The Impact of Floral Parasitism in Two Neotropical Hummingbird‐pollinated Plant Species

McDade, Lucinda A.; Kinsman, Sharon

doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1980.tb04033.x

Cited by 115 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nectar robbers may also bene®t the plants they rob if they aect pollination by accidentally brushing against¯oral reproductive structures (Higashi et al 1988) or by legitimately visiting¯owers to collect pollen (Meidell 1944;Macior 1966;Koeman-Kwak 1973;Morris 1996). Alternatively, nectar robbing may be detrimental if robbers damage plant reproductive structures (McDade and Kinsman 1980), or if they deter legitimate pollinators from visiting plants (Fritz and Morse 1981;Reddy et al 1992; but see Barrows 1976).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Nectar robbers are animals that chew through¯oral parts to obtain nectar, thereby bypassing the¯oral openings used by legitimate pollinators (Inouye 1980). Nectar robbers decrease the standing crop of nectar (McDade and Kinsman 1980;Pleasants 1983a) and modify the sugar concentration of available nectar (Pleasants 1983a;Arizmendi et al 1996). Thus, nectar robbers may signi®cantly aect the distribution of rewards available to legitimate pollinators.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Plants may dier in nectar production, concentration, or standing crop due to inherent dierences in genotype (Pederson 1953;Teuber and Barnes 1979), microhabitat (Shuel 1967;Zimmerman 1983), or recent depletion by legitimate visitors or nectar robbers (for reviews see Faegri and van der Pijl 1979;Jones and Little 1983;Real 1983;Proctor et al 1996). Although the eect of legitimate pollinators in both producing and responding to variable nectar rewards has been studied extensively (e.g., Pyke et al 1977;Pyke 1978aPyke , b, c, 1981bPyke , 1984Heinrich 1979Heinrich , 1983Gass and Montgomerie 1981;Waddington and Heinrich 1981;Carpenter 1983;Wolf and Hainsworth 1986, 1990, 1991Mitchell 1993), the eect of illegitimate visitors, such as nectar robbers, in creating variable nectar rewards has been relatively ignored (but see Heinrich and Raven 1972;McDade and Kinsman 1980;Pleasants 1983a;Arizmendi et al 1996). Nectar robbers are animals that chew through¯oral parts to obtain nectar, thereby bypassing the¯oral openings used by legitimate pollinators (Inouye 1980).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Surveys show that nectar robbing occurs most often on¯owers adapted for hummingbird pollination (Barrows 1980;McDade and Kinsman 1980;Inouye 1983). However, detailed experimental and observational studies have most often focused on insect-pollinated plant species (Meidell 1944;Macior 1966;Free 1968;Koeman-Kwak 1973;Barrows 1976;Kendall and Smith 1976;Rust 1979;Wyatt 1980;Fritz and Morse 1981;Stephenson 1982;Galen 1983;Newton and Hill 1983;Zimmerman and Cook 1985;Higashi et al 1988;Reddy et al 1992;Morris 1996;Olesen 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only a handful of studies have examined the eects of nectar robbers on hummingbird-pollinated species (Colwell et al 1974;Waser 1979;McDade and Kinsman 1980;Roubik 1982;Arizmendi et al 1996;Irwin and Brody 1998). Nectar robbers may have either positive or negative eects on hummingbird-pollinated plants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Nectar robbing in Ipomopsis aggregata : effects on pollinator behavior and plant fitness

Irwin¹,

Brody²

1998

Oecologia

140

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hummingbirds foraging in alpine meadows of central Colorado, United States, face a heterogeneous distribution of nectar rewards. This study investigated how variability in nectar resources caused by nectar-robbing bumblebees affected the foraging behavior of hummingbird pollinators and, subsequently, the reproductive success of a host plant (Ipomopsis aggregata). We presented hummingbirds with experimental arrays of I. aggregata and measured hummingbird foraging behavior as a function of known levels of nectar robbing. Hummingbirds visited significantly fewer plants with heavy nectar robbing (over 80% of available flowers robbed) and visited fewer flowers on those plants. These changes in hummingbird foraging behavior resulted in decreased percent fruit set as well as decreased total seed set in heavily robbed plants. These results indicate that hummingbird avoidance of nectar-robbed plants and flowers reduces plant fitness components. In addition, our results suggest that the mutualisms between pollinators and host plants may be affected by other species, such as nectar robbers.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Nectar robbing in Ipomopsis aggregata : effects on pollinator behavior and plant fitness

Irwin¹,

Brody²

1998

Oecologia

140

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Nectar robbing by bees affects the reproductive fitness of the distylous plant Tirpitzia sinensis (Linaceae)

Wang,

Yao,

et al. 2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nectar robbing can affect plant reproductive success directly by influencing female and male fitness, and indirectly by affecting pollinator behavior. Flowers have morphological and chemical features that may protect them from nectar robbers. Previous studies on nectar robbing have focused mainly on homotypic plants. It remains unclear how nectar robbing affects the reproductive success of distylous plants, and whether defense strategies of two morphs are different. Nectar‐robbing rates on the long‐ and short‐styled morph (L‐morph, S‐morph) of the distylous Tirpitzia sinensis were investigated. We compared floral traits, the temporal pattern of change in nectar volume and sugar concentration, nectar secondary metabolites, and sugar composition between robbed and unrobbed flowers of two morphs. We tested direct effects of nectar robbing on female and male components of plant fitness and indirect effects of nectar robbing via pollinators. Nectar‐robbing rates did not differ between the two morphs. Flowers with smaller sepals and petals were more easily robbed. The floral tube diameter and thickness were greater in L‐morphs than in S‐morphs, and the nectar rob holes were significantly smaller in L‐morphs than in S‐morphs. Nectar robbing significantly decreased nectar replenishment rate but did not affect nectar sugar concentration or sugar composition. After robbery, the quantities and diversity of secondary compounds in the nectar of S‐morphs increased significantly and total relative contents of secondary compounds in L‐morphs showed no obvious changes. Nectar robbing could decrease female fitness by decreasing pollen germination rate and thus decreasing seed set. Nectar robbing had no significant effects on male fitness. Robbed flowers were less likely to be visited by hawkmoth pollinators, especially in S‐morphs. These results suggest that nectar robbing could directly and indirectly decrease the female fitness of T. sinensis, and different morphs have evolved different defense mechanisms in response to nectar‐robbing pressure.

show abstract

Nectar Production Patterns in Ipomopsis Aggregata (Polemoniaceae)

Pleasants

1983

American J of Botany

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study describes nectar production patterns for Ipomopsis aggregata and discusses their potential adaptive and ecological significance. It also examines the influence of environmental and other factors on nectar production rate (NPR) and nectar sugar concentration. For I. aggregata there were no NPR differences with flower age. An hypothesis for the presence or absence of such differences is discussed. Ipomopsis aggregata has a relatively constant rate of nectar production during the day and production continues overnight but at a reduced rate. Newly opened flowers already have a sizeable accumulation of nectar. 24‐hr nectar sugar production on overcast days was 62% of sunny day production. NPR values at the beginning of the flowering season were almost twice as great as those near the end but the sugar concentration did not change. Whether nectar was removed periodically (to simulate pollinator visits) or simply allowed to accumulate over 24 hr had no effect on total production. Nectar sugar concentration has a characteristic diurnal pattern: highest in the afternoon and lowest in the early morning, probably in response to diurnal changes in relative humidity. Sugar concentration was also lower on overcast days. These changes are not due to evaporative losses from the open end of the flower. However, evaporation did occur in flowers which had been punctured at the base of the corolla by nectar robbing bees. In general, the results of this study suggest caution in characterizing the NPR or sugar concentration of a species by making measurements at one point in time under one set of environmental conditions.

show abstract

The Impact of Floral Parasitism in Two Neotropical Hummingbird‐pollinated Plant Species

Cited by 115 publications

References 23 publications

Nectar robbing in Ipomopsis aggregata : effects on pollinator behavior and plant fitness

Nectar robbing in Ipomopsis aggregata : effects on pollinator behavior and plant fitness

Nectar robbing by bees affects the reproductive fitness of the distylous plant Tirpitzia sinensis (Linaceae)

Nectar Production Patterns in Ipomopsis Aggregata (Polemoniaceae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About