The generalization–specialization continuum exhibited in pollination interactions currently receives much attention. It is well‐known that the pollinator assemblage of particular species varies temporally and spatially, and therefore the ecological generalization on pollinators may be a contextual attribute. However, the factors causing such variation and its ecological and evolutionary consequences are still poorly understood. This variation can be caused by spatial or temporal variation in the pollinator community, but also by variation in the plant community. Here, we examined how the floral neighbourhood influenced the generalization on pollinators and the composition of pollinators of six plant species differing in generalization levels and main pollinators. The diversity, identity and density of floral species affected both the level of generalization on pollinators and the composition of visitors of particular plant species. Although the relationships to floral neighbourhood varied considerably among species, generalization level and visitation by uncommon pollinators generally increased with floral diversity and richness. The generalization level of the neighbourhood was negatively related to the generalization level of the focal species in two species. The number of flowers of the pollinator‐sharing species and the number of flowers of the focal species had different effects on the composition of visits in different species; attributable to differences in facilitation/competition for pollinator attraction. We propose that an important ecological implication of our results is that variation in species interactions caused by the pollination context may result in increased community stability. The main evolutionary implication of our results is that selection on flower and pollinator traits may depend, to an unknown extent, on the composition of the co‐flowering plant community.
Failures in the process of pollen transfer among conspecific plants can severely impact female reproductive success. Thus, pollen limitation can cause selection on plant mating systems and floral traits. The relationships between pollen limitation and floral traits might be partly mediated by the quantity and identity of pollinator visits. However, very little is known about the relationship between pollinator visits and pollen limitation. We examined the relationships between pollen limitation and floral traits at the community level to connect them to community ecology processes. We used 48 plant species from two contrasting communities: one species‐rich lowland community and one species‐poor alpine community. In addition, we calculated visitation rates and ecological pollination generalization for 38 of the species to examine the relationship between pollinator visitation and pollen limitation at the community level. We found low overall levels of pollen limitation that did not differ significantly between the alpine and the lowland community. In both communities, species with evolutionary specialized flowers were more pollen limited than species with unspecialized flowers. Species’ visitation rates and selfing capability were negatively related to pollen limitation in the alpine community, where pollinators are scarcer. However, flower size/number, ecological generalization of plants and flowering onset had greater effects on pollen limitation levels at the lowland community, indicating that the identity of the visitors and plant‐plant competitive interactions are more decisive for plant reproduction in this species‐rich community. There, pollen limitation increased with flower size and flowering onset, and decreased with ecological generalization, but only in species with evolutionary specialized flowers. Our study suggests that selection on plant mating system and floral traits may be idiosyncratic to each particular community and highlights the benefits of conducting community‐level studies for a better understanding of the processes underlying evolutionary responses to pollen limitation.
BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
The strength of interactions between plants for pollination depends on the abundance of plants and pollinators in the community. The abundance of pollinators may influence plant associations and densities at which individual fitness is maximized. Reduced pollinator visitation may therefore affect the way plant species interact for pollination. We experimentally reduced pollinator visitation to six pollinator‐dependent species (three from an alpine and three from a lowland community in Norway) to study how interactions for pollination were modified by reduced pollinator availability. We related flower visitation, pollen limitation and seed set to density of conspecifics and pollinator‐sharing heterospecifics inside 30 dome‐shaped cages partially covered with fishnet (experimental plots) and in 30 control plots. We expected to find stronger interactions between plants in experimental compared to controls plots. The experiment modified plant–plant interactions for pollination in all the six species; although for two of them neighbourhood interactions did not affect seed set. The pollen limitation and seed set data showed that reduction of pollinator visits most frequently resulted in novel and/or stronger interactions between plants in the experimental plots that did not occur in the controls. Although the responses were species‐specific, there was a tendency for increasing facilitative interactions with conspecific neighbours in experimental plots where pollinator availability was reduced. Heterospecifics only influenced pollination and fecundity in species from the alpine community and in the experimental plots, where they competed with the focal species for pollination. The patterns observed for visitation rates differed from those for fecundity, with more significant interactions between plants in the controls in both communities. This study warns against the exclusive use of visitation data to interpret plant–plant interactions for pollination, and helps to understand how plant aggregations may buffer or intensify the effects of a pollinator loss on plant fitness.
There is growing concern that current pollinator decline will affect the reproduction of plant species, potentially driving a decline in plant population densities. We experimentally tested whether a reduction in flower visitation caused a reduction in fertilization rate in several species, and whether any reduction in fecundity of species depends on their degree of reproductive dependence on pollinators and their attractiveness for pollinators. We recorded visitation rate, fertilization rate, seed weight, flower size and density of nineteen insect-pollinated perennial herbs inside thirty 2 x 2 m dome-shaped cages covered with fishnet (experimental plots) and in thirty control plots in a Norwegian hay meadow. We used a bagging experiment to estimate the ability of the study species to produce seeds in the absence of pollinators. The visitation rate for fifteen of nineteen study species was lower inside cages than outside and only three of the fifteen species showed significantly reduced fertilization rates in the experimental plots. The magnitude of reduction in fertilization rate was positively related to the degree of pollinator dependence, but not to their attractiveness for pollinators or to the reduction in visitation rate. Seed weight was not affected by the experiment. The lack of an overall effect of reduced pollinator visitation on fertilization rate suggests that some species may be robust to a pollinator decline that could increase pollen limitation on plant reproduction. Our results suggest that species with greater pollinator dependence are more vulnerable to pollinator loss.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.