Evaluating the dependence of urban pollinators on ornamental, non-native, and ‘weedy’ floral resources
Urban landscapes are often florally rich due to extensive management of cultivated plants around the city. High abundance and diversity of these floral resources has been linked to more abundant and diverse pollinator communities, but little is known about how urban pollinators select from the wide variety of available flowers. This study provides unique insight into urban plant-pollinator interactions by examining how many plant taxa, and which taxa, are visited by pollinators. Over a three-year period, we observed foraging of urban pollinators across 63 neighborhoods in Chicago, Illinois (USA). We observed 1815 plant-pollinator interactions between 24 pollinator morpho-types and 106 plant taxa. An additional 57 plant taxa were flowering but not visited by pollinators. On average, each pollinator morpho-type visited 19 plant taxa, and most pollinators showed generalist tendencies. We identified 42 plant taxa that were visited by more pollinator morpho-types than their floral abundance would predict; we call these ‘highly attractive’ plants. In general, perennial and native plants received more pollinator visits than their counterparts, and ornamental plants were visited by more species than unintentional ‘weeds’. However, the two most-visited plant taxa were non-native, perennial weeds. Our results suggest that many flowering plants in cities are not visited by pollinators. Furthermore, the plant-pollinator network could be reduced to only four plant taxa without losing any pollinator morpho-types. To enhance urban pollinator conservation, urban residents can select ornamental plants from our list of ‘highly attractive’ plant taxa, or can allow some of the highly attractive ‘weeds’ to persist in their gardens.
KeywordsResidential yards Gardens Generalist Specialist Bees Flowers Plant-pollinator networks
The authors thank Michelle Budniak, Dragan Dragas, Sophie Huang, and Tabitha Paroongsup who helped with data collection in urban neighborhoods. We thank Stuart Wagenius for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Several anonymous reviewers provided useful comments that improved the manuscript. Funding was provided by NSF Proposal: DEB 1120376.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Aronson MFJ, Handel SN, La Puma IP, Clemants SE (2015) Urbanization promotes non-native woody species and diverse plant assemblages in New York metropolitan region. Urban Ecosyst 18:31–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-014-0382-z
- Baldock KCR, Goddard MA, Hicks DM, Kunin WE, Mitschunas N, Osgathorpe LM, Potts SG, Robertson KM, Scott AV, Stone GN, Vaughan IP, Memmott J (2015) Where is the UK’s pollinator biodiversity? The importance of urban areas for flower visiting insects. Proc R Soc Lond B 282:20142849. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2849 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Biesmeijer JC, Roberts SPM, Reemer M, Ohlemuller R, Edwards M, Peeters T, Schaffers AP, Potts SG, Kleukers R, Thomas CD, Settele J, Kunin WE (2006) Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313:351–354. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127863 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dormann CF, Frund J, Bluthgen N, Gruber B (2009) Indices, graphs and null models: analyzing bipartite ecological networks. Open Ecol J 2:7–24Google Scholar
- Hall DM, Camilo GR, Tonietto RK, Ollerton J, Ahrné K, Arduser M, Ascher JS, Baldock KCR, Fowler R, Frankie G, Goulson D, Gunnarsson B, Hanley ME, Jackson JI, Langellotto G, Lowenstein D, Minor ES, Philpott SM, Potts SG, Sirohi MH, Spevak EM, Stone GN, Threlfall CG (2017) The city as a refuge for insect pollinators. Conserv Biol 31:24–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Herrera CM, Pellmyr O (2002) Plant-animal interactions: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Hicks DM, Ouvrard P, Baldock KCR, Baude M, Goddard MA, Kunin WE, Mitschunas N, Memmott J, Morse H, Nikolitsi M, Osgathorpe LM, Potts SG, Robertson KM, Scott AV, Sinclair F, Westbury DB, Stone GN (2016) Food for pollinators: quantifying the nectar and pollen resources of urban flower meadows. PLoS One 11:e0158117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158117
- Knapp S, Dinsmore L, Fissore C, Hobbie SE, Jakobsdottir I, Kattge J, King JY, Klotz S, McFadden JP, Cavender-Bares J (2012) Phylogenetic and functional characteristics of household yard floras and their changes along an urbanization gradient. Ecology 93:S83–S98. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0392.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Matteson KC, Langellotto GA (2009) Bumble bee abundance in New York City community gardens: implications for urban agriculture. CATE 2:5Google Scholar
- Petanidou T, Kallimanis AS, Tzanopoulos J, Sgardelis SP, Pantis JD (2008) Long-term observation of a pollination network: fluctuation in species and interactions, relative invariance of network structure and implications for estimates of specialization. Ecol Lett 11:564–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01170.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Sheffield CS, Dumesh S, Cheryomina M (2011) Hylaeus punctatus, a bee species new to Canada with notes on other non-native species. J Ent Soc Ont 142:29–43Google Scholar
- Vázquez DP, Morris WF, Jordano P (2005) Interaction frequency as a surrogate for the total effect of animal mutualists on plants. Ecol Lett 8:1088–1094Google Scholar