success and pollen limitation Flowering start 165 3.5 164 2.6 8.13 0.005 (day of the year) To quantify female reproductive success, we recorded the number Plant height (cm) 23.7 4.7 24.2 4.4 0.90 0.34 of fruits and harvested three mature, nondehisced capsules spread Number of flowers 25.7 8.4 26.5 7.9 0.60 0.44 across the inflorescence to determine mean fruit mass for each 2 Corolla size (mm ) 95.0 18.8 97.5 19.8 1.33 0.25 plant. Fruits were dried at room temperature for at least a month, Spur length (mm) 14.5 1.8 14.3 1.8 0.94 0.33 and their dry mass was determined to the nearest 0.01 mg. Fruit Number of fruits 22.1 8.7 25.6 7.9 13.6 < 0.001 mass is positively related to the number of seeds with embryos in Fruit mass (mg) 8.7 2.4 8.9 2.7 0.12 0.73 Female fitness 203 114 227 103 7.99 0.005 G. conopsea (Sletvold & Agren, 2010). For each plant we esti- mated female fitness as the product of number of fruits and mean Differences in numbers of flowers and fruits were analysed with fruit mass. We quantified pollen limitation as 1 – (mean female generalized linear model (v2- and P-values associated with the effect of pollination treatment are shown), whereas differences in other traits were fitness of C plants divided by mean female fitness of HP plants). analysed with one-way ANOVA (F- and P-values given). Fruit mass and We bootstrapped a 95% confidence interval for pollen limitation fitness were log-transformed before analyses to improve normality of by randomly drawing plants with replacement within the C and residuals. P < 0.05 after sequential Bonferroni correction are in bold. HP treatments, respectively, calculating pollen limitation for each permuted sample (n = 2000 replicates), and extracting the 2.5th (c) nocturnal emission rates of indole and 2- and 97.5th percentiles from the obtained distribution of pollen aminobenzaldehyde – we retained indole emission as limitation estimates. In the C and HP treatments, 169 and 139 GC-EAD data showed more consistent responses among plants, respectively, were randomly drawn with replacement,

Ó 2019 The Authors New Phytologist (2019) 222: 2009–2022 New Phytologist Ó 2019 New Phytologist Trust www.newphytologist.com New 2014 Research Phytologist

corresponding to actual sample sizes. Final sample sizes were (Quinn & Keough, 2002) for the linear terms, and all variables reduced from 200 per treatment, owing to drought, wilting and included in the final model had VIF < 5.0. accidental damage of plants during handling, preventing either We tested for pollinator-mediated selection with an ANCOVA trait or fitness measurements. model including both pollination treatments. The model included relative fitness as the response variable and the 19 stan- dardized traits (flowering start, plant height, number of flowers, Statistical analyses corolla size, spur length and 14 scent traits) and trait 9 pollina- We used one-way ANOVA to examine the effects of supplemen- tion treatment interactions as explanatory variables. We did not tal hand-pollination (control vs hand-pollination) on plant phe- force regression lines for the two treatments to have a common Db nology, morphological traits and measures of reproductive intercept. To quantify pollinator-mediated selection ( poll), we performance, and of selective pollinator exclusion (diurnal vs subtracted for each trait the estimated selection gradient for b nocturnal pollination) on reproductive performance. The num- hand-pollinated plants ( HP; nonpollinator-mediated selection) bers of flowers and fruits were analysed with generalized linear from the estimated gradient for open-pollinated control plants b Db = b b models with a quasi-Poisson error distribution, because of ( C; net selection), such that poll C HPq(seeffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Sletvold & overdispersion. When necessary, data were transformed before 2 2 Agren, 2010), with its associated standard error SEb þ SEb . the analyses to improve normality of residuals (indicated in C HP Table 2). We also ran selection models excluding all scent traits to allow The effect of pollination treatment (control vs supplemental comparison with earlier results in this species. hand-pollination) on absolute scent emission rates was analysed All analyses were conducted in R 3.1.3 (R Core Team 2015). in a two-step procedure, because many of these variables had Type III sum-of-squares tests were used for all analyses of linear zero-inflated log-normal distributions. First, we tested whether models (ANOVA function of the car package (Fox & Weisberg, compounds were detected at the same frequency among control 2011)). Where appropriate, we used a sequential Bonferroni cor- and hand-pollinated plants with a chi-squared test of indepen- rection for multiple testing to evaluate statistical significance dence. Second, we used one-way ANOVA to test the effect of (Holm, 1979). treatment on log-transformed emission rates, including only sam- ples where the compound was detected. We also examined Data archiving whether floral scent composition differed between control and hand-pollinated plants in multivariate space by conducting a The data used to calculate selection estimates are archived in the PERMANOVA (function adonis, 10 000 permutations), includ- Dryad Digital Repository https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.5120mv4. ing period and pollination treatment effects on untransformed proportional data, and by plotting the results of nonmetric multi- Results dimensional scaling (NMDS; Fig. S1), including all scent sam- ples except one extreme outlier (one hand-pollinated plant for Floral traits and phenotypic correlations which only one compound was detected in its day sample). The amount of scent emitted varied across the different days We detected 54 compounds in our scent samples: the two most of sampling (significant effect of date on total scent emitted frequent compounds, 2-phenylethanol and phenylacetaldehyde, during the day (P = 0.0015) and night (P < 0.001; one-way were present in > 90% of both diurnal and nocturnal scent sam- ANOVA)), possibly as a result of positive effects of air temper- ples. In total, 24 and 12 compounds were present in at least 20% ature and negative effects of inflorescence age on scent emis- of the diurnal and nocturnal samples, respectively. Multivariate sion at the time of sampling (Table S3). To remove the effect analyses showed that the composition of scent samples differed of sampling date on scent emission rates, we used in the selec- significantly between day and night (effect of period in tion analyses as scent variable for compound i the residuals of PERMANOVA, R² = 0.22, P < 0.001) as indicated by the group- a linear model, including scent emission rate of compound i ing of scent samples according to period of sampling in the as response variable and sampling date (treated as a categorical NMDS plot (Fig. S1), but composition did not differ between variable) as explanatory variable, including data from both pol- pollination treatments (effect of treatment in PERMANOVA, lination treatments. R² = 0.002, P = 0.18; overlapping distribution of scent samples in Selection was estimated following Lande & Arnold (1983), NMDS plot; Fig. S1). On average, open-pollinated control using multiple regression analyses with relative female fitness (in- plants began flowering slightly later and emitted more elemicin dividual fitness divided by mean fitness) as the response variable during the day as compared with hand-pollinated plants and standardized trait values (with a mean of 0 and a variance of (Tables 2, 3). No other differences in floral traits between the 1) as explanatory variables. Relative fitness and standardized trait two pollination treatments were statistically significant after values were calculated separately for each pollination treatment. sequential Bonferroni correction (Tables 2, 3). The range and b We estimated directional selection gradients i from multiple variance in trait expression were similar in the two treatments. In regression models including all linear terms separately for each both pollination treatments, the correlation between plant height treatment. Owing to the high number of traits, we did not and number of flowers was strong and positive, whereas other flo- include quadratic or correlational terms. We computed VIFs ral traits were moderately positively correlated (Table S4).

New Phytologist (2019) 222: 2009–2022 Ó 2019 The Authors www.newphytologist.com New Phytologist Ó 2019 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist Research 2015

Table 3 Floral scent traits (mean SD among samples where the compound was detected; number of samples are indicated in parentheses) for plants receiving supplemental hand-pollination (HP) and open-pollinated control plants (C) in the Gymnadenia conopsea population of Folkeslunda in 2016.

Pollination: emission Pollination: detection rate

Trait C (n = 169) HP (n = 139) v2 PF P

Phenylacetaldehyde D (ng h 1) 55.7 84 (156) 46.9 66 (123) 0.90 0.34 0.85 0.36 2-Phenylethanol D (ng h 1) 148 103 (166) 139 114 (135) 0.069 0.79 1.36 0.24 2-Phenylethanol N (ng h 1) 120 111 (166) 130 128 (135) 0.069 0.79 0.018 0.89 2-Phenylethylacetate N (ng h 1) 110 201 (97) 57.4 115 (78) 0.012 0.91 1.90 0.17 Indole D (ng h 1) 17.4 24 (85) 19.5 34 (66) 0.14 0.71 0.022 0.88 Indole N (ng h 1) 47.1 65 (116) 45.7 68 (106) 1.84 0.18 0.11 0.74 2-Aminobenzaldehyde D (ng h 1) 7.0 9.3 (66) 5.7 5.9 (38) 4.17 0.041 0.61 0.44 Elemicin D (ng h 1) 23.1 35 (97) 11.3 11 (64) 3.50 0.061 15.7 <0.001 Elemicin N (ng h 1) 14.3 15 (65) 11.8 15 (44) 1.26 0.26 1.29 0.26 Methyl eugenol N (ng h 1) 24.9 34 (38) 14.5 13 (36) 0.32 0.57 0.77 0.38 Benzyl alcohol D (ng h 1) 5.6 2.8 (63) 5.3 2.3 (49) 0.062 0.80 0.49 0.49 Benzyl alcohol N (ng h 1) 4.9 2.2 (44) 5.1 2.0 (31) 0.39 0.53 0.26 0.61 p-Cresol D (ng h 1) 8.1 11 (63) 6.9 5.2 (49) 0.062 0.80 0.024 0.88 Z-5-dodecenyl acetate D (ng h 1) 23.4 53 (66) 15.4 12 (57) 0.054 0.82 0.27 0.60

Because most of these variables had a zero-inflated distribution, differences between pollination treatments were tested in a two-step procedure and results are presented separately for each step: for the first step, the v2- and P-values of the chi-squared tests of independence comparing detection of each compound between the pollination treatments are given; for the second step, the F- and P-values associated with the effect of pollination treatment on average emission rates tested in one-way ANOVAs (including only samples where the compound was detected) are shown. Scent emission rates were log- transformed before analyses to improve normality of residuals. P < 0.05 after sequential Bonferroni correction are in bold. Scent variables are ordered by decreasing average proportion of the compound in the floral scent bouquet at night.

Flowering phenology was not correlated to scent traits in the con- the scent compounds detected in the present study are active in trol plants, but was positively correlated with daytime emission D. porcellus,14inA. gamma, and 13 in A. urticae. The antennal of elemicin among hand-pollinated plants. Overall, pairwise cor- receptors of the first two species responded mostly to aromatics relations among scent traits were absent or moderately positive, and, to some extent, to aliphatics, whereas the receptors of the except for a few stronger positive correlations (Table S4). butterfly A. urticae responded to aromatics, to a single aliphatic compound, and to two terpenes. Pollen limitation and reproductive success in the different pollination treatments Selection analysis The population was weakly pollen-limited, and female reproduc- There was evidence of conflicting selection on several scent com- tive success was higher among plants exposed to nocturnal polli- pounds but not on visual display traits (Table 4; Figs 3, S2). We nators than among plants exposed to diurnal pollinators. Pollen detected statistically significant (or marginally significant, limitation of female fitness was 0.11 [0.0001–0.21]. Fruit pro- P < 0.07) pollinator-mediated directional selection on five scent duction was significantly pollen-limited whereas fruit mass was traits, both positive and negative, and in three cases this selection not increased by the supplemental hand-pollination (Table 2). was opposed by statistically significant nonpollinator-mediated The opportunity for selection (variance in relative fitness) was selection. Pollinators selected for increased emission of benzyl 0.32 in the control treatment and 0.21 in the hand-pollination alcohol both at night and during the day, but during the day treatment. Fruit production, fruit mass and female fitness were nonpollinator-mediated selection for reduced emission rate was lower (on average, by 44%, 31% and 62%, respectively) among sufficiently strong to balance this selection. As a result, significant plants exposed to diurnal pollination than among plants exposed net selection for higher emission was only detected at night to nocturnal pollination (Fig. 1). (Fig. 3a,b). Pollinators also tended to favour plants that had high nocturnal emission of methyl eugenol, and this explained all net selection on this trait (Fig. 3c). By contrast, pollinators mediated GC-EAD data strong selection for reduced emission of indole at night, and Among all compounds present in the floral scent of G. conopsea reduced emission of p-cresol during the day. This pollinator- in this study, available GC-EAD data indicate that 25 elicit mediated selection was opposed by selection mediated by other antennal responses in at least one of the three pollinator species selective agents, the net result being weaker selection for reduced tested (Table 1; Fig. 2). We observed antennal responses to 10 emission of indole and no significant net selection on emission of compounds from D. porcellus and to five from A. urticae.Com- p-cresol (Fig. 3d,e). The marginally significant net selection for bined with data from the literature, the results suggest that 20 of reduced nocturnal emission rate of elemicin was the result of

Ó 2019 The Authors New Phytologist (2019) 222: 2009–2022 New Phytologist Ó 2019 New Phytologist Trust www.newphytologist.com New 2016 Research Phytologist

(a) selection mediated by pollinators and other selective agents in the 30 *** *** same direction (Fig. 3f). In contrast to most scent traits, net selec- tion for taller plants, more flowers and larger corollas was mainly CI 25 the result of nonpollinator-mediated selection (Table 4; Fig. 3g, i). There was no statistically significant selection on flowering 20 start or spur length. Estimates of selection gradients for flowering phenology, visual display and spur length were similar irrespec- 15 tive of whether scent traits were included (Table 4) or excluded (Table S5) in the selection analysis. 10

number of fruits ± 95% Discussion 5 In this study, we used EAD to identify scent compounds Mean expected to be important for interactions between G. conopsea 0 HP C D N and the local pollinators, and we documented significant pollina- tor-mediated directional selection on four of the 14 scent traits (b) examined. Interestingly, we also detected opposing nonpollina- 12 ns *** tor-mediated selection on three of these traits. Pollinator- mediated directional selection on scent was as often negative as 10 positive (two scent traits each; Table 4). This suggests that scent compounds can be both pollinator attractants and repellents. ± 95% CI 8 Alternatively, these compounds may be correlated with some

(mg) other traits influencing female fitness but not included in the 6 analysis, or the difference in strength of selection between the

mass two pollination treatments is a result of a change in nonpollina- 4 tor-mediated selection caused by the changes in mean pollination fruit intensity and mean female fitness brought about by supplemental 2 hand-pollination. We discuss these possibilities in the following. Mean If floral scent attracts pollinators (e.g. Huber et al., 2004; Byers 0 et al., 2014; Bischof et al., 2015), pollinator-mediated selection HP C D N for increased scent emission is expected in natural populations (Schiestl, 2015). Indeed, pollinators mediated selection for higher (c) *** emission rate of benzyl alcohol and tended to favour higher emis- 250 ** sion of methyl eugenol, consistent with these compounds being attractants or being correlated with some other trait increasing 200 pollination success but not included in the analysis. Benzyl alco- CI hol has previously been shown to attract butterflies in Brassica ^ rapa (Omura et al., 1999), whereas methyl eugenol can act as 150 ±95% both attractant and repellent depending on insect species (Tan & Nishida, 2012). A tradeoff between resource allocation to scent

fitness 100 production and to seeds could explain the documented nonpolli- nator-mediated selection for reduced emission of benzyl alcohol

Mean during the day. Hand-pollination should increase resource limi- 50 tation, and could thereby increase costs of scent emission and of traits correlated with scent emission. This indirect effect of pollen 0 saturation could contribute to the difference in selection between HP C D N pollination treatments, but it seems unlikely that it, by itself, was (n = 139) (n = 169) (n = 29) (n = 28) responsible for the pollinator-mediated selection observed, as Fig. 1 The effect of pollination treatment on number of fruits (a), mean supplemental hand-pollination increased mean female fitness by fruit mass (b) and female fitness (c; estimated as number of fruits 9 fruit 12% only. Effects on antagonistic interactions are not likely to mass) in the Gymnadenia conopsea population at Folkeslunda in 2016. have contributed to selection on emission rates of the two scent Symbols indicate mean and 95% confidence interval (95% CI, estimated compounds as no damage by florivores or other insect herbivores as 1.96 SE) for each pollination treatment (HP, hand-pollination; C, were observed in the study population. open-pollinated control; D, diurnal pollination; N, nocturnal pollination). The statistical significance of the effect of pollination treatment (HP vs C or We detected equal or even stronger pollinator-mediated selec- D vs N) is indicated at the top of each panel (ns, not significant P > 0.5; **, tion for reduced emission of indole and p-cresol, consistent with P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001). a repelling function. Both compounds are fetid odours present in

New Phytologist (2019) 222: 2009–2022 Ó 2019 The Authors www.newphytologist.com New Phytologist Ó 2019 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist Research 2017

(a) Deilephila porcellus

EAD 0.5 mV IV VI VIII (8/8) (7/8) (6/8) I II III V VII IX XXIX XI (5/8) (8/8) (8/8) (8/8) (5/8) (6/8) (6/7) (6/7)

FID 20 mV

5 10 15 20 Time (min)

(b) Ag lais urticae

EAD 0.5 mV II III V VIII XI (4/6) (5/6) (5/6) (5/6) (4/6)

20 mV FID

5 10 15 20 Time (min) I. Nonanal (contaminant) II. Phenylacetaldehyde III.III 22-phenylethyl h l h l acetate IV. Benzyl alcohol V. 2-phenyl ethanol VI. Z-5 and Z-7 dodecenyl acetates VII. Z-methylisoeugenol VIII. Eugenol (for A. urticae and D. porcellus) and 2-aminobenzaldehyde (for D. porcellus) IX. E-methylisoeugenol X. E-11 and Z-11 hexenyl acetates XI. Indole Fig. 2 Simultaneous responses of the flame ionization detector (FID) and electroantennographic detection (EAD) using antennae of Deilephila porcellus (a) and Aglais urticae (b) to headspace samples of Gymnadenia conopsea inflorescences. Nonanal is a contaminant also found in control scent samples. We highlight only consistent EAD responses (observed in at least five of the eight GC-EAD runs for D. porcellus, and four of the six runs for A. urticae). The numbers in brackets are the number of runs in which the EAD response is observed/total number of runs. carrion/dung that attract pollinators of carrion- and dung- observed nonpollinator-mediated selection and any difference in mimicking plants (Kite et al., 1998; Gibernau et al., 2004; its strength between treatments are thus unlikely to be caused by Cna’ani et al., 2018 and references therein). Indole is also known antagonists, but possibly by correlations with traits not included to attract bees and hawkmoths (Andrews et al., 2007; Bischof in the analysis whose costs are affected by an increase in resource et al., 2015), and is a precursor for toxic metabolites deterring limitation in the hand-pollination treatment. All four com- herbivores (Cna’ani et al., 2018), but no repellent effect on polli- pounds experiencing pollinator-mediated selection in our study nators has been documented so far. By contrast, p-cresol is a are present in the odour of many plant species, suggesting broad repellent for bees (Mishra & Sihag, 2009). Among hand- functional importance (Knudsen et al., 2006; Tan & Nishida, pollinated plants, there was selection for higher emission of both 2012; Cna’ani et al., 2018). However, it appears that the function these compounds. This is consistent with a situation where scent of a specific compound is highly context-dependent, and addi- repels antagonists (e.g. Kessler et al., 2008, 2013; Theis & Adler, tional studies are required to determine conclusively whether the 2012), but, as noted earlier, we did not observe any damage by documented pollinator-mediated selection on scent can be florivores or other insect herbivores in our study population. The attributed to scent-driven differential pollination success in the

Ó 2019 The Authors New Phytologist (2019) 222: 2009–2022 New Phytologist Ó 2019 New Phytologist Trust www.newphytologist.com New 2018 Research Phytologist

Table 4 Selection gradients on flowering phenology, floral display, spur length and 14 scent traits among open-pollinated (bC, net selection, n = 169) and hand-pollinated plants (bHP, nonpollinator-mediated selection, n = 139) estimated with multiple linear regression in each pollination treatment, and esti- mates of pollinator-mediated selection (Dbpoll = bC – bHP) in the Gymnadenia conopsea s.s. population at Folkeslunda in 2016.

Floral trait bC SE P bHP SE P Dbpoll SE P

Flowering start 0.042 0.024 0.15 0.030 0.025 0.24 0.013 0.035 0.75 Plant height 0.16 0.037 <0.001 0.094 0.031 0.0029 0.070 0.048 0.16 Number of flowers 0.30 0.038 <0.001 0.27 0.031 <0.001 0.024 0.049 0.63 Corolla area 0.074 0.029 0.011 0.11 0.025 <0.001 0.033 0.038 0.39 Spur length 0.015 0.031 0.64 0.018 0.026 0.50 0.033 0.040 0.44 Phenylacetaldehyde D 0.0032 0.035 0.93 0.0061 0.028 0.82 0.0029 0.045 0.95 2-Phenylethanol D 0.012 0.041 0.76 0.024 0.035 0.49 0.012 0.054 0.83 2-Phenylethanol N 0.0086 0.045 0.85 0.017 0.029 0.55 0.0087 0.054 0.87 2-Phenylethylacetate N 0.042 0.035 0.23 0.0023 0.022 0.92 0.044 0.041 0.28 Indole D 0.0072 0.037 0.85 0.024 0.029 0.41 0.017 0.047 0.72 Indole N 0.089 0.044 0.046 0.067 0.030 0.028 0.16 0.053 0.0037 2-Aminobenzaldehyde D 0.0094 0.049 0.85 0.042 0.028 0.13 0.052 0.056 0.35 Elemicin D 0.028 0.032 0.39 0.023 0.031 0.45 0.051 0.045 0.28 Elemicin N 0:065 0:034 0:060 0.028 0.029 0.34 0.037 0.045 0.42 Methyl eugenol N 0:073 0:038 0:056 0.013 0.027 0.63 0:086 0:047 0:068 Benzyl alcohol D 0.034 0.029 0.25 0.051 0.025 0.047 0.085 0.038 0.033 Benzyl alcohol N 0.079 0.032 0.015 0.032 0.025 0.21 0.11 0.041 0.0076 p-Cresol D 0.031 0.026 0.23 0.052 0.023 0.028 0.083 0.035 0.022 Z-5-dodecenyl acetate D 0.026 0.041 0.53 0.00063 0.028 0.98 0.026 0.050 0.59

The statistical significance of Dbpoll is determined from the trait by pollination treatment interaction in an ANCOVA. Scent variables are ordered by decreas- ing average proportion of the compound in the floral scent bouquet at night. Significant (P < 0.05) selection gradients and pollinator-mediated selection estimates are shown in bold. Marginally significant (P < 0.07) selection gradient and pollinator-mediated selection estimates are underlined.

control treatment, to indirect effects of interactions with pollina- While nocturnal pollinators contributed more to reproductive tors, or both. success than did diurnal pollinators, we documented pollinator- Interestingly, targets of selection were not the major com- mediated selection on both nocturnal and diurnal scent emission pounds of the floral bouquet of G. conopsea This is consistent rates. Even though we cannot conclusively link selection on scent with two previous studies that quantified phenotypic selection on during the day and night to each respective pollinator category, it individual scent compounds. In Penstemon digitalis, there was seems likely that pollinator-mediated selection on nocturnal or selection on emission of linalool, which constituted only 6.7% of diurnal rates is mediated by the species that are active during the the floral headspace of this plant (Parachnowitsch et al., 2012), respective period of the day. This also suggests that pollinators and in Primula veris, none of the three most abundant com- that are less important for reproductive success can exert pounds (including linalool) were under selection (Ehrlen et al., detectable selection on floral scent. Similarly, there was selection 2012). The fact that several studies have reported selection on rel- on nocturnal scent emission rate despite pollination by diurnal atively minor compounds and also that the direction of selection bees and syrphid flies being more common than pollination by varies among compounds (this study; Ehrlen et al., 2012) sug- nocturnal in the herb Hesperis matronalis (Majetic et al., gests that studying individual compounds provides additional 2009b). However, patterns of selection on day and night emis- insights compared with approaches measuring selection on total sions of scents did not fully correspond to what might be scent or principal components, as the latter may often be driven expected based on observed differences in absolute emission rates by the major constituents of the floral bouquet. Recently, back- between the day and night in G. conopsea (Chapurlat et al., transforming principal component scores into selection gradients 2018). Selection for higher nocturnal emission rates of methyl on original traits has been suggested as an approach to deal with eugenol and benzyl alcohol is in line with an increase in emission multicollinearity while facilitating biological interpretation of these compounds at night, but selection for higher diurnal (Chong et al., 2018), and seems promising for truly high- emission of benzyl alcohol suggests that this compound is also dimensional data. However, if previous information on biological important for attracting diurnal pollinators. More surprisingly, function and selective agents exists, quantifying selection on sin- we observed selection for reduced nocturnal emission rates of gle compounds should be preferable. It should be noted that we indole and elemicin, two compounds that increase at night in this only quantified directional selection, and it is thus possible that orchid species (Chapurlat et al., 2018). The lack of congruence major compounds are under stabilizing selection. More generally, between diel patterns of scent emission and current net selection the major compounds may always be present in quantities above suggests that the observed difference in emission rate between the saturation point for pollinator attraction, but response curves day and night does not necessarily represent an equilibrium, or of pollinator behaviour to compound concentration remain that there is temporal variation in selection on scent, as observed unknown. in a closely related species (Gross et al., 2016).

New Phytologist (2019) 222: 2009–2022 Ó 2019 The Authors www.newphytologist.com New Phytologist Ó 2019 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist Research 2019

(a) Benzyl alcohol (day) (b) Benzyl alcohol (night) (c) Methyleugenol (night) 0.15 0.15 0.15 )

) 0.101 010.1 010.1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0 0 0 –0.05 –0.05 –0.05 –0.1 gradient (± SE) –0.1 –0.1 –0.15 –0.15 –0.15 Selection Selection gradient (± SE –0.2 –0.2 Selection gradient (± SE –0.2 –0.25 –0.25 –0.25

(d) Indole (night) (e) p-Cresol (day) (f) Elemicin (night) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05 (± SE) nt (± SE) nt 0 0 nt (± SE) 0 –0.05 –0.05 –0.05 –0.1 gradie –0.1 –0.1 –0.15 –0.15 –0.15 Selection gradie Selection –0.2 –0.2 Selection gradie –0.2 –0.25 –0.25 –0.25

(g) PlPlant t heighth i ht (h) NumberNb of ffl flowers (i) CllCorolla area 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.25 0.25 0.25 ±SE) (± SE) 0.2 0.2 ( 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05 on gradient (± SE) on gradient 0.05 on gradient 0 0 0 –0.05 –0.05 –0.05 Selectio Selectio Selectio –0.1 –0.1 –0.1 Fig. 3 Selection gradients on six floral scent traits (a–f) and three visual display traits (g–i; note the different scales of the y-axes) among open-pollinated plants (net selection, bC, white bars), hand-pollinated plants (nonpollinator-mediated selection, bHP, grey bars), and attributed to interactions with pollinators (pollinator-mediated selection, estimated as bC – bHP, red bars) in the Folkeslunda Gymnadenia conopsea population in 2016. Significant (P < 0.05) and marginally significant (P < 0.07) gradients are indicated by bold solid and dashed outlines, respectively. For the floral scent compounds, the period of emission is indicated between brackets. Only traits for which a significant or marginally significant gradient was detected in at least one of the pollination treatments are shown.

In this study, pollinators did not contribute significantly to compounds). However, Schiestl et al. (2010) have shown that selection on visual display (plant height, number of flowers and selection can also act on nonactive compounds, and we cannot corolla area), in contrast to previous studies of the same species, exclude the possibility that the selection we detected may be where scent traits were not included in the selection model driven by correlations with scent traits not included in the (Sletvold & Agren, 2010; Sletvold et al., 2012; Chapurlat et al., model. G. conopsea is pollinated by many lepidopteran species 2015). The absence of significant pollinator-mediated selection (Claessens & Kleynen, 2011), and it is thus possible that addi- on visual traits in the present study was not caused by the inclu- tional compounds could be important for pollinator species other sion of floral scent traits, as models including and excluding scent than the three for which we have GC-EAD data, although they traits produced similar selection gradients on all other traits were the most frequent pollinators in our study population (Cha- (Table S5). This indicates that differences in selection on visual purlat et al., 2018). Moreover, the fact that we detected fewer or display between the present and previous studies reflect spa- different antennal responses from D. porcellus and A. urticae com- tiotemporal variation in selection, and this is consistent with pre- pared with previous reports indicates that GC-EAD results can vious work demonstrating spatial and temporal variation in be sensitive to variation in concentration of compounds in the selection on these traits in G. conopsea (Sletvold & Agren, 2010, floral scent sample. It is thus possible that we missed some com- 2014; Chapurlat et al., 2015). pounds that are actually detected by the pollinators as a result of In the present study, we were primarily interested in quantify- low concentrations in our scent samples used for the GC-EAD ing pollinator-mediated selection and decided to include only analyses. Finally, as we restricted our analysis to compounds compounds that have been shown to elicit antennal responses in detected by pollinators, it is possible that selection mediated by at least one of the pollinator species (i.e. so-called active other selective agents on scent compounds not included in the

Ó 2019 The Authors New Phytologist (2019) 222: 2009–2022 New Phytologist Ó 2019 New Phytologist Trust www.newphytologist.com New 2020 Research Phytologist

analyses could influence the results. To conclude definitively that Andrews ES, Theis N, Adler LS. 2007. Pollinator and herbivore attraction to – specific compounds are direct targets of selection, experimental Cucurbita floral volatiles. Journal of Chemical Ecology 33: 1682 1691. manipulations of scent phenotypes are needed (cf. Kessler et al., Ashman T-L, Bradburn M, Cole DH, Blaney BH, Raguso RA. 2005. The scent of a male: the role of floral volatiles in pollination of a gender dimorphic plant. 2008; Galen et al., 2011; Theis & Adler, 2012; Campbell et al., Ecology 86: 2099–2105. 2016). Bischof M, Raguso RA, Jurgens€ A, Campbell DR. 2015. Context- dependent reproductive isolation mediated by floral scent and color. Evolution 69:1–13. Conclusions Burdon RCF, Junker RR, Scofield DG, Parachnowitsch AL. 2018. Bacteria colonising Penstemon digitalis show volatile and tissue-specific responses to a The conflicting selection on floral scent traits documented in this natural concentration range of the floral volatile linalool. Chemoecology 28: study suggests that evolution of scent in response to pollinator- 11–19. mediated selection can be constrained by other factors. In partic- Byers KJRP, Bradshaw HD, Riffell JA. 2014. Three floral volatiles contribute to differential pollinator attraction in monkeyflowers (Mimulus). Journal of ular, nonpollinator-mediated selection for increased scent emis- – sion was a surprising finding in a population with no observed Experimental Biology 217: 614 623. Campbell DR, Jurgens€ A, Johnson SD. 2016. Reproductive isolation between antagonistic interactions. Although macroevolutionary patterns Zaluzianskya species: the influence of volatiles and flower orientation on of correspondence between floral scent profiles and pollinator hawkmoth foraging choices. New Phytologist 210: 333–342. groups indicate that divergent pollinator-mediated selection is Chapurlat E, Agren J, Sletvold N. 2015. Spatial variation in pollinator-mediated selection on phenology, floral display and spur length in the orchid important for causing and maintaining such patterns, the present – results indicate that floral scent profiles are shaped by multiple Gymnadenia conopsea. New Phytologist 208: 1264 1275. Chapurlat E, Anderson J, Agren J, Friberg M, Sletvold N. 2018. Diel pattern of factors. Studies that quantify current selection on scent in natural floral scent emission matches the relative importance of diurnal and nocturnal populations and identify the selective agents involved will be key pollinators in populations of Gymnadenia conopsea. Annals of Botany 121: 711– to advancing our understanding of floral scent evolution. 721. Chong VK, Fung HF, Stinchcombe JR. 2018. A note on measuring natural selection on principal component scores. Evolution Letters 2: 272–280. Acknowledgements Claessens J, Kleynen J. 2011. The flower of the European orchid: form and function. Schrijen-Lipperz, Stein, the Netherlands: Jean Claessens & Jacques We thank Maria Uscka-Perzanowska, Anna Haglund, Amelie Kleynen. Truchy and Linus Vikstr€om for assistance, Niklas Olsson for Cna’ani A, Seifan M, Tzin V. 2018. Indole is an essential molecule for plant access to his property, and Glenn Svensson and the Pheromone interactions with herbivores and pollinators. Journal of Plant Biology and Crop Group at Lund University for help with GC-EAD analyses. This Research 1: 1003. Cunningham JP. 2004. Learning, odour preference and flower foraging in moths. study was funded by grants from Bertil Lundman’s Fund for Journal of Experimental Biology 207:87–94. Botanical Studies, Stiftelsen Extensus and Stiftelsen Lars Hiertas Delle-Vedove R, Schatz B, Dufay M. 2017. Understanding intraspecific Minne to EC, the Swedish Research Council Formas to NS, the variation of floral scent in light of evolutionary ecology. Annals of Botany 120: – Swedish Research Council to JA and MF, and L€angmanska Kul- 1 20. turfonden to MF. Dobson HE. 2006. Relationship between floral fragrance composition and type of pollinator. In: Dudareva N, Pichersky E, eds. Biology of floral scent. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 147–198. € Author contributions Dobson HE, Arroyo J, Bergstrom LG, Groth I. 1997. Interspecific variation in floral fragrances within the genus Narcissus (Amaryllidaceae). Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 25: 686–706. EC, JA, MF and NS planned and designed the research; EC, JA and MF conducted fieldwork and scent sample laboratory work, Ehrlen J, Borg-Karlson A-K, Kolb A. 2012. Selection on plant optical traits and floral scent: effects via seed development and antagonistic interactions. Basic and developed automatic scoring of scent samples; EC conducted and Applied Ecology 13: 509–515. GC-EAD analyses and analysed all data; EC wrote the first draft Farre-Armengol G, Filella I, Llusia J, Niinemets U,€ Penuelas~ J. 2014. Changes of the manuscript and all authors contributed to revisions. in floral bouquets from compound-specific responses to increasing temperatures. Global Change Biology 20: 3660–3669. Fenster CB, Armbruster WS, Wilson P, Dudash MR, Thomson JD. 2004. ORCID Pollination syndromes and floral specialization. Annual Review of Ecology, – Evolution, and Systematics 35: 375 403. Jon Agren https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9573-2463 Fox J, Weisberg S. 2011. An R companion to applied regression, 2nd edn. Magne Friberg https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4779-7881 Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications. Nina Sletvold https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9868-3449 Friberg M, Schwind C, Roark LC, Raguso RA, Thompson JN. 2014. Floral scent contributes to interaction specificity in coevolving plants and their insect pollinators. Journal of Chemical Ecology 40: 955–965. Galen C. 1985. Regulation of seed-set in Polemonium viscosum: floral scents, – References pollination, and resources. Ecology 66: 792 797. Galen C, Kaczorowski R, Todd SL, Geib J, Raguso RA. 2011. Dosage- Ackerman JD, Melendez-Ackerman EJ, Salguero-Faria J. 1997. Variation in dependent impacts of a floral volatile compound on pollinators, larcenists, and pollinator abundance and selection on fragrance phenotypes in an epiphytic the potential for floral evolution in the alpine skypilot Polemonium viscosum. orchid. American Journal of Botany 84: 1383–1390. The American Naturalist 177: 258–272. Andersson S. 2003. Antennal responses to floral scents in the butterflies Inachis Galen C, Newport MEA. 1988. Pollination quality, seed set, and flower traits in io, Aglais urticae (Nymphalidae), and Gonepteryx rhamni (Pieridae). Polemonium viscosum: complementary effects of variation in flower scent and Chemoecology 13:13–20. size. American Journal of Botany 75: 900–905.

New Phytologist (2019) 222: 2009–2022 Ó 2019 The Authors www.newphytologist.com New Phytologist Ó 2019 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist Research 2021

Gervasi DDL, Schiestl FP. 2017. Real-time divergent evolution in plants driven behavioural and electrophysiological responses to floral volatiles. Oikos 99:75– by pollinators. Nature Communications 8: 14691. 82. Gibernau M, Macquart D, Przetak G. 2004. Pollination in the genus Arum –a Quinn GP, Keough MJ. 2002. Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. review. Aroideana 27: 149–166. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Gross K, Sun M, Schiestl FP. 2016. Why do floral perfumes become different? R Core Team. 2015. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Region-specific selection on floral scent in a terrestrial orchid. PLoS ONE 11: Vienna, Austria: R foundation for Statistical Computing. e0147975. Raguso RA. 2008. Wake up and smell the roses: the ecology and evolution of Holm S. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. floral scent. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39: 549–569. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 6:65–70. Salzmann CC, Nardella AM, Cozzolino S, Schiestl FP. 2007. Variability in floral Huber FK, Kaiser R, Sauter W, Schiestl FP. 2004. Floral scent emission and scent in rewarding and deceptive orchids: the signature of pollinator-imposed pollinator attraction in two species of Gymnadenia (Orchidaceae). Oecologia selection? Annals of Botany 100: 757–765. 142: 564–575. Sandring S, Agren J. 2009. Pollinator-mediated selection on floral display and Hulten E, Fries M. 1986. Atlas of north European vascular plants (North of the flowering time in the perennial herb Arabidopsis lyrata. Evolution 63: 1292– Tropic of Cancer), Vols. I-III.Konigstein,€ Germany: Koeltz Scientific Books. 1300. Jersakova J, Castro S, Sonk N, Milchreit K, Sch€odelbauerova I, Tolasch T, Schiestl FP. 2015. Ecology and evolution of floral volatile-mediated information D€otterl S. 2010. Absence of pollinator-mediated premating barriers in mixed- transfer in plants. New Phytologist 206: 571–577. ploidy populations of Gymnadenia conopsea s.l. (Orchidaceae). Evolutionary Schiestl FP, Huber FK, Gomez JM. 2010. Phenotypic selection on floral scent: Ecology 24: 1199–1218. trade-off between attraction and deterrence? Evolutionary Ecology 25: 237–248. Junker RR, Parachnowitsch AL. 2015. Working towards a holistic view on Sletvold N, Agren J. 2010. Pollinator-mediated selection on floral display and flower traits—How floral scents mediate plant–animal interactions in concert spur length in the orchid Gymnadenia conopsea. International Journal of Plant with other floral characters. Journal of the Indian Institute of Science 95:43–68. Sciences 171: 999–1009. Kessler D, Diezel C, Clark DG, Colquhoun TA, Baldwin IT. 2013. Petunia Sletvold N, Agren J. 2014. There is more to pollinator-mediated selection than flowers solve the defence/apparency dilemma of pollinator attraction by pollen limitation. Evolution 68: 1907–1918. deploying complex floral blends. Ecology Letters 16: 299–306. Sletvold N, Agren J. 2016. Experimental reduction in interaction intensity Kessler D, Gase K, Baldwin IT. 2008. Field experiments with transformed plants strongly affects biotic selection. Ecology 97: 3091–3098. reveal the sense of floral scents. Science 321: 1200–1202. Sletvold N, Moritz KK, Agren J. 2015. Additive effects of pollinators and Kite GC, Hetterscheid WL, Lewis MJ, Boyce PC, Ollerton J, Cocklin E, Diaz herbivores result in both conflicting and reinforcing selection on floral traits. A, Simmonds M. 1998. Inflorescence odours and pollinators of Arum and Ecology 96: 214–221. Amoprphophallus (Araceae). In: Owens SJ, Rudall PJ, eds. Reproductive biology. Sletvold N, Trunschke T, Wimmergren C, Agren J. 2012. Separating selection Kew, UK: Royal Botanic Gardens, 295–315. by diurnal and nocturnal pollinators on floral display and spur length in Knauer AC, Bakhtiari M, Schiestl FP. 2018. Crab spiders impact floral-signal Gymnadenia conopsea. Ecology 93: 1880–1891. evolution indirectly through removal of florivores. Nature Communications 9: Stpiczynska M, Matusiewicz J. 2001. Anatomy and ultrastructure of spur nectary 1367. of Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) Orchidaceae. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae Knudsen JT, Eriksson R, Gershenzon J, Stahl B. 2006. Diversity and 70: 267–272. distribution of floral scent. The Botanical Review 72:1–120. Tan KH, Nishida R. 2012. Methyl eugenol: its occurrence, distribution, and role Lande R, Arnold SJ. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated in nature, especially in relation to insect behavior and pollination. Journal of characters. Evolution 37: 1210–1226. Insect Science 12:1–60. Majetic CJ, Fetters AM, Beck OM, Stachnik EF, Beam KM. 2017. Petunia floral Theis N. 2006. Fragrance of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) attracts both floral trait plasticity in response to soil nitrogen content and subsequent impacts on herbivores and pollinators. Journal of Chemical Ecology 32: 917–927. insect visitation. Flora 232: 183–193. Theis N, Adler LS. 2012. Advertising to the enemy: enhanced floral fragrance Majetic CJ, Raguso RA, Ashman T-L. 2009a. Sources of floral scent variation: increases beetle attraction and reduces plant reproduction. Ecology 93: 430– can environment define floral scent phenotype? Plant Signaling & Behavior 4: 435. 129–131. Trunschke J, Sletvold N, Agren J. 2017. Interaction intensity and pollinator- Majetic CJ, Raguso RA, Ashman T-L. 2009b. The sweet smell of success: floral mediated selection. New Phytologist 214: 1381–1389. scent affects pollinator attraction and seed fitness in Hesperis matronalis. Valdivia CE, Niemeyer HM. 2006. Do pollinators simultaneously select for Functional Ecology 23: 480–487. inflorescence size and amount of floral scents? An experimental assessment on Mishra S, Sihag RC. 2009. Efficacy of some repellent chemicals against two Escallonia myrtoidea. Austral Ecology 31: 897–903. honeybee species, Apis mellifera L. and Apis florea F. in field trials. Journal of Wright GA, Lutmerding A, Dudareva N, Smith BH. 2005. Intensity and the Apicultural Science 53:21–29. ratios of compounds in the scent of snapdragon flowers affect scent Miyake T, Yafuso M. 2003. Floral scents affect reproductive success in fly- discrimination by honeybees (Apis mellifera). Journal of Comparative Physiology pollinated Alocasia odora (Araceae). American Journal of Botany 90: 370–376. A 191: 105–114. Øien D-I, Moen A. 2002. Flowering and survival of Dactylorhiza lapponica and Gymnadenia conopsea in the Sølendet Nature Reserve, Central Norway. In: Kindlmann P, Willems JH, Whigham DF, eds. Trends and fluctuations and Supporting Information underlying mechanisms in terrestrial orchid populations. Leiden, the Netherlands: Backhuys Publishers, 3–22. Additional Supporting Information may be found online in the ^ Omura H, Honda K, Hayashi N. 1999. Chemical and chromatic bases for Supporting Information section at the end of the article. preferential visiting by the cabbage butterfly, Pieris rapae, to rape flowers. Journal of Chemical Ecology 25: 1895–1906. ^ Fig. S1 NMDS plots of the Gymnadenia conopsea samples show- Omura H, Honda K, Hayashi N. 2000. Floral scent of Osmanthus fragrans discourages foraging behavior of cabbage butterfly, Pieris rapae. Journal of ing the influence of sampling period (day vs night) and pollina- Chemical Ecology 26: 655–666. tion treatment (control vs hand-pollination) on scent Parachnowitsch AL, Raguso RA, Kessler A. 2012. Phenotypic selection to composition. increase floral scent emission, but not flower size or colour in bee-pollinated – Penstemon digitalis. New Phytologist 195: 667 675. Fig. S2 Standardized linear phenotypic selection gradients on six Plepys D, Ibarra F, Francke W, Lofstedt€ C. 2002. Odour-mediated nectar foraging in the silver Y , Autographa gamma (: Noctuidae): scent traits and three visual display traits for open-pollinated

Ó 2019 The Authors New Phytologist (2019) 222: 2009–2022 New Phytologist Ó 2019 New Phytologist Trust www.newphytologist.com New 2022 Research Phytologist

control plants and in plants receiving supplemental hand- Table S4 Phenotypic correlations among traits in open- pollination in the Folkeslunda population of Gymnadenia pollinated control plants and in hand-pollinated plants in the conopsea in 2016. Folkeslunda population of Gymnadenia conopsea in 2016.

Table S1 Average air temperature (T) during the day and night Table S5 Linear selection gradients on flowering phenology, floral b in the Folkeslunda population of Gymnadenia conopsea for each display and spur length among open-pollinated ( C, net selection) b day of scent sampling in June 2016. and hand-pollinated plants ( HP, nonpollinator-mediated selection) Db and estimates of pollinator-mediated selection ( poll)inthe Table S2 The proportional contribution of each individual com- Gymnadenia conopsea population at Folkeslunda in 2016 in models pound to the average floral scent bouquets during the day and at excluding scent traits. night of open-pollinated control plants (C) and hand-pollinated plants (HP) in the Gymnadenia conopsea population at Folkeslunda in 2016. Please note: Wiley Blackwell are not responsible for the content or functionality of any Supporting Information supplied by the Table S3 Partial regression slopes and associated P-value corre- authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be sponding to the effects of air temperature and inflorescence age directed to the New Phytologist Central Office. on total floral scent emission rate per inflorescence for scent sam- ples taken during the day or at night in the Folkeslunda popula- tion of Gymnadenia conopsea in 2016.

New Phytologist is an electronic (online-only) journal owned by the New Phytologist Trust, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the promotion of plant science, facilitating projects from symposia to free access for our Tansley reviews and Tansley insights.

Regular papers, Letters, Research reviews, Rapid reports and both Modelling/Theory and Methods papers are encouraged. We are committed to rapid processing, from online submission through to publication ‘as ready’ via Early View – our average time to decision is <26 days. There are no page or colour charges and a PDF version will be provided for each article.

The journal is available online at Wiley Online Library. Visit www.newphytologist.com to search the articles and register for table of contents email alerts.

If you have any questions, do get in touch with Central Office (np-centraloffi[email protected]) or, if it is more convenient, our USA Office (np-usaoffi[email protected])

For submission instructions, subscription and all the latest information visit www.newphytologist.com

New Phytologist (2019) 222: 2009–2022 Ó 2019 The Authors www.newphytologist.com New Phytologist Ó 2019 New Phytologist Trust