Plant Ecology

, Volume 214, Issue 4, pp 633–640 | Cite as

Testing non-additive effects of nectar-robbing ants and hummingbird pollination on the reproductive success of a parasitic plant

  • Paula Caballero
  • Carmen G. Ossa
  • Wilfredo L. Gonzáles
  • Catalina González-Browne
  • Guadalupe Astorga
  • Maureen M. Murúa
  • Rodrigo Medel


Nectar robbing may have an indirect negative effect on plant reproduction by discouraging legitimate pollinator species from visiting robbed flowers. In this study, we set up a 2 × 2 factorial design with nectar-robbing ants and hummingbird pollination to test for non-additive effects on fruit set, seed mass, and seed germination of the leafless mistletoe Tristerix aphyllus (Loranthaceae). Even though ants caused conspicuous damage at the base of the floral tubes, nectar availability was reduced by only 8 % in the presence of ants. The green-backed firecrown Sephanoides sephaniodes was insensitive to the presence of ants. Rather, the bird responded to flower number and the presence or the absence of damage, but not to the extent of damage within inflorescences. As hummingbirds were largely insensitive to variation in nectar robbing, the interaction ant × hummingbird had no effect on plant-reproductive success. Thus, the factorial experiment did not provide evidence for indirect negative effects of nectar robbing on plant reproduction. These results suggest that indirect effects of nectar robbers on pollinator behaviour may occur under a more restricted set of conditions than those previously considered. We suggest that the low amount of nectar removed by nectar-robbing ants was insufficient for hummingbirds to avoid robbed flowers, which restricted the potential for non-additive effects.


Chile Flower damage Fruit set Germination Indirect effects Mistletoe Sephanoides Tristerix 



CONAF IV Región authorized the above study at Las Chinchillas National Reserve. This study was funded by FONDECYT Grants 1010660 and 1120155.


  1. Arizmendi MC, Domínguez CA, Dirzo R (1996) The role of an avian nectar robber and of hummingbird pollinators in the reproduction of two plant species. Funct Ecol 10:119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Botto-Mahan C, Ramírez PA, Ossa CG, Ojeda-Camacho M, Medel R, González AV (2011) Floral herbivory affects female reproductive success and pollinator visitation in the perennial herb Alstroemeria ligtu (Alstroemeriaceae). Int J Plant Sci 172:1130–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burkle LA, Irwin RE, Newman DA (2007) Predicting the effects of nectar robbing on plant reproduction: implications of pollen limitation and plant mating system. Am J Bot 94:1935–1943PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carduel YJ, Koptur S (2010) Effects of florivory on the pollination of flowers: an experimental field study with a perennial plant. Int J Plant Sci 171:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castro S, Silveira P, Navarro L (2008) Consequences of nectar robbing for the fitness of a threatened plant species. Plant Ecol 199:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colwell RK (1995) Effects of nectar consumption by the hummingbird flower mite Proctolaelaps kirmsei on nectar availability in Hamelia patens. Biotropica 27:206–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Danderson CA, Molano-Flores B (2010) Effects of herbivory and inflorescence size on insect visitation to Eryngium yuccifolium (Apiaceae) a prairie plant. Am Midl Nat 163:234–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Faegri K, van der Pijl L (1979) The principles of pollination ecology, 3rd edn. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Fenster CB, Cheely G, Dudash MR, Reynold RJ (2006) Nectar reward and advertisement in hummingbird-pollinated Silene virginica (Caryophyllaceae). Am J Bot 93:1800–1807PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frazee J, Marquis R (1994) Environmental contribution to floral trait variation in Chamaecrista fasciculata. Am J Bot 81:206–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galen C (1983) The effects of nectar thieving ants on seed set in floral scent morphs of Polemonium viscosum. Oikos 41:245–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galen C, Butchart B (2003) Ants in your plants: effects of nectar-thieves on pollen fertility and seed-siring capacity in the alpine wildflower, Polemonium viscosum. Oikos 101:521–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galen C, Cuba J (2001) Down the tube: pollinators, predators, and the evolution of flower shape in the alpine skypilot, Polemonium viscosum. Evolution 55:1963–1971PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gonzáles WL, Suarez LH, Medel R (2007) Outcrossing increases infection success in the holoparasitic mistletoe Tristerix aphyllus (Loranthaceae). Evol Ecol 21:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. González-Gómez PL, Valdivia CE (2005) Direct and indirect effects of nectar robbing on the pollinating behavior of Patagona gigas (Trochilidae). Biotropica 37:693–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. González-Gómez PL, Vásquez RA (2006) A field study of spatial memory in green-backed firecrown hummingbirds (Sephanoides sephaniodes). Ethology 112:790–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hernández HM, Toledo VM (1979) The role of nectar robbers and pollinators in the reproduction of Erythrina leptorhiza. Ann MO Bot Gard 66:512–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herrera CM, Herrera J, Espadaler X (1984) Nectar thievery by ants from southern Spanish insect-pollinated flowers. Insectes Soc 31:142–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Inouye DW (1980) The terminology of floral larceny. Ecology 61:1251–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Irwin RE (2000) Hummingbird avoidance of nectar-robbed plants: spatial location or visual cues? Oikos 91:499–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Irwin RE, Brody AK (1998) Nectar robbing in Ipomopsis aggregata: effects on pollinator behavior and plant fitness. Oecologia 116:519–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Irwin RE, Brody AK (1999) Nectar-robbing bumblebees reduce the fitness of Ipomopsis agreggata (Polemoniaceae). Ecology 80:1703–1712Google Scholar
  24. Irwin RE, Brody AK (2000) Consequences of nectar robbing for realized male function in a hummingbird-pollinated plant. Ecology 81:2637–2643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Irwin RE, Brody AK, Waser MN (2001) The impact of floral larceny on individuals, populations, and communities. Oecologia 129:161–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Irwin RE, Bronstein JL, Manson JS, Richardson L (2010) Nectar robbing: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:271–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jaksic FM (2001) Ecological effects of El Niño in terrestrial ecosystems of Western South America. Ecography 24:241–250Google Scholar
  28. Karban R, Strauss SY (1993) Effects of herbivores on growth and reproduction of their perennial host, Erigeron glaucus. Ecology 74:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kjonaas C, Rengifo C (2006) Differential effects of avian nectar-robbing on fruit set of two Venezuelan Andean cloud forest plants. Biotropica 38:276–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krupnick GA, Weis AE, Campbell DR (1999) The consequences of floral herbivory for pollinator service to Isomeris arborea. Ecology 80:125–134Google Scholar
  31. Kuijt J (1969) The biology of parasitic flowering plants. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  32. Lach L (2005) Interference and exploitation competition of three nectar-thieving invasive ant species. Insectes Soc 52:257–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lara C, Ornelas JF (2001) Nectar “theft” by hummingbird flower mites and its consequences for seed set in Moussonia deppeana. Funct Ecol 15:78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lohman DJ, Zangerl AR, Berenbaum MR (1996) Impact of floral herbivory by parsnip webworm (Oecophoridae: Depressaria pastinacella Duponchel) on pollination and fitness of wild parsnip (Apiaceae: Pastinaca sativa L.). Am Midl Nat 136:407–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maloof JE (2001) The effects of a bumble bee nectar robber on plant-reproductive success and pollinator behavior. Am J Bot 88:1960–1965PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maloof JE, Inouye WD (2000) Are nectar robbers cheaters or mutualists? Ecology 81:2651–2661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mauseth JD, Montenegro G, Walckowiak AM (1984) Studies of the holoparasitic mistletoe Tristerix aphyllus (Loranthaceae) infecting Trichocereus chilensis (Cactaceae). Can J Bot 62:847–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mauseth JD, Montenegro G, Walckowiak AM (1985) Host infection and flower formation by the parasite Tristerix aphyllus (Loranthaceae). Can J Bot 63:567–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCall AC, Irwin RE (2006) Florivory: the intersection of pollination and herbivory. Ecol Lett 9:1351–1365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McDade LA, Kinsman S (1980) The impact of floral parasitism in two neotropical hummingbird-pollinated plant species. Evolution 34:944–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Medel R, Botto-Mahan C, Smith-Ramirez C, Méndez MA, Ossa CG, Caputo L, Gonzales LW (2002) Historia natural cuantitativa de una relación parásito-hospedero: el sistema Tristerix-cactáceas en Chile semiárido. Rev Chil Hist Nat 75:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Montalvo AM, Ackerman JD (1987) Limitations to fruit production in Ionopsis utricularioides (Orchidaceae). Biotropica 19:24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morris WF (1996) Mutualism denied? Nectar-robbing bumble bees do not reduce female or male success of bluebells. Ecology 77:1451–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Navarro L (2000) Pollination ecology of Anthyllis vulneraria subsp. vulgaris (Fabaceae): nectar robbers as pollinators. Am J Bot 87:980–985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Norment CJ (1988) The effect of nectar-thieving ants on the reproductive success of Frasera speciosa (Gentianaceae). Am Midl Nat 120:331–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pohl N, Carvallo G, Botto-Mahan C, Medel R (2006) Non-additive effects of flower damage and hummingbird pollination on the fecundity of Mimulus luteus. Oecologia 149:648–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Richardson S (2004) Are nectar-robbers mutualists or antagonists? Oecologia 139:246–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rodríguez-Robles JA, Meléndez EJ, Ackerman JD (1992) Effects of display size, flowering phenology, and nectar availability on effective visitation frequency in Comparettia falcata (Orchidaceae). Am J Bot 79:1009–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Romero GQ (2002) Protection of Vochysia elliptica (Vochysiaceae) by a nectar-thieving ant. Braz J Biol 62:371–373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roubik DW (1982) The ecological impact of nectar-robbing bees and pollinating hummingbirds on a tropical shrub. Ecology 63:354–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith-Ramírez C (1999) Selección fenotípica secuencial sobre rasgos reproductivos del muérdago Tristerix aphyllus. PhD Thesis. Universidad de ChileGoogle Scholar
  52. Wyatt R (1980) The impact of nectar-robbing ants on the pollination system of Asclepias curassavica. Bull Torrey Bot Club 107:24–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang YW, Yang CF, Zhao JM, Guo YH (2009) Selective nectar robbing in a gynodioecious plant (Glechoma longituba) enhances female advantage. J Evol Biol 22:527–535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zimmerman M, Cook S (1985) Pollinator foraging, experimental nectar robbing and plant fitness in Impatiens capensis. Am Midl Nat 113:81–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paula Caballero
    • 2
  • Carmen G. Ossa
    • 2
  • Wilfredo L. Gonzáles
    • 1
  • Catalina González-Browne
    • 2
  • Guadalupe Astorga
    • 2
  • Maureen M. Murúa
    • 2
  • Rodrigo Medel
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratorio de Ecología Evolutiva, LID, Facultad de Ciencias y FilosofíaUniversidad Peruana Cayetano HerediaLimaPeru
  2. 2.Departamento de Ciencias Ecológicas, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations