, Volume 96, Issue 2, pp 221–232 | Cite as

Bird pollination of Canary Island endemic plants

  • Jeff Ollerton
  • Louise Cranmer
  • Ralph J. Stelzer
  • Steve Sullivan
  • Lars ChittkaEmail author
Original Paper


The Canary Islands are home to a guild of endemic, threatened bird-pollinated plants. Previous work has suggested that these plants evolved floral traits as adaptations to pollination by flower specialist sunbirds, but subsequently, they appear to have co-opted generalist passerine birds as sub-optimal pollinators. To test this idea, we carried out a quantitative study of the pollination biology of three of the bird-pollinated plants, Canarina canariensis (Campanulaceae), Isoplexis canariensis (Veronicaceae) and Lotus berthelotii (Fabaceae), on the island of Tenerife. Using colour vision models, we predicted the detectability of flowers to bird and bee pollinators. We measured pollinator visitation rates, nectar standing crops as well as seed-set and pollen removal and deposition. These data showed that the plants are effectively pollinated by non-flower specialist passerine birds that only occasionally visit flowers. The large nectar standing crops and extended flower longevities (>10 days) of Canarina and Isoplexis suggests that they have evolved a bird pollination system that effectively exploits these low frequency non-specialist pollen vectors and is in no way sub-optimal. Seed set in two of the three species was high and was significantly reduced or zero in flowers where pollinator access was restricted. In L. berthelotii, however, no fruit set was observed, probably because the plants were self-incompatible horticultural clones of a single genet. We also show that, while all three species are easily detectable for birds, the orange Canarina and the red Lotus (but less so the yellow-orange Isoplexis) should be difficult to detect for insect pollinators without specialised red receptors, such as bumblebees. Contrary to expectations if we accept that the flowers are primarily adapted to sunbird pollination, the chiffchaff (Phylloscopus canariensis) was an effective pollinator of these species.


Bird vision Canary Islands Mutualism Pollinator Tenerife 



This research was funded by NERC grant number NER/B/S/2003/00811. We are grateful to Servicio Administrativo de Medio Ambiente, Excmo. Cabildo Insular de Tenerife for permission to work in Tenerife (Permit DNI: 203067161), El Parque del Drago for allowing us to observe L. berthelotii, and to Sr. Damián de Torres for assisting with resources and providing local knowledge. Thanks to Dr. Yoko Dupont for information on field sites, Dr. Ana Ortega-Olivencia for sharing originally unpublished data on A. foetida flower longevity, and Dr. Tia-Lynn Ashman for discussion. All experiments comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed.


  1. Allan GJ, Francisco-Ortega J, Santos-Guerra A, Boerner E, Zimmer EA (2004) Molecular phylogenetic evidence for the geographic origin and classification of Canary Island Lotus (Fabaceae: Loteae). Mol Phylogenet Evol 32:123–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashman T-L, Schoen DJ (1994) How long should flowers live? Nature 371:788–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashman T-L, Schoen DJ (1996) Floral longevity: fitness consequences and resource costs. In: Lloyd DG, Barrett SCH (eds) Floral Biology: Studies on floral evolution in animal-pollinated plants. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 112–139Google Scholar
  4. Bowmaker JK, Heath LA, Wilkie SE, Hunt DM (1997) Visual pigments and oil droplets from six classes of photoreceptors in the retinas of birds. Vision Res 37:2183–2194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bramwell D, Bramwell Z (2001) Wild flowers of the Canary Islands. Editorial Rueda, MadridGoogle Scholar
  6. Bräuchler C, Meimberg H, Heubl G (2004) Molecular phylogeny of the genera Digitalis L. and Isoplexis (Lindley) Loudon (Veronicaceae) based on ITS- and trnL-F sequences. Plant Syst Evol 248:111–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carine MA, Russell SJ, Santos-Guerra A, Francisco-Ortega J (2004) Relationships of the Macaronesian and Mediterranean floras: Molecular evidence for multiple colonizations into Macaronesia and back-colonization of the continent in Convolvulus (Convolvulaceae). Am J Bot 91:1070–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chittka L (1996) Optimal sets of colour receptors and opponent processes for coding of natural objects in insect vision. J Theo Biol 181:179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chittka L (1997) Bee color vision is optimal for coding flower colors, but flower colors are not optimal for being coded—why? Israel J Plant Sci 45:115–127Google Scholar
  10. Chittka L, Raine NE (2006) Recognition of flowers by pollinators. Curr Opin Plant Biol 9:428–435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chittka L, Ings TC, Raine NE (2004) Chance and adaptation in the evolution of island bumblebee behaviour. Popul Ecol 46:243–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clement P (1995) The chiffchaff. Hamlyn, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Dafni A, Kevan PG, Husband BC (2005) Practical pollination biology. Enviroquest, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Dupont YL, Olesen JM (2004) Fugleblomster på de Kanariske Øer. Naturens Verden 87:2–11Google Scholar
  15. Dupont YL, Skov C (2004) Influence of geographical distribution and floral traits on species richness of bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) visiting Echium species (Boraginaceae) of the Canary Islands. Int J Plant Sci 165:377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dupont YL, Hansen DM, Olesen JM (2003) Structure of a plant-flower-visitor network in the high-altitude sub-alpine desert of Tenerife, Canary Islands. Ecography 26:301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dupont YL, Hansen DM, Rasmussen JT, Olesen JM (2004) Evolutionary changes in nectar sugar composition associated with switches between bird and insect pollination: the Canarian bird-flower element revisited. Funct Ecol 18:670–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Francisco-Ortega J, Santos-Guerra A, Kim SC, Crawford DJ (2000) Plant genetic diversity in the Canary Islands: A conservation perspective. Am J Bot 87:909–919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galetto L, Bernardello L (1992) Nectar secretion pattern and removal effects in six Argentinean Pitcairnioideae (Bromeliaceae). Bot Act 105:292–299Google Scholar
  20. Garcia JDD (2000) Patterns of insect flower visitation in Lavandula bucchii Webb (Lamiaceae), an endemic shrub of Tenerife (Canary Islands). J Nat Hist 34:2145–2155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gill R, Thirlwall M, Marriner G, Millward D, Norry M, Saunders A, Martí J (1994) Tenerife, Canary Islands: Geologists’ Association Guide No. 49. Geologists’ Association, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Giurfa M, Vorobyev M, Kevan P, Menzel R (1996) Detection of coloured stimuli by honeybees: minimum visual angles and receptor specific contrasts. J Comp Physiol A 178:699–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gumbert A, Kunze J, Chittka L (1999) Flower color diversity in plant communities, bee color space, and a null model. P Roy Soc Lond B Bio 266:1711–1716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hart NS (2001) The visual ecology of avian photoreceptors. Prog Retin Eye Res 20:675–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hart NS, Vorobyev M (2005) Modelling oil droplet absorption spectra and spectral sensitivities of bird cone photoreceptors. J Comp Physiol A 191:381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hart NS, Partridge JC, Cuthill IC, Bennett ATD (2000) Visual pigments, oil droplets and cone photoreceptor distribution in two species of passerine bird: the blue tit (Parus caerulus L.) and the blackbird (Turdus merula L.). J Comp Physiol A 186:375–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heinrich B (1979) Bumblebee economics. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson SD, Nicolson SW (2007) Evolutionary associations between nectar properties and specificity in bird pollination systems. Biology Letters 4(1):49–52 doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kearns CA, Inouye DW (1993) Techniques for pollination biologists. University Press of Colorado, NiwotGoogle Scholar
  30. Kevan PG, Backhaus W (1998) Color vision: ecology and evolution in making the best of the photic environment. In: Backhaus W, Kliegl R, Werner JS (eds) Color vision - perspectives from different disciplines. Gruyter, Berlin, pp 163–183Google Scholar
  31. Kevan PG, Chittka L, Dyer AG (2001) Limits to the salience of ultraviolet: lessons from colour vision in bees and birds. J Exp Biol 204:2571–2580PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Lems K (1960) Botanical notes on the Canary Islands II. The evolution of plant forms in the islands: Aeonium. Ecology 41:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mabberley DJ (1990) The plant book. Cambridge Univerity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Nicolson SW, Fleming PA (2003) Nectar as food for birds: the physiological consequences of drinking dilute sugar solutions. Plant Syst Evol 238:139–153Google Scholar
  35. Olesen JM (1985) The Macaronesian bird-flower element and its relation to bird and bee opportunists. Bot J Linn Soc 91:395–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ollerton J, Grace J, Smith K (2007) Pollinator behaviour and adaptive floral colour change in Anthophora alluadii (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and Erysimum scoparium (Brassicaceae) on Tenerife. Entomol Gen 29:253–268Google Scholar
  37. Ortega-Olivencia A, Rodríguez-Riaño T, Valtueña FJ, López J, Devesa JA (2005) First confirmation of a native bird-pollinated plant in Europe. Oikos 110:578–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Primack RB (1985) Longevity of individual flowers. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:15–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Proctor M, Yeo P, Lack A (1996) The natural history of pollination. HarperCollins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Rodríguez MC and Valido A (2008) Effectiveness of opportunistic passerine pollinators of Isoplexis canariensis (Scrophulariaceae). In: The Evolutionary Ecology of Plant Animal Interactions: from Genes to Communities: Ecoevolutiva Symposium, Abstract Volume, p.77Google Scholar
  41. Silvertown J (2004) The ghost of competition past in the phylogeny of island endemic plants. J Ecol 92:168–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Skorupski P, Doering T, Chittka L (2007) Photoreceptor spectral sensitivity in island and mainland populations of the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris. J Comp Physiol A 193:485–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stelzer R, Ollerton J, Chittka L (2007) Kein Nachweis für Hummelbesuch der Kanarischen Vogelblumen (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Entomol Gen 30:153–154Google Scholar
  44. Valido A, Dupont YL, Hansen DM (2002) Native birds and insects, and introduced honeybees visiting Echium wildpretii (Boraginaceae) in the Canary Islands. Acta Oecologica 23:413–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Valido A, Dupont YL, Olesen JM (2004) Bird-flower interactions in the Macaronesian islands. J Biogeogr 31:1945–1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Valtueña FJ, Ortega-Olivencia A, Rodriguez-Riano T (2007) Nectar production in Anagyris foetida (Fabaceae): Two types of concentration in flowers with hanging droplet. Int J Plant Sci 168:627–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vogel S (1954) Blütenbiologische Typen als Elemente der Sippengliederung. Botanische Studien (Jena) 1:1–338Google Scholar
  48. Vogel S, Westerkamp C, Thiel B, Gessner K (1984) Ornithophilie auf den Canarischen Inseln. Plant Syst Evol 146:225–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Willis DS, Kevan PG (1995) Foraging dynamics of Peponapis pruinosa (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae) on Pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo) in Southern Ontario. Can Entomol 127:167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Woodell SRJ (1979) The role of unspecialized pollinators in the reproductive success of Aldabaran plants. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 286:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wyszecki G, Stiles WS (1982) Color science: Concepts and methods, quantitative data and formulae, Volume 2. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeff Ollerton
    • 1
  • Louise Cranmer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ralph J. Stelzer
    • 2
  • Steve Sullivan
    • 1
  • Lars Chittka
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Landscape and Biodiversity Research Group, School of Applied SciencesUniversity of NorthamptonNorthamptonUK
  2. 2.School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations