Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 173, Issue 3, pp 881–893 | Cite as

How do pollinator visitation rate and seed set relate to species’ floral traits and community context?

  • Amparo LázaroEmail author
  • Anna Jakobsson
  • Ørjan Totland
Plant-animal interactions - Original research

Abstract

Differences among plant species in visitation rate and seed set within a community may be explained both by the species’ floral traits and the community context. Additionally, the importance of species’ floral traits vs. community context on visitation rate and seed set may vary among communities. In communities where the pollinator-to-flower ratio is low, floral traits may be more important than community context, as pollinators may have the opportunity to be choosier when visiting plant species. In this study we investigated whether species’ floral traits (flower shape, size and number, and flowering duration) and community context (conspecific and heterospecific flower density, and pollinator abundance) could explain among-species variation in visitation rate and seed set. For this, we used data on 47 plant species from two Norwegian plant communities differing in pollinator-to-flower ratio. Differences among species in visitation rate and seed set within a community could be explained by similar variables as those explaining visitation rate and seed set within species. As expected, we found floral traits to be more important than community context in the community with a lower pollinator-to-flower ratio; whereas in the community with a higher pollinator-to-flower ratio, community context played a bigger role. Our study gives significant insights into the relative importance of floral traits on species’ visitation rate and seed set, and contributes to our understanding of the role of the community context on the fitness of plant species.

Keywords

Conspecific flower density Display traits Heterospecific flower density Inter-specific comparison Pollinator abundance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Paul Aakerøy, Amparo Castillo, Astrid Haavik, Manuel Hidalgo, Kristian Kyed, Rebekka Lundgren, Kirsten Marthinsen, Antón Pérez, Martín Piazzon, Anna Karina Schmidt, Mari Steinert, Siril Stenerud, Jorum Vallestad, Hartvig Velund, Silje Wang, Torstein Wilmot, and Magnus Øye for their invaluable help in the field and the lab. We are also very grateful to Asier R. Larrinaga and Martin Piazzon for their statistical advice and to Amanda M. Dorsett for language editing. This study was supported by the project 170532/V40 financed by the Norwegian Research Council. During the writing of this manuscript A. L. was supported by a Juan de la Cierva contract (Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness). The sampling complies with the current laws of the country (Norway) where it was performed.

Supplementary material

442_2013_2652_MOESM1_ESM.doc (80 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 79 kb)

References

  1. Alley TR (1982) Competition theory, evolution, and the concept of an ecological niche. Acta Biotheor 31:165–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arroyo MTK, Armesto JJ, Villagrán C (1981) Plant phenological patterns in the high Andean cordillera of central Chile. J Ecol 69:205–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell G (1985) On the function of flowers. Proc R Soc Lond B 224:223–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biernaskie JM, Gegear RJ (2007) Habitat assessment ability of bumble-bees implies frequency-dependent selection on floral rewards and display size. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:2595–2601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blionis GJ, Halley JM, Vokou D (2001) Flowering phenology of Campanula on Mt Olympos, Greece. Ecography 24:696–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosch M, Waser NM (1999) Effects of local density on pollination and reproduction in Delphinium nuttallianum and Aconitum columbianum (Ranunculaceae). Am J Bot 86:871–879PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brys R, Jacquemyn H (2010) Floral display size and spatial distribution of potential mates affect pollen deposition and female reproductive success in distylous Pulmonaria officinalis (Boraginaceae). Plant Biol 12:597–603PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Calcagno V, de Mazancourt C (2010) glmulti: an R package for easy automated model selection with (generalized) linear models. J Stat Softw 34:1–29Google Scholar
  9. Caruso CM, Alfaro M (2000) Interspecific pollen transfer as a mechanism of competition: effect of Castilleja linariaefolia pollen on seed set of Ipomopsis aggregata. Can J Bot 78:600–606Google Scholar
  10. Chittka L, Thomson JD (2001) Cognitive ecology of pollination: animal behavior and floral evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Jong TJ, Waser NM, Klinkhamer PGL (1993) Geitonogamy: the neglected side of selfing. Trends Ecol Evol 8:321–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dieringer G (1991) Variation in individual flowering time and reproductive success of Agalinis strictifolia (Scrophulariaceae). Am J Bot 78:497–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dreisig H (1995) Ideal free distributions of nectar foraging bumblebees. Oikos 72:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dudash MR, Hassler C, Stevens PM, Fenster CB (2011) Experimental floral and inflorescence trait manipulations affect pollinator preference and function in a hummingbird-pollinated plant. Am J Bot 98:275–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eckhart VM (1991) The effects of floral display on pollinator visitation vary among populations of Phacelia linearis (Hydrophyllaceae). Evol Ecol 5:370–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Faegri K, van der Pijl L (1966) The principles of pollination ecology. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Feinsinger P, Tiebout HM III, Young BE (1991) Do tropical bird-pollinated plants exhibit density-dependent interactions? Field experiments. Ecology 72:1953–1963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Field DL, Ayre DJ, Whelan RJ (2005) The effect of local plant density on pollinator behaviour and the breeding system of Persoonia bargoensis (Proteaceae). Int J Plant Sci 166:969–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Galen C, Gregory T (1989) Interspecific pollen transfer as a mechanism of competition—consequences of foreign pollen contamination for seed set in the alpine wild flower Polemonium viscosum. Oecologia 81:120–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galen C, Newport MEA (1987) Bumble bee behaviour and selection on flower size in the sky pilot, Polemonium viscosum. Oecologia 74:20–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gómez JM, Perfectti F, Bosch J, Camacho JPM (2009) A geographic selection mosaic in a generalized plant-pollinator-herbivore system. Ecol Monogr 79:245–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goulson D (2003) Bumblebees: behaviour and ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Goulson D, Stout JC, Hawson SA, Allen JA (1998) Floral display size in comfrey, Symphytum officinale L. (Boraginaceae): relationships with visitation by three bumblebee species and subsequent seed set. Oecologia 113:502–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grindeland JM, Sletvold N, Ims RA (2005) Effects of floral display size and plant density on pollinator visitation rate in a natural population of Digitalis purpurea. Funct Ecol 19:383–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harder LD, Johnson SD (2009) Darwin’s beautiful contrivances: evolutionary and functional evidence for floral adaptation. New Phytol 183:530–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hegland S-J, Totland Ø (2005) Relationships between species’ floral traits and pollinator visitation in a temperate grassland. Oecologia 145:586–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hersch EI, Roy BA (2007) Context-dependent pollinator behavior: an explanation for patterns of hybridization among three species of Indian paintbrush. Evolution 61:111–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jakobsson A, Padrón B, Traveset A (2007) Pollen transfer from invasive Carpobrotus spp. to natives—a study of pollinator behaviour and reproduction success. Biol Conserv 141:136–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jennersten O (1988) Pollination in Dianthus deltoides (Caryophyllaceae): effects of habitat fragmentation on visitation and seed set. Conserv Biol 2:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jennersten O, Nilsson SG (1993) Insect flower visitation frequency and seed production in relation to patch size of Viscaria vulgaris (Caryophyllaceae). Oikos 68:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kalisz S, Vogler DW, Hanley KM (2004) Context-dependent autonomous self-fertilization yields reproductive assurance and mixed mating. Nature 430:884–887PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Karoly K (1992) Pollinator limitation in the facultatively autogamous annual, Lupinus nanus (Leguminosae). Am J Bot 79:49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Karron JD, Thumser NN, Tucker R, Hessenauer AJ (1995) The influence of population density in outcrossing rates in Mimulus ringens. Heredity 75:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klinkhamer PGL, de Jong TJ (1990) Effects of plant size, plant density and sex differential nectar reward on pollinator visitation in the protandrous Echium vulgare (Boraginaceae). Oikos 57:399–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klinkhamer PGL, de Jong TJ (1993) Atractiveness to pollinators—a plants dilemma. Oikos 66:180–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kudo G (1993) Relationship between flowering time and fruit-set of the entomophilous alpine shrub, Rhododendron aureum (Ericaceae), inhabiting snow patches. Am J Bot 80:1300–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kunin WE (1993) Sex and the single mustard: population density and pollinator behaviour effects on seed-set. Ecology 74:2145–2160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kwak MM, Bergman P (1996) Early flowers of Bartsia alpina (Scrophulariaceae) and the visitation by bumblebees. Acta Bot Neerl 45:355–366Google Scholar
  40. Larson BMH, Barrett SCH (2000) A comparative analysis of pollen limitation in flowering plants. Biol J Linn Soc 69:503–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lázaro A, Totland Ø (2010) Population dependence in the interactions with neighbors for pollination: a field experiment with Taraxacum officinale. Am J Bot 97:760–769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lázaro A, Lundgren R, Totland Ø (2009) Co-flowering neighbors influence the diversity and identity of pollinator groups visiting plant species. Oikos 118:691–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lázaro A, Nielsen A, Totland Ø (2010) Factors related to the inter-annual variation in plants’ pollination generalization levels within a community. Oikos 119:825–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Makino TT, Ohashi K, Sakai S (2007) How do floral display size and the density of surrounding flowers influence the likelihood of bumblebee revisitation to a plant? Funct Ecol 21:87–95Google Scholar
  45. McCall C, Primack RB (1992) Influence of flower characteristics, weather, time of the day, and season on insect visitation rates in three plant communities. Am J Bot 79:434–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mitchell RJ, Karron JD, Holmquist KG, Bell JM (2004) The influence of Mimulus ringens floral display size on pollinator visitation patterns. Funct Ecol 18:116–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moeller DA (2004) Facilitative interactions among plants via shared pollinators. Ecology 85:3289–3301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Molano-Flores B, Hendrix SD, Heard SB (1999) The effect of population size on stigma pollen load, fruit set, and seed set in Allium stellatum Ker. (Liliaceae). Int J Plant Sci 160:753–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mossberg B, Stenberg L (2007) Gyldendals Store Nordiske Flora. Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, OsloGoogle Scholar
  50. Ohashi K, Yahara T (2002) Visit larger displays but probe proportionally fewer flowers: counterintuitive behaviour of nectar-collecting bumble bees achieves an ideal free distribution. Funct Ecol 16:492–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pauw A (2007) Collapse of a pollination web in small conservation areas. Ecology 88:1759–1769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Price MV, Waser NM, Irwin RE, Campbell DR, Brody AK (2005) Temporal and spatial variation in pollination of a montane herb: a seven-year study. Ecology 86:2106–2116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. R Development Core Team (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org
  54. Rathcke BJ (1983) Competition and facilitation among plants for pollination. In: Real L (ed) Pollination biology. Academic Press, Orlando, pp 305–329Google Scholar
  55. Robertson AW, Macnair MR (1995) The effects of floral display size on pollinator service to individual flowers of Myosotis and Mimulus. Oikos 72:106–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schemske DW (1981) Floral convergence and pollinator sharing in two bee-pollinated tropical herbs. Ecology 62:946–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schmitt J (1983) Flowering plant density and pollinator visitation in Senecio. Oecologia 60:97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stanton M, Young HJ, Ellstrand NC, Clegg JM (1991) Consequences of floral variation for male and female reproduction in experimental populations of wild radish, Raphanus sativus L. Evolution 45:268–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  60. Thompson JD (2001) How do visitation patterns vary among pollinators in relation to floral display and floral design in a generalist pollination system? Oecologia 126:386–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Totland Ø (1993) Pollination in alpine Norway: flowering phenology, insect visitors, and visitation rates in two plant communities. Can J Bot 71:1072–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Totland Ø (2001) Environment-dependent pollen limitation and selection on floral traits in an alpine species. Ecology 82:2233–2244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wissman J (2006) Reproduction and population structure of Primula veris L. Primulaceae) in semi-natural grasslands—a landscape and management perspective. Doctoral dissertation, SLUGoogle Scholar
  64. 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

  • Amparo Lázaro
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anna Jakobsson
    • 2
  • Ørjan Totland
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biodiversity and ConservationMediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies (UIB-CSIC)EsporlesSpain
  2. 2.Department of Plant Ecology and EvolutionUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Natural Resource ManagementNorwegian University of Life SciencesÅsNorway

Personalised recommendations