Diversity and Temporal Change in the Effective Pollinators of Asclepias Tuberosa

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Ecological Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecology.Abstract. Although pollination effectiveness is a central process underlying the evolution of plant and pollinator traits, it is difficult to measure and has rarely been reported for a diverse spectrum of visitors under natural conditions. We measured the effectiveness of all common flower visitors to Asclepias tuberosa (butterfly weed) at a site in southeastern Arizona, in terms of visitation rate, per-visit rate of pollinia removal and insertion, and pollinia load. Bombus and Apis (Hymenoptera) were the most effective pollinators, counter to predictions that A. tuberosa is butterfly-pollinated. We also documented large differences between 2 yr in the pollination effectiveness of visitors, primarily due to changes in visitation rate. Bombus were the most frequent and effective pollinators in 1992. In 1993, Apis were equivalent to Bombus. Battus (Lepidoptera) were the second most effective pollinators in 1992, but were scarce in 1993. Thus, conclusions about the identity of effective pollinators based on floral traits, casual observations of visitation, or even precise measurement of effectiveness in a single season are all potentially suspect. We compare our results to those of previous studies of Asclepias pollination.

Myophily in the critically endangered umbelliferous plant Ostericum palustre Besser (Apiaceae)

“…This shows that the hypothesis proposed by some researchers (Gómez and Zamora 1992;Morris 2003;Vázquez et al 2005), namely, that visit rate is a good surrogate of pollinator performance, should be treated with caution, as it is true only for some plant species (see e.g. Motten et al 1981;Fishbein and Venable 1996;Olsen 1997;Sahli and Conner 2007;Niemirski and Zych 2011;Zych and Stpiczyńska 2012;Zych et al 2013), and thus may be misleading in others (e.g. Zych 2002Zych , 2007Fumero-Cabán and Watts et al 2012; and the present study).…”

Pollination biology of Disanthus cercidifolius var. longipes, an endemic and endangered plant in China

“…The results of research will be inaccurate if the pollination efficiencies of different pollinators are only measured during a single season (Fishbein & Venable 1996). According to the observation on D. cercidifolius var.…”

Biodiversity, Species Interactions and Ecological Networks in a Fragmented World

“…seasonality of occurrence), phylogeny (similar roles of closely related species) and place of origin (e.g. native vs. exotic), which can influence pollination rates and species interactions (Fishbein and Venable, 1996;Kandori, 2002;Raine and Chittka, 2005), or whole pollination networks (Lopezaraiza-Mikel et al, 2007). Still remarkably little is known about how relative abundance affects within-functional group competition for the same resources at the network level.…”