Oecologia

, Volume 159, Issue 3, pp 515–525 | Cite as

Solitary invasive orchid bee outperforms co-occurring native bees to promote fruit set of an invasive Solanum

Plant-Animal Interactions - Original Paper

Abstract

Our understanding of the effects of introduced invasive pollinators on plants has been exclusively drawn from studies on introduced social bees. One might expect, however, that the impacts of introduced solitary bees, with much lower population densities and fewer foragers, would be small. Yet little is known about the potential effects of naturalized solitary bees on the environment. We took advantage of the recent naturalization of an orchid bee, Euglossa viridissima, in southern Florida to study the effects of this solitary bee on reproduction of Solanum torvum, an invasive shrub. Flowers of S. torvum require specialized buzz pollination. Through timed floral visitor watches and two pollination treatments (control and pollen supplementation) at three forest edge and three open area sites, we found that the fruit set of S. torvum was pollen limited at the open sites where the native bees dominate, but was not pollen limited at the forest sites where the invasive orchid bees dominate. The orchid bee’s pollination efficiency was nearly double that of the native halictid bees, and was also slightly higher than that of the native carpenter bee. Experiments using small and large mesh cages (to deny or allow E. viridissima access, respectively) at one forest site indicated that when the orchid bee was excluded, the flowers set one-quarter as many fruit as when the bee was allowed access. The orchid bee was the most important pollinator of the weed at the forest sites, which could pose additional challenges to the management of this weed in the fragmented, endangered tropical hardwood forests in the region. This specialized invasive mutualism may promote populations of both the orchid bee and this noxious weed. Invasive solitary bees, particularly species that are specialized pollinators, appear to have more importance than has previously been recognized.

Keywords

Buzz pollination Euglossa viridissima Invasive mutualism Pollen limitation Solanum torvum 

Supplementary material

442_2008_1232_MOESM1_ESM.doc (43 kb)
S1 (DOC 43 kb)

References

  1. Armbruster WS (1988) Multilevel comparative analysis of the morphology, function, and evolution of Dalechampia blossoms. Ecology 69:1746–1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashman TL, Knight TM, Steets JA, Amarasekare P, Burd M, Campbell DR, Dudash MR, Johnston MO, Mazer SJ, Mitchell RJ, Morgan MT, Wilson WG (2004) Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: ecological and evolutionary causes and consequences. Ecology 85:2408–2421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Buchmann SL (1983) Buzz pollination in angiosperms. In: Jones CE, Little RJ (eds) Handbook of experimental pollination biology (scientific and academic editions). Van Nostrand, New York, pp 73–113Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Butz Huryn VM (1997) Ecological impacts of introduced honey bees. Q Rev Biol 72:275–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dafni A, Shmida A (1996) The possible ecological implications of the invasion of Bombus terrestris (L.) (Apidae) at Mt. Carmel, Isreal. In: Matheson AC, Buchmann SL, O’Toole C (eds) The conservation of bees. The Linnean Society of London and the International Bee Research Association, London, pp 183–200Google Scholar
  8. DuPont YL, Hansen DM, Valido A, Olesen JM (2004) Impact of introduced honey bees on native pollination interactions of the endemic Echium wildpretii (Boraginaceae) on Tenerife, Canary Islands. Biol Conserv 118:301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goulson D (2003) Effects of introduced bees on native ecosystems. Ann Rev Ecol Evol S 34:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Groom MJ (1998) Allee effects limit population viability of an annual plant. Am Nat 151:487–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gross CL, Mackay D (1998) Honeybees reduce fitness in the pioneer shrub Melastoma affine (Melastomataceae). Biol Conserv 86:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hingston AB, McQuillan PB (1999) Displacement of Tasmanian native megachilid bees by the recently introduced bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758) (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Aust J Zool 47:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hingston AB, Potts BM, McQuillan PB (2004) Pollination services provided by various size classes of flower visitors to Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus (Myrtaceae). Aust J Bot 52:353–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Langeland KA, Craddock Burks K (1998) Identification and biology of non-native plants in Florida’s native areas. University of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  15. Larson BMH, Barrett SCH (2000) A comparative analyses of pollen limitation in flowering plants. Biol L Linnean Soc 69:503–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morales CL, Aizen MA (2002) Does invasion of exotic plants promote invasion of exotic flower visitors? A case study from the temperate forests of the southern Andes. Biol Invasions 4:87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nadel H, Frank H, Knight RJ (1992) Escapees and accomplishes: the naturalization of exotic Ficus and their associated faunas in Florida. Fla Entomol 75:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Natural Resources Conservation Service (2002) Federal noxious weed list. Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA, Washington. http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=Federal, last accessed 24 Nov 2008
  19. Olsen KM (1997) Pollination effectiveness and pollinator importance in a population of Heterotheca subaxillaris (Asteraceae). Oecologia 109:114–121Google Scholar
  20. Paini DR, Roberts JD (2005) Commercial honey bees (Apis mellifera) reduce the fecundity of an Australian native bee (Hylaeus alcyoneus). Biol Conserv 123:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parker IM (1997) Pollinator limitation of Cytisus scoparius (scotch broom), an invasive exotic shrub. Ecology 78:1457–1470Google Scholar
  22. Pemberton RW (2008) Pollination of the ornamental Oncidium sphacelatum by the naturalized oil-collecting bee (Centris nitida) in Florida. Selbyana 29:87–91Google Scholar
  23. Pemberton RW, Liu H (2008a) A naturalized orchid bee pollinates resin reward flowers in southern Florida; novel and known mutualisms. Biotropica 40:714–718Google Scholar
  24. Pemberton RW, Liu H (2008b) The naturalization of an oil collecting bee Centris nitida in Florida and the eastern United States, with notes on the Centris species native to Florida. Florida Entomol 91:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pemberton RW, Liu H (2008c) Potential of invasive and native solitary specialist bee pollinators to help restore the rare cowhorn orchid (Cyrtopodium punctatum) in Florida. Biol Conserv 141:1758–1760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pemberton RW, Wheeler GS (2006) Orchid bees don’t need orchids, evidence from the naturalization of an orchid bee in Florida. Ecology 87:1995–2001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 92:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roubik DW (1978) Competitive interactions between neotropical pollinators and Africanized honey bees. Science 201:1030–1032PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roubik DW, Hanson PE (2004) Orchid bees of tropical America: biology and field guide. Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, San JoseGoogle Scholar
  30. Skov C, Wiley J (2005) Establishment of the Neotropical orchid bee Euglossa viridissima (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Florida. Fla Entomol 88:225–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Small JK (1933) Manual of the southeastern flora. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  32. Stokes KE, Buckley YM, Sheppard AW (2006) A modeling approach to estimate the effect of exotic pollinators on exotic weed population dynamics: bumblebees and broom in Australia. Biodivers Res 12:593–600Google Scholar
  33. Stout JC, Kells AR, Goulson D (2002) Pollination of the invasive exotic shrub Lupinus arboreus (Fabaceae) by introduced bees in Tasmania. Biol Conserv 106:425–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomson D (2004) Competitive interactions between the invasive European honey bee and native bumble bees. Ecology 85:458–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Traveset A, Richardson D (2006) Biological invasions as disruptors of plant reproductive mutualisms. Trends Ecol Evol 21:208–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vázquez DP, Aizen MA (2004) Asymmetric specialization: a pervasive feature of plant–pollinator interactions. Ecology 85:1251–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Whalen MD, Costich DE (1986) Andromonoecy in Solanum. In: D’Arcy WG (ed) Solanaceae biology and systematics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 284–302Google Scholar
  38. Wunderlin RP, Hansen BF (2003) Guide to the vascular plants of Florida. The University Press of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  39. Zar J (1998) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© GovernmentEmployee: US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of FloridaFt. LauderdaleUSA
  2. 2.Invasive Plant Research LaboratoryUSDA Agricultural Research ServiceFt. LauderdaleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Environmental StudiesFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  4. 4.Center for Tropical Plant ConservationFairchild Tropical Botanic GardenMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations