Does florivory affect the attraction of floral visitors to buzz-pollinated Solanum rostratum?

Vega-Polanco, Mayumi; Rodríguez-Islas, Luis Antonio; Escalona-Domenech, Raisa Yarina; Cruz‐López, Leopoldo; Rojas, Julio C.; Solis‐Montero, Lislie

doi:10.1007/s11829-019-09723-x

Cited by 17 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, although C. hyacinthoides flowers reflected bee-blue-green, eight of the 26 species reflected this colour, and thus C. hyacinthoides did not provide a unique colour signal. We observed, however, that C. hyacinthoides flowers emitted a strong scent, and scent might be an important mediator in these buzz-pollination interactions, similar to what has been shown for other buzz-pollinated taxa (Solís-Montero et al 2018, Vega-Polanco et al 2020.…”

Section: Bees Preferred and Avoided Flowers With Certain Colourssupporting

confidence: 88%

Reduced visitation to the buzz-pollinatedCyanella hyacinthoidesin the presence of other pollen sources in the hyperdiverse Cape Floristic Region

Kemp

Telles

Vallejo-Marin

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many plant species have floral morphologies that restrict access to floral resources, such as pollen or nectar, and only a subset of floral visitors can perform the complex handling behaviours required to extract restricted resources. Due to the time and energy required to extract resources from morphologically complex flowers, these plant species potentially compete for pollinators with co-flowering plants that have more easily accessible resources. A widespread floral mechanism restricting access to pollen is the presence of tubular anthers that open through small pores or slits (poricidal anthers). Some bees have evolved the capacity to remove pollen from poricidal anthers using vibrations, giving rise to the phenomenon of buzz-pollination. These bee vibrations that are produced for pollen extraction are presumably energetically costly, and to date, few studies have investigated whether buzz-pollinated flowers may be at a disadvantage when competing for pollinators' attention with plant species that present unrestricted pollen resources. Here, we studied Cyanella hyacinthoides (Tecophilaeaceae), a geophyte with poricidal anthers in the hyperdiverse Cape Floristic Region of South Africa, to assess how the composition and relative abundance of flowers with easily accessible pollen affect bee visitation to a buzz-pollinated plant. We found that the number of pollinator species was not influenced by community composition. However, visitation rates to C. hyacinthoides were negatively related to the abundance of flowers with more accessible resources. Visitation rates were strongly associated with petal colour, showing that flower colour is important in mediating these interactions. We conclude that buzz-pollinated plants might be at a competitive disadvantage when many easily accessible pollen sources are available, particularly when competitor species share its floral signals.

show abstract

Section: Bees Preferred and Avoided Flowers With Certain Colourssupporting

confidence: 88%

Reduced visitation to the buzz-pollinatedCyanella hyacinthoidesin the presence of other pollen sources in the hyperdiverse Cape Floristic Region

Kemp

Telles

Vallejo-Marin

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We observed, however, that C . hyacinthoides flowers emitted a strong scent, and scent might be an important mediator in these buzz‐pollination interactions, similar to what has been shown for other buzz‐pollinated taxa (Solís‐Montero et al, 2018 ; Vega‐Polanco et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Reduced visitation to buzz‐pollinated Cyanella hyacinthoides in the presence of other pollen sources in the hyperdiverse Cape Floristic Region

Kemp

Telles

Vallejo‐Marín

2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many plant species have floral morphologies that restrict access to floral resources, such as pollen or nectar, and only a subset of floral visitors can perform the handling behaviors required to extract restricted resources. Due to the time and energy required to extract resources from morphologically complex flowers, these plant species potentially compete for pollinators with co‐flowering plants that have more easily accessible resources. A widespread floral mechanism restricting access to pollen is the presence of tubular anthers that open through small pores or slits (poricidal anthers). Some bees have evolved the capacity to remove pollen from poricidal anthers using vibrations, giving rise to the phenomenon of buzz‐pollination. These bee vibrations that are produced for pollen extraction are presumably energetically costly, and to date, few studies have investigated whether buzz‐pollinated flowers may be at a disadvantage when competing for pollinators’ attention with plant species that present unrestricted pollen resources. Here, we studied Cyanella hyacinthoides (Tecophilaeaceae), a geophyte with poricidal anthers in the hyperdiverse Cape Floristic Region of South Africa, to assess how the composition and relative abundance of flowers with easily accessible pollen affect bee visitation to a buzz‐pollinated plant. We found that the number of pollinator species of C. hyacinthoides was not influenced by community composition. However, visitation rates to C . hyacinthoides were reduced when the relative abundances of flowers with more accessible resources were high. Visitation rates were strongly associated with petal color, showing that flower color is important in mediating these interactions. We conclude that buzz‐pollinated plants might be at a competitive disadvantage when many easily accessible pollen sources are available, particularly when competitor species share its floral signals.

show abstract

“…Cyanococcus ) (Thorp, 2000). Some bees (e.g., A. mellifera ) and hoverflies probe the anther pore with their proboscis or gather pollen previously ejected by buzz pollinators (Müller, 1883; Solis‐Montero et al ., 2015; Vega‐Polanco et al ., 2020). Well‐known non‐buzzing pollen thieves, e.g., Trigona spp ., can also chew through the anther wall to access pollen (Renner, 1983).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The flowers of S. rostratum are larger (34 mm across), with four anthers presented loosely in the centre of the flower (7.5 mm in length), and a fifth, enlarged (12.2mm), S‐shaped anther located off the central axis of the flower (Vallejo‐Marin et al ., 2014). In the native range, S. rostratum is visited by a taxonomically and morphologically diverse range of bees, including bumblebees, honeybees and occasionally hoverflies (Linsley & Cazier, 1963; Bowers, 1975; Solis‐Montero et al ., 2015; Vega‐Polanco et al ., 2020). Experimental populations in Scotland are frequently visited by bumblebees (De Luca et al ., 2014), and occasionally by hoverflies (M. Vallejo‐Marin pers.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of defence buzzes in hoverflies and buzz‐pollinating bees

Vallejo‐Marín

Vallejo

2020

Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bees and many flies, particularly hoverflies (Syrphidae), have evolved a diverse range of mechanisms to gather pollen from a wide variety of flowering plants. Bees and hoverflies use protein‐rich pollen as a food resource to mature reproductive organs and eggs and, in bees, to feed their larvae. A particularly striking pollen‐collecting behaviour involves the production of thoracic vibrations to dislodge pollen from flowers. Vibratile pollen collection is widespread in bees (>11 600 species) but extremely rare in flies (~1 species of hoverfly). Why the use of floral vibrations to collect pollen is so rare among flies is currently unknown. A hypothesis proposed to explain why flies do not engage in vibratile or buzz pollination is that they are unable to reach the vibration amplitude required to expel pollen from anthers. Here we document, for the first time, the mechanical properties of non‐flight thoracic vibrations produced by hoverflies and compare them to the vibrations produced by buzz‐pollinating bees under similar contexts (defence buzzes). We analysed ~4000 vibrations produced by nearly 300 individuals representing 20 species of hoverflies and 22 bee taxa, recorded using a miniature piezoelectric accelerometer. We characterised both frequency and acceleration amplitude components of non‐flight thoracic vibrations and their relationship to insect size. Our results show that, after accounting for size, buzz‐pollinating bees and hoverflies produce vibrations with similar acceleration. We show experimentally that the acceleration amplitude produced by some hoverflies is sufficient to elicit pollen release from buzz‐pollinated flowers (Solanum dulcamara and S. rostratum). Our study does not support the hypothesis that the dearth of buzz‐pollinating flies is caused by their inability to produce vibrations of sufficient amplitude. We discuss alternative hypotheses to explain why most flies do not engage in buzz pollination and suggest that the lack of buzz‐pollinating flies might be best explained through their life history.

show abstract

Does florivory affect the attraction of floral visitors to buzz-pollinated Solanum rostratum?

Cited by 17 publications

References 73 publications

Reduced visitation to the buzz-pollinatedCyanella hyacinthoidesin the presence of other pollen sources in the hyperdiverse Cape Floristic Region

Reduced visitation to the buzz-pollinatedCyanella hyacinthoidesin the presence of other pollen sources in the hyperdiverse Cape Floristic Region

Reduced visitation to buzz‐pollinated Cyanella hyacinthoides in the presence of other pollen sources in the hyperdiverse Cape Floristic Region

Comparison of defence buzzes in hoverflies and buzz‐pollinating bees

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About