You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Many to Flower, Few to Fruit: The Reproductive Biology of Hamamelis virginiana (Hamamelidaceae)
Gregory J. Anderson and James D. Hill
American Journal of Botany
Vol. 89, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 67-78
Published by: Botanical Society of America, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131339
Page Count: 12
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Pollen, Flowers, Plants, Fruit set, Pollination, Species, Insect pollination, Flowering, Flower stigma, Anthers
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Hamamelis virginiana flowers from late September to late November. In 1977, we began studying the reproductive biology of this eastern North American arborescent shrub by examining floral phenology and rewards, pollen-ovule ratios, breeding system, pollination, pollinator and resource limitation, and seed dispersal. The homogamous, self-incompatible flowers emit a faint odor, bear nectar with sucrose ratios typical of bee- and fly-pollinated flowers, and produce abundant sticky pollen. Flowers were visited infrequently by insects representing six orders. Flies were the most common floral visitors, specifically members of the genus Bradysia, but small bees also carried high percentages of Hamamelis pollen. Despite high pollen/ovule ratios (11445 grains/ovule), bees and flies are likely pollinators, as experiments indicate wind pollination is less likely. Pollen quantity and resource availability did not appear to limit reproductive output, but pollen quality did. Tests of >40000 flowers showed natural fruit set to be <1%. The flowering time, breeding system, and clumped distribution of plants, likely due in part to limited seed dispersal, combine to yield this remarkably low fruit set. Because all other species of Hamamelis flower from late winter to early summer, it may be that H. virginiana evolved a fall flowering phenology to avoid competition for pollinators with the closely related H. vernalis.
American Journal of Botany © 2002 Botanical Society of America, Inc.