1981
DOI: 10.2307/1937292
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pollination Effectiveness of Specialist and Generalist Visitors to a North Carolina Population of Claytonia Virginica

Abstract: Abstract. We measured the pollination effectiveness and visitation rates of major insect visitors of Claytonia virginica, an obligately insect-pollinated spring wildflower, in a North Carolina deciduous forest. Seed set in the population was not pollinator-limited except during rainy weather and very early in the flowering season. The solitary bee Andrena erigeniae and the bee fly Bombylius major were responsible for more than 75% of the visits to C. virginica. Andrena erigeniae is a specialist on C. virginica… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
135
4
3

Year Published

1999
1999
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 184 publications
(147 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
5
135
4
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This shows that the hypothesis proposed by some researchers (GĂłmez and Zamora 1992;Morris 2003;VĂĄzquez 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 StpiczyƄska 2012;Zych et al 2013), and thus may be misleading in others (e.g. Zych 2002Zych , 2007Fumero-CabĂĄn and Watts et al 2012; and the present study).…”
Section: Pollination Importancementioning
confidence: 45%
“…This shows that the hypothesis proposed by some researchers (GĂłmez and Zamora 1992;Morris 2003;VĂĄzquez 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 StpiczyƄska 2012;Zych et al 2013), and thus may be misleading in others (e.g. Zych 2002Zych , 2007Fumero-CabĂĄn and Watts et al 2012; and the present study).…”
Section: Pollination Importancementioning
confidence: 45%
“…The high frequency of legitimate visits may increase the chances of pollen deposition on the stigma of flowers, consequently, increasing the seed production (Motten et al, 1981). However, only frequency does not guarantee an efficient pollination, being necessary other adjustments of the visitors with the flowers, such as the morphological and behavioral.…”
Section: Flower Visitorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mayfield et al 2001;FumeroCabĂĄn and MelĂ©ndez-Ackerman 2007;Zych 2007;Niemirski and Zych 2011). In some cases, the most frequent visitor is indeed the most important pollinator (Motten et al 1981;Fishbein and Venable 1996;Olsen 1997;Sahli and Conner 2007;Niemirski and Zych 2011), but in other cases, common floral visitors do not contribute significantly to pollination because, for example, they carry no or little pollen on their bodies (Schemske and Horvitz 1984;Zych 2002;FumeroCabĂĄn and MelĂ©ndez-Ackerman 2007;Watts et al 2012), their efficiency in pollen transfer is low when compared to other animals (Wilson and Thomson 1991;Cane et al 1993;Mayfield et al 2001; Thomson and Goodell 2001;Javorek et al 2002;Adler and Irwin 2006), and they preferentially visit one flower sexual phase in dioecious or dichogamous plants (Bierzychudek 1987;Schlessman et al 2004;Larsson 2005;Davila and Wardle 2007;Zych 2007). Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.), for instance, being the most common floral visitors in many anthropogenic habitats, may be efficient in pollen removal, but inefficient in pollen deposition, and thus are quoted in some cases as parasites rather than actual pollinators (Westerkamp 1991;Wilson and Thomson 1991;Buchmann and Nabhan 1996;Willmer 2011;Ollerton et al 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%