Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 148, Issue 3, pp 365–372 | Cite as

Characterizing ecological generalization in plant-pollination systems

  • Heather F. SahliEmail author
  • Jeffrey K. Conner
Methods

Abstract

Despite the development of diversity indices in community ecology that incorporate both richness and evenness, pollination biologists commonly use only pollinator richness to estimate generalization. Similarly, while pollination biologists have stressed the utility of pollinator importance, incorporating both pollinator abundance and effectiveness, importance values have not been included in estimates of generalization in pollination systems. In this study, we estimated pollinator generalization for 17 plant species using Simpson’s diversity index, which includes richness and evenness. We compared these estimates with estimates based on only pollinator richness, and compared diversity estimates calculated using importance data with those using only visitation data. We found that pollinator richness explains only 57–65% of the variation in diversity, and that, for most plant species, pollinator importance was determined primarily by differences in visitation rather than by differences in effectiveness. While simple richness may suffice for broad comparisons of pollinator generalization, measures that incorporate evenness will provide a much more accurate understanding of generalization. Although incorporating labor-intensive measurements of pollinator effectiveness are less necessary for broad surveys, effectiveness estimates will be important for detailed studies of some plant species. Unfortunately, at this point it is impossible to predict a priori which species these are.

Keywords

Diversity Effectiveness Evenness Pollinator importance Specialization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Armbruster, C. Brassil, M. Duffy, S. Emery, C. Herrera, F. Knapczyk, A. Roles, D. Schemske, D. Vazquez, and P. Wilson for helpful comments on the manuscript. Funding was provided by a Lauff Scholarship, Sigma-Xi Grant-in-Aid, NSF DEB-9903880, and NSF DDIG DEB-0408055. This is KBS contribution no. 1214.

References

  1. Aigner PA (2001) Optimality modeling and fitness trade-offs: when should plants become pollintor specialists? Oikos 95:177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aigner PA (2005) The evolution of specialized floral phenotypes in a fine-grained pollination environment. In: Waser NM, Ollerton J (eds) Specialization and generalization in plant-pollinator interactions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen-Wardell G et al (1998) The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields. Conserv Biol 12:8–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armbruster WS, Keller S, Matsuki M, Clausen TP (1989) Pollination of Dalechampia magnoliifolia (Euphorbiaceae) by male euglossine bees. Am J Bot 76:1279–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balvanera P, Kremen C, Martinez-Ramos M (2005) Applying community structure analysis to ecosystem function: examples from pollination and carbon storage. Ecol Appl 15:360–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barthell JF, Randall JM, Thorp RW, Wenner AM (2001) Promotion of seed set in yellow star-thistle by honey bees: evidence of an invasive mutualism. Ecol Appl 11:1870–1883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bosch J, Retana J, Cerda X (1997) Flowering phenology, floral traits, and pollinator composition in a herbaceous Mediterranean plant community. Oecologia 109:583–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyd EA (2004) Breeding system of Macromeria viridiflora (Boraginaceae) and geographic variation in pollinator assemblages. Am J Bot 91:1809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burd M (1994) Bateman’s principle and plant reproduction—the role of pollen limitation in fruit and seed set. Bot Rev 60:83–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeBenedictis PA (1973) Correlations between certain diversity indexes. Am Nat 107:295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feinsinger P (1978) Ecological interactions between plants and hummingbirds in a successional tropical community. Ecol Monogr 48:269–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feinsinger P, Beach JH, Linhart YB, Busby WH, Murray KG (1987) Disturbance, pollinator predictability, and pollination success among Costa Rican cloud forest plants. Ecology 68:1294–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fenster CB, Dudash MR (2001) Spatiotemporal variation in the role of hummingbirds as pollinators of Silene virginica. Ecology 82:844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fenster CB, Armbruster WS, Wilson P, Dudash MR, Thomson JD (2004) Pollination syndromes and floral specialization. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:375–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fishbein M, Venable DL (1996) Diversity and temporal change in the effective pollinators of Asclepias tuberosa. Ecology 77:1061–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gomez JM, Zamora R (1999) Generalization vs. specialization in the pollination system of Hormathophylla spinosa (Cruciferae). Ecology 80:796–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grant V, Grant KA (1965) Pollination in the Phlox family. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Havens K (1999) Pollination biology: implications for restoring rare plants. Ecol Restor 17:216–218Google Scholar
  19. Herrera CM (1987) Components of pollinator “quality”: comparative analysis of a diverse insect assemblage. Oikos 50:79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herrera CM (1989) Pollinator abundance, morphology, and flower visitation rate: analysis of the “quantity” component in a plant-pollinator system. Oecologia 80:241–248Google Scholar
  21. Herrera CM (2005) Plant generalization on pollinators: species property or local phenomenon? Am J Bot 92:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Inouye DW, Gill DE, Dudash MR, Fenster CB (1994) A model and lexicon for pollen fate. Am J Bot 81:1517–1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ivey CT, Martinez P, Wyatt R (2003) Variation in pollinator effectiveness in swamp milkweed, Asclepias incarnata (Apocynaceae). Am J Bot 90:214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson SD, Steiner KE (2000) Generalization versus specialization plant pollination systems. Trends Ecol Evol 15:140–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kandori I (2002) Diverse visitors with various pollinator importance and temporal change in the important pollinators of Geranium thunbergii (Geraniaceae). Ecol Res 17:283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kay KM, Schemske DW (2004) Geographic patterns in plant-pollinator mutualistic networks: comment. Ecology 85:875–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kearns C, Inouye D (1997) Pollinators, flowering plants, and conservation biology. BioScience 47:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kearns C, Inouye D, Waser N (1998) Endangered mutualisms: the conservation of plant-pollinator interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 29:83–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keys RN, Buchmann SL, Smith SE (1995) Pollination effectiveness and pollination efficiency of insects foraging Prosopis velutina in South-eastern Arizona. J Appl Ecol 32:519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klein AM, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Pollination of Coffea canephora in relation to local and regional agroforestry management. J Appl Ecol 40:837–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krebs CJ (1989) Ecological methodology. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Kremen C, Williams NM, Thorp RW (2002) Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:16812–16816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Larsen T, Williams NM, Kremen C (2005) Extincion order and altered community structure rapidly disrupt ecosystem functioning. Ecol Lett 8:538–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lindsey AH (1984) Reproductive biology of Apiaceae. I. Floral visitors to Thaspium and Zizia and their importance in pollination. Am J Bot 71:375–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayfield MM, Waser NM, Price MV (2001) Exploring the ‘most effective pollinator principle’ with complex flowers: bumblebees and Ipomopsis aggregata. Ann Bot 88:591–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Memmott J (1999) The structure of a plant-pollinator food web. Ecol Lett 2:276–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Memmott J, Waser NM (2002) Integration of alien plants into a native flower-pollinator visitation web. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2395–2399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Motten AF, Campbell DR, Alexander DE, Miller HL (1981) Pollination effectiveness of specialist and generalist visitors to a North Carolina population of Claytonia virginica. Ecology 62:1278–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ollerton J, Cranmer L (2002) Latitudinal trends in plant-pollinator interactions: are tropical plants more specialised? Oikos 98:340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Olsen KM (1997) Pollination effectiveness and pollinator importance in a population of Heterotheca subaxillaris (Asteraceae). Oecologia 109:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parker IM (1997) Pollinator limitation of Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom), an invasive exotic shrub. Ecology 78:1457–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parrish JAD, Bazzaz FA (1979) Difference in pollination niche relationships in early and late successional plant-communities. Ecology 60:597–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pettersson MW (1991) Pollination by a guild of fluctuating moth populations: option for unspecialization in Silene vulgaris. J Ecol 79:591–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Potts SG, Dafni A, Ne’eman G (2001) Pollination of a core flowering shrub species in Mediterranean phrygana: variation in pollinator diversity, abundance and effectiveness in response to fire. Oikos 92:71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Primack RB, Silander JA Jr (1975) Measuring the relative importance of different pollinators to plants. Nature 255:143–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ricketts TH (2004) Tropical forest fragments enhance pollinator activity in nearby coffee crops. Conserv Biol 18:1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schemske DW, Horvitz CC (1984) Variation among floral visitors in pollination ability: a precondition for mutualism specialization. Science 225:519–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schemske DW, Horvitz CC (1988) Plant animal interactions and fruit production in a neotropical herb—a path-analysis. Ecology 69:1128–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith B, Wilson JB (1996) A consumer’s guide to evenness indices. Oikos 76:70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spears EE Jr (1983) A direct measure of pollinator effectiveness. Oecologia 57:196–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stirling G, Wilsey B (2001) Empirical relationships between species richness, evenness, and proportional diversity. Am Nat 158:286–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Strauss SY, Sahli H, Conner JK (2005) Toward a more trait-centered approach to diffuse (co)evolution. New Phytol 165:81–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Tepedino VJ (1979) The importance of bees and other insect pollinators in maintaining floral species composition. Great Basin Nat Memoirs 3:139–150Google Scholar
  56. Thompson JN, Pellmyr O (1992) Mutualism with pollinating seed parasites amid co-pollinators: constraints on specialization. Ecology 73:1780–1791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vazquez DP, Aizen MA (2003) Null model analyses of specialization in plant-pollinator interactions. Ecology 84:2493–2501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vazquez DP, Morris WF, Jordano P (2005) Interaction frequency as a surrogate for the total effect of animal mutualists on plants. Ecol Lett 9:1088–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Waser NM, Price MV (1983) Pollinator behavior and natural selection for flower colour in Delphinium nelsonii. Nature 302:422–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Waser NM, Chittka L, Price MV, Williams NM, Ollerton J (1996) Generalization in pollination systems, and why it matters. Ecology 77:1043–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Young HJ (1988) Differential importance of beetle species pollinting Dieffenbachia longispatha (Araceae). Ecology 69:832–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kellogg Biological Station and Department of Plant BiologyMichigan State UniversityHickory CornersUSA

Personalised recommendations