Generalist birds outperform specialist sunbirds as pollinators of an African<i>Aloe</i>

Diller, Carolina; Castañeda‐Zárate, Miguel; Johnson, Steven D.

doi:10.1098/rsbl.2019.0349

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found that learning did not make E. multifasciata consume fewer bitter crickets but changed their foraging sequence and priority; with more information on the color-taste coupling of the prey, E. multifasciata targeted and consumed palatable prey with higher priorities, regardless of their boldness (Figures 4A-F, brown vs. blue curves). This underscored the flexible and opportunistic foraging habits of E. multifasciata , which was commonly observed in other generalist predators (e.g., Terraube and Arroyo 2011; Diller et al 2019). In the field, the presence of high-quality prey is likely staggered and unpredictable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Avoidance learning reduces intricate covariation between boldness and foraging behavior in a generalist predator

Kuo

Chin

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many predators avoid unprofitable prey by learning to use visual features of the prey as reliable indicators of quality. Despite a rich literature on avoidance learning, we are still in the process of understanding how individuals might change their behavior towards unprofitable prey as information accumulates, the individual-level variation in avoidance foraging behavior, and whether learning would preserve or reduce this variation. In this study, we investigated how avoidance foraging behavior varied in a generalist lizard predator in relation to sex, population of origin, and boldness and tested the effects of learning on the variation in avoidance foraging behavior. We collected data on boldness and avoidance foraging behavior in individuals from two allopatric populations and compared variation in behavior at the beginning and end of learning experiments, in which individuals were presented with normal- and bitter-tasting prey that also differed consistently in color. We found that even though bitter prey elicited strong negative responses, lizards overall did not avoid consuming fewer such prey with learning. Instead, lizards learned to prioritize on palatable prey as they acquired more information. Our data revealed intricate covariation between boldness and avoidance foraging behavior, and the form of this covariation varied between populations, sex, and prey color. Learning overall reduced individual variation in foraging behavior, as well as the degree of covariation with boldness. Our findings highlighted the nuanced manners in which avoidance foraging behavior might manifest and suggested that learning could quickly mitigate fitness difference due to variation in behavior.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted December 13, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.13.520202 doi: bioRxiv preprint (e.g., Terraube and Arroyo 2011;Diller et al 2019). In the field, the presence of high-quality prey is likely staggered and unpredictable.…”

Section: Avoidance Learning Reduces Variation In Foraging Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoidance learning reduces intricate covariation between boldness and foraging behavior in a generalist predator

Kuo

Chin

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, plants are often visited by a myriad of different functional pollinators groups and this can make it difficult to determine whether there has been functional specialization of flowers to a particular group. In these cases, data on the relative pollination importance of different visitor groups are essential to resolve the degree of specialization in a pollination system (Aigner, 2005; Diller et al., 2019; Johnson & Steiner, 2000; Wester & Johnson, 2017; Wilson, 1995). The importance of a given visitor group in a mutualism is a function of the number of visits and the amount of pollen deposited per visit (Schupp et al., 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The functional ecology of bat pollination in the African sausage tree Kigelia africana (Bignoniaceae)

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plants often interact with a wide range of animal floral visitors that can vary in their pollination effectiveness. Flowers of the African sausage tree Kigelia africana are visited by bats and bush babies during the night and by birds during the day. We studied floral traits (phenophases, scent, color, and nectar chemistry) and the visitation frequency and pollination effectiveness of different flower visitors to determine whether K. africana is functionally specialized for bat pollination. We found that flower opening corresponds with bat activity, flowers emit scent dominated by aliphatic esters and alcohols, and that nectar is produced in copious amounts accessible to bats. Pollen deposition on stigmas was twenty-fold greater per visit by bats than it was per visit by birds, likely a result of the close morphological fit between snouts of bats and the flowers. However, bat visits appear to be rare at some sites and the delayed senescence of flowers that are open throughout the morning provides an opportunity for additional pollination by birds. We conclude that K. africana is primarily adapted for bat pollination, but is also able to exploit other animals for pollination.

show abstract

“…scutellata Lepeletier) to seed set of the self‐incompatible South African treelet Aloe ferox Mill. This species produces numerous flowers that are attractive to both native honeybees and several bird species (Hoffman, 1988; Diller et al, 2019). Honeybees are far more frequent than birds as visitors to flowers of A. ferox (Hoffman, 1988; Hargreaves et al, 2012) and deposit pollen on stigmas (Diller et al, 2019), yet bird exclusion experiments indicate that honeybees are very poor pollinators when compared to birds, as assessed by resulting seed set (Strokes and Yeaton, 1995; Botes et al, 2009; Hargreaves et al, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This species produces numerous flowers that are attractive to both native honeybees and several bird species (Hoffman, 1988; Diller et al, 2019). Honeybees are far more frequent than birds as visitors to flowers of A. ferox (Hoffman, 1988; Hargreaves et al, 2012) and deposit pollen on stigmas (Diller et al, 2019), yet bird exclusion experiments indicate that honeybees are very poor pollinators when compared to birds, as assessed by resulting seed set (Strokes and Yeaton, 1995; Botes et al, 2009; Hargreaves et al, 2012). This is consistent with studies of many other aloes, which have also shown that honeybees make little contribution to seed set in comparison to birds, despite being frequent visitors (Botes et al, 2009; Hargreaves et al, 2010, 2012; Duffy et al, 2021, but see Patrick et al, 2018; Duffy et al, 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why honeybees are poor pollinators of a mass‐flowering plant: Experimental support for the low pollen quality hypothesis

Diller

Castañeda‐Zárate

Johnson

2022

American J of Botany

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Premise Honeybees dominate the flower‐visitor assemblages of many plant species, yet their efficiency in terms of the quality of pollen delivered to stigmas is largely unknown. We investigated why honeybees are poor pollinators of Aloe ferox, a self‐incompatible succulent treelet with large numbers of flowers. Honeybees are very frequent visitors to flowers of this species, yet contribute very little to seed production. Methods We assessed pollen loads on honeybees, studied their visitation behavior, selectively excluded birds from plants to determine direct effects of bees on pollen deposition, seed set, and ovule abortion, and used a novel “split‐pollinator” method to test whether honeybees deposit mainly low‐quality self pollen. For the latter, we captured honeybees, and with their existing pollen loads, used them to either pollinate virgin flowers on the plant on which they were caught or to pollinate virgin flowers on different plants. Results Honeybees cumulatively deposit as much pollen on stigmas as do birds, but our experiments showed that the pollen deposited by honeybees is mostly low‐quality self pollen that leads to substantial ovule discounting and depressed seed set. Conclusions Lack of movement among A. ferox plants during individual honeybee foraging bouts is the most likely explanation for their deposition of low‐quality self pollen on stigmas. The “split‐pollinator” method is a simple and cost‐effective technique to test the quality of pollination.

show abstract

Generalist birds outperform specialist sunbirds as pollinators of an AfricanAloe

Cited by 14 publications

References 34 publications

Avoidance learning reduces intricate covariation between boldness and foraging behavior in a generalist predator

Avoidance learning reduces intricate covariation between boldness and foraging behavior in a generalist predator

The functional ecology of bat pollination in the African sausage tree Kigelia africana (Bignoniaceae)

Why honeybees are poor pollinators of a mass‐flowering plant: Experimental support for the low pollen quality hypothesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About