Advertisement

Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 100, Issue 11, pp 1061–1068 | Cite as

Pollination syndromes ignored: importance of non-ornithophilous flowers to Neotropical savanna hummingbirds

  • Pietro K. Maruyama
  • Genilda M. Oliveira
  • Carolina Ferreira
  • Bo Dalsgaard
  • Paulo E. Oliveira
Original Paper

Abstract

Generalization prevails in flower–animal interactions, and although animal visitors are not equally effective pollinators, most interactions likely represent an important energy intake for the animal visitor. Hummingbirds are nectar-feeding specialists, and many tropical plants are specialized toward hummingbird-pollination. In spite of this, especially in dry and seasonal tropical habitats, hummingbirds may often rely on non-ornithophilous plants to meet their energy requirements. However, quantitative studies evaluating the relative importance of ornithophilous vs. non-ornithophilous plants for hummingbirds in these areas are scarce. We here studied the availability and use of floral resources by hummingbirds in two different areas of the Cerrado, the seasonal savannas in Central Brazil. Roughly half the hummingbird visited plant species were non-ornithophilous, and these contributed greatly to increase the overall nectar availability. We showed that mean nectar offer, at the transect scale, was the only parameter related to hummingbird visitation frequency, more so than nectar offer at single flowers and at the plant scale, or pollination syndrome. Centrality indices, calculated using hummingbird–plant networks, showed that ornithophilous and non-ornithophilous plants have similar importance for network cohesion. How this foraging behaviour affects reproduction of non-ornithophilous plants remains largely unexplored and is probably case specific, however, we suggest that the additional energy provided by non-ornithophilous plants may facilitate reproduction of truly ornithophilous flowers by attracting and maintaining hummingbirds in the area. This may promote asymmetric hummingbird–plant associations, i.e., pollination depends on floral traits adapted to hummingbird morphology, but hummingbird visitation is determined more by the energetic "reward" than by pollination syndromes.

Keywords

Asymmetric interactions Centrality indices Cerrado Nectar Ornithophily 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Felipe W. Amorim, Francielle P. Araújo, Amanda F. Cunha, Leandro Freitas, and Jesper Sonne for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Further comments made by Nick Waser, Paul CaraDonna and two anonymous reviewers improved the quality of the manuscript. Financial support was provided by CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) and FAPEMIG (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais) in Brazil and the Carlsberg Foundation to B. Dalsgaard in Denmark. B. Dalsgaard also thank the Danish National Research Foundation for its support of the Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate. We state that this study complies with the current laws of Brazil. Finally, we thank all the members of Marlies Sazima's Lab at Unicamp, for inspiring many of the discussions presented here.

Supplementary material

114_2013_1111_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (338 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 338 kb)

References

  1. Abrahamczyk S, Kessler M (2010) Hummingbird diversity, food niche characters, and assemblage composition along a latitudinal precipitation gradient in the Bolivian lowlands. J Ornithol 151:615–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amorim FW, Galetto L, Sazima M (2012) Beyond the pollination syndrome: nectar ecology and the role of diurnal and nocturnal pollinators in the reproductive success of Inga sessilis (Fabaceae). Plant Biol 15:317–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Araujo AC, Sazima M (2003) The assemblage of flowers visited by hummingbirds in the “capões” of Southern Pantanal, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Flora 198:427–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Araújo FP, Barbosa AAA, Oliveira PE (2011) Floral resources and hummingbirds in an island of flooded forest in Central Brazil. Flora 206:827–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Araújo FP, Sazima M, Oliveira PE (2013) The assembly of plants used as nectar sources by hummingbirds in a Cerrado area of Central Brazil. Plant Syst Evol 299:1119–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arizmendi MC, Ornelas JF (1990) Hummingbirds and their floral resources in a tropical dry forest in Mexico. Biotropica 22:172–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbosa AAA, Sazima M (2008) Biologia reprodutiva de plantas herbáceo–arbustivas de uma área de campo sujo de cerrado. In: Sano SM, Almeida SP, Ribeiro JF (eds) Cerrado: ecologia e flora. Embrapa, Brasília, pp 291–318Google Scholar
  8. Bawa KS (1990) Plant–pollinator interactions in tropical rain forests. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:399–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blüthgen N, Klein A-M (2011) Functional complementarity and specialisation: the role of biodiversity in plant–pollinator interactions. Basic Appl Ecol 12:282–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buzato S, Sazima M, Sazima I (2000) Hummingbird-pollinated floras at three Atlantic forest sites. Biotropica 32:824–841Google Scholar
  11. Cardoso E, Moreno MIC, Bruna EM, Vasconcelos HL (2009) Mudanças fitofisionômicas no Cerrado: 18 anos de sucessão Ecológica na Estação Ecológica do Panga, Uberlândia - MG. Caminhos Geogr 10:254–268Google Scholar
  12. Castellanos MC, Wilson P, Thomson JD (2004) ‘Anti-bee’ and ‘pro-bird’ changes during the evolution of hummingbird pollination in Penstemon flowers. J Evol Biol 17:876–885PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cotton PA (1998) The hummingbird community of a lowland Amazonian rainforest. Ibis 140:512–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cotton PA (2007) Seasonal resource tracking by Amazonian hummingbirds. Ibis 149:135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cronk Q, Ojeda I (2008) Bird-pollinated flowers in an evolutionary and molecular context. J Exp Bot 59:715–727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dalsgaard B, Martín González AM, Olesen JM, Ollerton J, Timmermann A, Andersen LH, Tossas AG (2009) Plant–hummingbird interactions in the West Indies: floral specialization gradients associated with environment and hummingbird size. Oecologia 159:757–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dalsgaard B, Magård E, Fjeldså J, Martín González AM, Rahbek C, Olesen JM, Ollerton J, Alarcón R, Araujo AC, Cotton PA, Lara C, Machado CG, Sazima I, Sazima M, Timmermann A, Watts S, Sandel B, Sutherland WJ, Svenning JC (2011) Specialization in plant–hummingbird networks is associated with species richness, contemporary precipitation and Quaternary climate-change velocity. PLoS ONE 6:e25891PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. R Development Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, http://www.R-project.org/
  19. Dziedzioch C, Stevens AD, Gottsberger G (2003) The hummingbird plant community of a tropical rain forest in Southern Ecuador. Plant Biol 5:331–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Faegri K, van der Pijl L (1979) The principles of pollination ecology. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Fenster CB, Armbruster S, Wilson P, Dudash M, Thomson JD (2004) Pollination syndromes and floral specialization. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:375–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Galetto L, Bernardello G (2005) Nectar. In: Dafni A, Kevan PG, Husband BC (eds) Pollination ecology: a practical approach. Enviroquest Ltd. Cambridge, Ontario, pp 156–212Google Scholar
  23. Ghazoul J (2006) Floral diversity and the facilitation of pollination. J Ecol 94:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gottsberger G, Silberbauer-Gottsberger I (2006) Life in the Cerrado: a South American tropical seasonal ecosystem, vol 1. Origin, structure, dynamics and plant use. Reta Verlag, UlmGoogle Scholar
  25. Gribel R, Hay JD (1993) Pollination ecology of Caryocar brasiliense (Caryocaraceae) in Central Brazil Cerrado vegetation. J Trop Ecol 9:199–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Justino DG, Maruyama PK, Oliveira PE (2012) Floral resource availability and hummingbird territorial behaviour on a Neotropical savanna shrub. J Ornithol 153:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. King C, Ballantyne G, Willmer PG (2013) Why flower visitation is a poor proxy for pollination: measuring single-visit pollen deposition, with implications for pollination networks and conservation. Methods Ecol Evol 4:811–818Google Scholar
  28. Las-Casas FMG, Azevedo Júnior SM, Dias Filho MM (2012) The community of hummingbirds and the assemblage of flowers in a Caatinga vegetation. Braz J Biol 72:51–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lunau K, Papiorek S, Eltz T, Sazima M (2011) Avoidance of achromatic colours by bees provides a private niche for hummingbirds. J Exp Biol 214:1607–1612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martín González AM, Dalsgaard B, Olesen J (2010) Centrality measures and the importance of generalist species in pollination networks. Ecol Complex 7:36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martins FQ, Batalha MA (2006) Pollination systems and floral traits in Cerrado woody species of the upper Taquari region (Central Brazil). Braz J Biol 66:543–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maruyama PK, Custódio LN, Oliveira PE (2012) When hummingbirds are the thieves: visitation effect on the reproduction of Neotropical snowbell Styrax ferrugineus Nees and Mart (Styracaceae). Acta Bot Bras 26:58–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Melazzo AFO, Oliveira PE (2012) Cuphea melvilla Lindlay (Lythraceae): uma espécie do Cerrado polinizada por beija-flores. Acta Bot Bras 26:281–289Google Scholar
  34. Meléndez-Ackerman E, Campbell DR, Waser NM (1997) Hummingbird behavior and mechanisms of selection on flower color in Ipomopsis. Ecology 78:2532–2541Google Scholar
  35. Muchhala N (2006) The pollination biology of Burmeistera (Campanulaceae): specialization and syndromes. Am J Bot 93:1081–1089PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oliveira PE (1998) Reproductive biology, evolution and taxonomy of the Vochysiaceae in Central Brazil. In: Owens S, Rudall P (eds) Reproductive biology: in systematics, conservation and economic botany. Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew, Richmond, pp 381–393Google Scholar
  37. Oliveira PE, Gibbs PE (1994) Pollination biology and breeding systems of six Vochysia species (Vochysiaceae) in Central Brazil. J Trop Ecol 10:509–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oliveira PE, Gibbs PE (2000) Reproductive biology of woody plants in a Cerrado community of Central Brazil. Flora 195:311–329Google Scholar
  39. Oliveira PE, Paula FR (2001) Fenologia e biologia reprodutiva de plantas de Matas de Galeria. In: Ribeiro JF, Fonseca CEL, Sousa-Silva JC (eds) Cerrado: caracterização e recuperação de Matas de Galeria. Embrapa Cerrados, Planaltina, pp 303–332Google Scholar
  40. Ollerton J, Alarcón R, Waser NM, Price MV, Watts S, Cranmer L, Hingston A, Peter CI, Rotenberry J (2009) A global test of the pollination syndrome hypothesis. Ann Bot 103:1471–1480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rodrigues LC, Araujo AC (2011) The hummingbird community and their floral resources in an urban forest remnant in Brazil. Braz J Biol 71:611–622PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Rojas R, Ribon R (1997) Guilda de aves em Bowdichia virgilioides (Fabaceae: Faboideae) em área de cerrado de Furnas, Minas Gerais. Ararajuba 52:189–194Google Scholar
  43. Sazima I, Buzato S, Sazima M (1996) An assemblage of hummingbird-pollinated flowers in a montane forest in southeastern Brazil. Bot Acta 109:149–160Google Scholar
  44. Stiles FG (1976) Taste preferences, color preferences, and flower choice in hummingbirds. Condor 78:10–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stiles FG (1978) Temporal organization of flowering among the hummingbird food plants of a tropical wet forest. Biotropica 10:194–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stiles FG (1981) Geographical aspects of bird-flower coevolution, with particular reference to Central America. Ann Mo Bot Gard 68:323–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stiles FG (1985) Seasonal patterns and coevolution in the hummingbird–flower community of a Costa Rican subtropical forest. Ornithol Monogr 36:757–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Waser NM (1983) The adaptive nature of floral traits: ideas and evidence. In: Real LA (ed) Pollination biology. Academic Press, New York, pp 241–285Google Scholar
  49. Waser NM, Real LA (1979) Effective mutualism between sequentially flowering plant species. Nature 281:670–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Waser NM, Chittka L, Price MV, Williams NM, Ollerton J (1996) Generalization in pollinations systems, and why it matters. Ecology 77:1043–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Watts S, Huamán Ovalle D, Moreno Herrera M, Ollerton J (2012) Pollinator effectiveness of native and non-native flower visitors to an apparently generalist Andean shrub, Duranta mandonii (Verbenaceae). Plant Species Biol 27:147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pietro K. Maruyama
    • 1
    • 4
  • Genilda M. Oliveira
    • 2
  • Carolina Ferreira
    • 1
  • Bo Dalsgaard
    • 3
  • Paulo E. Oliveira
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de BiologiaUniversidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU)UberlândiaBrazil
  2. 2.Instituto Federal do Triângulo MineiroUberlândiaBrazil
  3. 3.Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, Natural History MuseumUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Programa de Pós-Graduacão em Ecologia Instituto de BiologiaUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)CampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations