Categories

pollen viability and identifying distinct plants in the recruitment expt (I)

I was glad to participate in assessing floral phenology Wed morning and, with Amy, checking to resolve uncertainties remaining from this year’s monitoring of the first recruitment experiment (not to mention a very fun lunch with the team!). We sampled tissue from closely neighboring rosettes, where it isn’t clear whether they are the same or different plants, for eventual molecular analysis in Chicago by Jennifer and her team. Resolution of those plant identities should certainly help reduce the problem of counts of survivors *increasing* between censuses. But, in retrospect, I wondered whether the info we recorded was crystal-clear in terms of how this year’s counts should be adjusted, depending on the outcome of the IDing, particularly for the zones where many seedlings were recorded. When the remaining double-checking is done, it would be good to keep this in mind…

Of the many, many other terrific things that I’m excited are being accomplished, I’ll just comment that I’m happy to see Megan’s post that she has sampled pollen and stored it in different conditions to check its long-term viability. Finding a way to keep pollen viable for a month to a year would pave the way for experiments I thought up while observing pollinators out at LF on July 7. I see that Megan noted the amount of pollen available for that sample wasn’t large, so it would be great if another set of samples could be taken, also so other plants are represented.

Observations on Thursday

This two-part entry includes one observation about pollination that struck me odd. I had a floral head (A) at Loeffler’s corner and as Agopostamas texanus approached – it stopped – flew backwards and away – and visited others nearby (all Echinacea). Did the presence of ants on the head – around the anthers have anything to do with the “I’ll just come back later” actions of the bee? Has anyone else observed a head NOT get visited even though it was ripe with pollen because of the presence of ants?
My second half is simply noting that a calico cat and two large kittens were at the end of the common garden yesterday as I left about 4PM. The mother slunk away and the gold/white kitten watched me while the other kitten mostly white/ some black was trying to consume a chipmunk! Are these cats known to inhabit the area?

A picture is worth a thousand words, or one Flog post

So, there has been a serious lack of pictures lately (aside from those awesome Stipa scans), so I am posting a bunch of pictures taken a while ago, just so you can see what we are up to:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danrath/3727546804/
Amanda in her little corner of the farmhouse, doing voodoo with bees.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danrath/3726738091/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danrath/3726739525/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danrath/3726736903/
Greg and Kate locked away in the Basement of Oppression

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danrath/3727538558/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danrath/3727532876/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danrath/3726727059/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danrath/3727301314/
Berry Picking, starting with Caroline’s Gollum face. We have picked at least 20 buckets of berries from these people.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danrath/3727297280/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danrath/3726488747/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danrath/3726486389/ – Aphids, the enemy.
Insects in the Common Garden that I found while searching for plants

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danrath/3726483267/
Mimi broadcasting Stipa grass

We spent most of yesterday collecting pollinators and measuring plants in the Common Garden. (It has never taken me 3 hours to go 30 metres before, but all the plants I measured seemed to be in the middle of a grass clump). I have also figured out a procedure for refinding plants in the transects, and it should not take very long to refind all of them. This is good, as I might be working by myself to do that.

FNC and Coreopsis pollinators

Here’s some of the work I’ve done with organizing my data. I still need to figure out how to organize it to be able to analyze it, so this is mostly just preliminary work. I have about 2 weeks to put this all together….any help/advice is appreciated because right now, the data I have is a little overwhelming. There are 3 sheets in this document.
Ech Guide to Co-Fl Sp.xls

For next week, it looks like the weather should hold up for Tues and Thurs to be able to do pollinator observations. So we will need to flag the sites on Monday and have everything ready to go for Tuesday. Remember, you ALWAYS record something for each observation you make, regardless of whether or not you observed/caught a pollinator. Select No for poll. observed and No for pollinator caught if this is the case. Some things I wanted to clear up for people helping with FNC:
>If you reach 100 when counting inflorescences, stop and record >100.
>When recording the species within 10m, you will no longer put this into a memo. Instead you will always select pl A, record 0 for infl ct, and in the field of quadrants, select the fifth option called “within 10m”.
>Review the guide to co-flowering sp for how to count infl or print one up and ask me if you have questions.
>If you come across a new species that isn’t in the list of species in the form, record in the notes not only the species but also a brief description of how you counted inflorescences.
Thanks!

Here’s some of the pollinators I saw on Coreopsis near Hegg Lake. They seemed to only be pollinating Coreopsis although there were other species like Achillea, Amorpha, and Echinacea around.
P7110320.JPG
P7110309.JPG
P7110318.JPG
P7110312.JPG

Orchid hunting trip

On Friday all of us except Greg went on a trip to a mesic prairie 3 hours away to help Gretel look for orchids. We split into 3 groups of 3 and flagged the flowering plants within the various treatment grids.
P7170409.JPG
The Western Fringed Prairie Orchid, Pratanthera praeclara a threatened species. The first orchid I’ve seen in the wild!
P7170364.JPG
Allegra, Amanda, Daniel, Caroline, Amy, Stuart–it was pretty cold for mid-July!
P7170383.JPG
Mountain mint–Pycnanthemum sp. It was really neat to see some different species found in the mesic prairie, as well as some familiar ones. Some others plants we saw were Liatris, Rudbeckia hirta, Apocynum, Lilium philadelphicum,, Asclepias incarnata, A. speciosa, and Campanula. Below is another mint, whose name I can’t remember:
P7170369.JPG
Thanks Gretel for letting us help!

Life with Team Echinacea

Hello all!

This is Daniel with another update on what team Echinacea has been up to in the past week. Allegra, Stuart and I have become what I like to call the “Staffanson Crew”, and we are responsible for doing phenology at Staffanson every other day. Today we got the time down to about 2 hours and 20 minutes, from 3.5 hours originally. The process was made a lot more efficient by splitting up sections and giving everyone a separate checklist. Of course, the temperature was almost 40 below, so that was slightly unpleasant. Add the wind and the fact that I was only wearing 2 thin layers, and you have a recipe for hypothermia. However, I persevered, thinking of my avocado and sausage sandwiches waiting for me at the Hjelm house.

The pollinator project has been going along well, with Kate, Amanda and Mimi hard at working sorting out the oodles of data they have obtained. Greg and Kate are based in what I like to call the “Basement of Oppression”, working on making slides and taking pollen photos. Amanda is pinning bees and creating agar slides with the different pollen loads, then photographing them. Finally, Mimi is working on sorting out all the different types of flowering plants found at each sites. Meanwhile, who knows what Amy and Caroline are up to? Reviewing papers and entering data most likely, tasks far beyond the comprehension of we undergrads.

In my case, I have been searching for the different plants in the common garden that we identified as having spittle. I spent all afternoon in the common garden yesterday, and it was a ton of fun, especially since I saw so many interesting things. The most interesting thing of all though, was watching a bunch of ants pick up and move an aphid that was sitting on a leaf. The aphid may have been dead or alive (alive would be so cool!), but since I was silly enough to forget my camera, I guess I’ll never know.

Most of the plants I looked at have aphids on them, but I will need to wait until I finish looking at them all before I draw any conclusions. Meanwhile, our transect searches are done until next week. However, I have found aphids on many of the plants I saw during our Staffanson searches, so I remain hopeful!

Peak Day Celebration

To celebrate peak flowering in the common garden, Megan made these awesome cupcakes. We all enjoyed them. Thanks, Megan!!

IMG_9809.JPG

IMG_9812.JPG

Megan with her breathtaking display of deliciousness.
Do you notice the stages of flowering presented here?

IMG_9816-1.JPG

Mimi contemplates consuming something so beautiful.

IMG_9820-1.JPG

Stuart basks in the celebration of his beloved study species.

IMG_9821-1.JPG

Daniel enjoys with passion.

Team Echinacea

Photo from 2 July 2009, just after lunch break at the Hjelm house.

IMG_9559-2.JPG

Daniel, Gretel, Mimi, Greg
Amy, Jennifer, Per, Hattie, Diedre
Kate, Allegra, Caroline, Amanda, Stuart
not shown: Ruth, Megan & Andrea

Visitors to the Echinacea flog

The little map on the right shows the locations of recent visitors to the Echinacea flog (since 29 June 2009). I just noticed that Hong Kong caught up to Belize (2 visitors each). These countries are tied for third (behind USA and Australia). Which country is going to have the most visitors by the end of the summer?

Here are the standings today (12 July)…

United States	182
Australia (AU)	3
China (CN)	2
France (FR)	2
Hong Kong (HK)	2
Belize (BZ)	2
Canada (CA)	1
Romania (RO)	1
Norway (NO)	1
Austria (AT)	1
Israel (IL)	1
Ecuador (EC)	1
India (IN)	1
Afghanistan	1
Japan (JP)	1

You can view current tallies to see where you favorite country ranks. Note that Ecuador is in 4th place and Hungary isn’t yet on the list.

Are Echinacea siblings compatible?

I did some calculations of compatibility rates between pairs of half- and full-sibs while working on a revision of a paper about inbreeding depression in Echinacea. I started on the back on an envelope, but quickly moved to the flog because I did the calculations before, but lost the envelope. Here are the basic questions:

What proportion of matings between full-sib and half-sib Echinacea plants is compatible? Calculating a simple answer assuming no dominance in S-alleles is straightforward, but unrealistic. I think I started in the right direction toward a better answer. Comments appreciated.

Echinacea has a sporophytic self-incompatibility system. Plants don’t self because they have a self recognition mechanism that works like this: A plant produces pollen grains and stigmas that express products of two alleles at the S-locus. If either S-allele of a pollen grain is the same as either S-allele on the stigma, then the pollen grain won’t fertilize the ovule. To set seed an individual Echinacea plant needs pollen from another plant–and not just any plant.

If a pollen donor shares an S-allele with another plant, then its pollen grains won’t fertilize the ovules of the other plant. That pair is called “mating incompatible.” Mating incompatibility often occurs in pairs of related plants and sometimes between unrelated plants too. The extent of mating incompatibility among unrelated plants depends on how many total S-alleles are in a population.

So, here’s a basic question: What fraction of matings between full-sib Echinacea plants is compatible?

To answer it, designate each individual by its S-alleles: 12 is a plant with S-allele “1” and S-allele “2.”

The cross “12 x 12” represents selfing. It’s an incompatible cross.

The cross “12 x 34” represents mating between two plants that share no alleles. It’s a compatible cross.

The cross “12 x 13” represents mating between a pair that shares one allele. It’s an incompatible cross.

To designate some full-sibs, consider their parents first:
P: 12 X 34
There are four possible types of offspring resulting from this cross (F1s):
F1: 13, 14, 23, 24

Now, mate all possible combinations and note whether the cross is compatible. The below table summarizes the compatibility of all possible crosses. 13 x 13 in the upper left is mating incompatible. 13 X 24 is mating compatible.

F1 x F1
   13 14 23 24
13  N  N  N  Y
14  N  N  Y  N
23  N  Y  N  N
24  Y  N  N  N

4 of 16 mating combinations between pairs of full siblings are compatible, 25%.

The next basic question is What fraction of matings between half-sib Echinacea plants is compatible?

If the mom is S-genotype is 12 and the first dad (sire 1) is 34, then there are three types of pollen donors for the second dad (the dad of the other half sib): dads with the same S-alleles as the first dad (sire 2a = 34), dads sharing one S-allele with the first dad (sire 2b = 35), and dads sharing no alleles with the first dad (sire 2c = 56).

Represent the mating of mom and sire 1 and their progeny like this:
P: 12 X 34
F1.1: 13, 14, 23, 24

The mating of mom and sire 2a, yields the following progeny:
P: 12 X 34
F1.2a: 13, 14, 23, 24

The mating of mom and sire 2b, yields the following progeny:
P: 12 X 35
F1.2b: 13, 15, 23, 25

The mating of mom and sire 2c, yields the following progeny:
P: 12 X 56
F1.2c: 15, 16, 25, 26

The following tables represent all combinations of the three types of half-sib crosses possible:

F1.1 x F1.2a
   13 14 23 24
13  N  N  N  Y
14  N  N  Y  N
23  N  Y  N  N
24  Y  N  N  N

Just like full-sib crosses, 4 of 16 pairs are mating compatible, 25%.

F1.1 x F1.2b
   13 14 23 24
13  N  N  N  Y
15  N  N  Y  Y
23  N  Y  N  N
25  Y  Y  N  N

6 of 16 mating combinations between these pairs of half siblings are compatible, 37.5%.

F1.1 x F1.2c
   13 14 23 24
15  N  N  Y  Y
16  N  N  Y  Y
25  Y  Y  N  N
26  Y  Y  N  N

8 of 16 mating combinations between these pairs of half siblings are compatible, 50%.

So, 25 – 50% of pairs of half sib are mating compatible. As total S-allele diversity increases, half-sib compatibility would tend toward 50%.

These number don’t jibe with mate compatibility rates we’ve observed when crossing Echinacea siblings. In 1999 & 2000 we found that 68% of sib pairs (sibs from open pollinated materal plants) we attempted to cross were mating compatible, only 32% were incompatible.

The difference in theoretical and actual mating compatibility rates probably results from a bad assumption. The calculations above assume that there is no dominance among S-alleles. If one allele masks the expression of another, then it is much harder to answer the question. However, my first thought is that dominance will just increase the overall fraction of compatible mating pairs among siblings. It must be true for full siblings… I think.

Suppose that S-allele 1 is dominant to 3 (i.e. it masks the effect of allele 3), then for the original full sib scenario the 13 S-genotype behaves the same as a 11 S-genotype.

P: 12 X 34
F1: 13, 14, 23, 24

F1 x F1
   13 14 23 24
13  N  N  Y  Y
14  N  N  Y  N
23  Y  Y  N  N
24  Y  N  N  N

6 of 16 mating combinations between these pairs of full siblings are compatible, 37.5%. Ah hah–a greater fraction of compatible mate pairs with one dominant S-allele!

Wait, it’s not so clear-cut because with dominance there are other possible combinations of parental S-genotypes that can generate full-sib progeny: 13 X 34, 13 X 33, and 12 X 33. Notice that homozygous S-genotypes become possible with dominance.

P: 13 X 34
F1: 13, 14, 33, 34

F1 x F1
   13 14 33 34
13  N  N  Y  Y
14  N  N  Y  N
33  Y  Y  N  N
34  Y  N  N  N

6 of 16 mating combinations between these pairs of full siblings are compatible, 37.5%.

P: 13 X 33
F1: 13, 13, 33, 33

F1 x F1
   13 13 33 33
13  N  N  Y  Y
13  N  N  Y  Y
33  Y  Y  N  N
33  Y  Y  N  N

8 of 16 mating combinations between these pairs of full siblings are compatible, 50%.

P: 12 X 33
F1: 13, 13, 23, 23

F1 x F1
   13 13 23 23
13  N  N  Y  Y
13  N  N  Y  Y
23  Y  Y  N  N
23  Y  Y  N  N

8 of 16 mating combinations between these pairs of full siblings are compatible, 50%.

Ok, the introduction of one dominant allele does increase the overall fraction of compatible mating pairs among full siblings. I guess that adding more dominant S-alleles to a population would increase the proportion of full sib pairs that is compatible.

I’m guessing adding dominant S-alleles would increase the proportion of compatible matings between pairs of half-sibs too, but I am not sure. It’s too complicated for now.

One last thought, the dominance relationships among alleles may differ in pollen grains and stigmas. This probably occurs in Echinacea because we have observed the following non-reciprocal mating incompatibility: Pollen from plant A is mating compatible with plant B, but pollen from plant B is not mating compatible with plant A. Complicated, eh?

It was helpful for me to think through this. Please let me know if my reasoning is flawed. I’m sure folks have figured this out before. If you know who/where, please send me a reference!