References
- Ashman TL. 2000. Pollinator selectivity and its implications for the evolution of dioecy and sexual dimorphism. Ecology. 81(9):2577–2591. doi:https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[2577:PSAIIF]2.0.CO;2.
- Ashman TL, Swetz J, Shivitz S. 2000. Understanding the basis of pollinator selectivity in sexually dimorphic Fragaria virginiana. Oikos. 90:347–356. doi:https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900216.x.
- Bell G. 1985. On the function of flowers. Proc R Soc B. 224:223–265. doi:https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1985.0031.
- Biella P, Tommasi N, Akter A, Guzzetti L, Klecka J, Sandionigi A, Labra M, Galimberti A. 2019. Foraging strategies are maintained despite workforce reduction: a multidisciplinary survey on the pollen collected by a social pollinator. PloS One. 14:e0224037. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224037.
- Brian AD. 1957. Differences in the flowers visited by four species of bumble-bees and their causes. J Anim Ecol. 26:71–98. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1782.
- Charlesworth D. 1993. Why are unisexual flowers associated with wind pollination and unspecialized pollinators? Am Nat. 141:481–490. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/285485.
- Delph LF, Lively CM. 1989. The evolution of floral color change: pollinator attraction versus physiological constraints in Fuchsia excorticata. Evolution. 43:1252–1262. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1989.tb02572.x.
- Delph LF, Lively CM. 1992. Pollinator visitation, floral display, and nectar production of the sexual morphs of a gynodioecious shrub. Oikos. 63:161–170. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3545374.
- Díaz L, Coccuci AA. 2003. Functional gynodioecy in Opuntia quimilo (Cactaceae), a tree cactus pollinated by bees and hummingbirds. Plant Biol. 5:1–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-44783.
- Grindeland JM, Sletvold N, Ims RA. 2005. Effects of floral display size and plant density on pollinator visitation rate in a natural population of Digitalis purpurea. Funct Ecol. 19(3):383–390. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2005.00988.x.
- Harder LD. 1985. Morphology as a predictor of flower choice by bumble bees. Ecology. 66:198–210. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1941320.
- Heiling JM, Bronstein JL, Irwin RE. 2021. Nectar addition changes pollinator behavior but not plant reproduction in pollen‐rewarding Lupinus argenteus. Am J Bot. 108(3):402–410. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.1613.
- Heinrich B. 1976. Resource partitioning among some eusocial insects: bumblebees. Ecology. 57:874–889. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1941054.
- Heinrich B. 1979. Bumblebee economics. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
- Hobbs GA. 1962. Further studies on food-gathering behavior of bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Can Entomol. 94:538–541. doi:https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent94538-5.
- Kuppler J, Wieland J, Junker RR, Ayasse M. 2021. Drought-induced reduction in flower size and abundance correlates with reduced flower visits by bumble bees. AoB Plants. 13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plab001.
- Kuzume H, Itino T. 2013. Congruence between pollination morphs and genotypes based on internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA in Cimicifuga simplex (Ranunculaceae). J Japanese Bot. 88:176–181.
- Molano-Flores B. 2002. Pollination biology and flower visitors of the gynodioecious species Lobelia spicata Lam. (Campanulaceae). J Torrey Bot Soc. 129:187–193. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3088769.
- Nakamura S, Kudo G. 2016. Foraging responses of bumble bees to rewardless floral patches: importance of within-plant variance in nectar presentation. AoB Plants. 8: plw037. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plw037.
- Pellmyr O. 1986. Three pollination morphs in Cimicifuga simplex; incipient speciation due to inferiority in competition. Oecologia. 68:304–307. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00384804.
- Pyke GH. 2010. Optimal foraging and plant-pollinator co-evolution. In: Breed MD, Moore J, editors. Encyclopedia of animal behavior. Oxford (UK): Academic Press; p. 596–600.
- Shykoff JA, Bucheli E, Kaltz O. 1997. Anther smut disease in Dianthus silvester (Caryophyllaceae): natural selection on floral traits. Evolution. 51:383–392. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb02425.x.
- Shykoff JA, Kolokotronis S-O, Collin CL, López-Villavicencio M. 2003. Effects of male sterility on reproductive traits in gynodioecious plants: a meta-analysis. Oecologia. 135:1–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-1133-z.
- Toji T, Ishimoto N, Itino T. 2020. Seasonal change of flower sex ratio and pollinator dynamics in three reproductive ecotypes of protandrous plant. Ecosphere. 11:e03251. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3251.
- Toji T, Itino T. 2020. Differences in sex expression and mating systems in three pollination morphs of Cimicifuga simplex. Plant Species Biol. 35:112–119. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1442-1984.12265.
- Toji T, Kameyama Y, Hirao AS, Itino T. 2018. Development and characterization of microsatellite markers for three pollination morphs of Cimicifuga simplex (Ranunculaceae). Am J Plant Sci. 9:599–605. doi:https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2018.94046.
- Tsujimoto SG, Ishii HS. 2017. Effect of flower perceptibility on spatial-reward associative learning by bumble bees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 71(7):1–11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2328-y.
- Varga S, Nuortila C, Kytöviita MM. 2013. Nectar sugar production across floral phases in the gynodioecious protandrous plant Geranium sylvaticum. PLoS One. 8(4):e62575. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062575.
- Yokoi T, Fujisaki K. 2009. Hesitation behaviour of hoverflies Sphaerophoria spp. to avoid ambush by crab spiders. Naturwissenschaften. 96(2):195–200. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-008-0459-8.