Climate variation can have profound effects on the composition and diversity of species as well as species physiology and behavior. Such effects may have ramifications on the network structure of interacting species within a community. Our aim was to understand how landscape-scale variation in temperature and wind exposure influenced plant–pollinator diversity, composition, and network structure. We constructed pollen-transport networks at six sites along a temperature gradient in west Greenland. Half of these sites were naturally sheltered from katabatic winds, while the other half were exposed. At each site, we measured temperature, wind speed, and the presence of flowering plants. We netted insects and identified the insects and the pollen carried on their bodies. Network structure was quantified using connectance, nestedness, and specialization, three metrics related to the robustness of networks to environmental variation. We tested how temperature and wind speed affected the diversity and composition of insects, pollen, and plants flowering in sites, and network structure. Temperature zone and wind exposure did not explain variation in the richness, evenness, or abundance of insects or pollen, or the richness of plants flowering in sites. However, the composition of pollen and plants flowering in sites varied across temperature zones and levels of wind exposure. Despite the observed changes in pollen and plant community composition, we found that network connectance, nestedness, and specialization were unresponsive to landscape-scale variation in temperature and wind exposure. High generalization and opportunism among Arctic plants and pollinators may contribute to this lack of response.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We thank members of the Irwin Lab for feedback on this manuscript and Ruth Heindel for field assistance. We also thank Polar Field Services for logistical support in the field. Funding was provided by a National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship and an NSF IGERT Grant (Award Number 0801490). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Argus GW (1965) The taxonomy of the Salix glauca complex in North America. Contrib Gray Herb Harv Univ 1–142Google Scholar
Armbruster WS, Herzig AL (1984) Partitioning and sharing of pollinators by four sympatric species of dalechampia (Euphorbiaceae) in Panama. Ann Mo Bot Gard 71:1–16. doi:10.2307/2399053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arroyo MTK, Armesto JJ, Primack RB (1985) Community studies in pollination ecology in the high temperate Andes of central Chile II. Effect of temperature on visitation rates and pollination possibilities. Plant Syst Evol 149:187–203. doi:10.1007/BF00983305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman P, Molau U, Holmgren B (1996) Micrometeorological impacts on insect activity and plant reproductive success in an alpine environment, Swedish Lapland. Arct Alp Res 28:196–202. doi:10.2307/1551760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstensen DW, Sabatino M, Trøjelsgaard K, Morellato LPC (2014) Beta diversity of plant-pollinator networks and the spatial turnover of pairwise interactions. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112903Google Scholar
Lundgren R, Olesen JM (2005) The dense and highly connected world of Greenland’s plants and their pollinators. Arct Antarct Alp Res 37:514–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAlpine JF, Peterson BV, Shewell GE, et al (1981) Manual of Nearctic diptera, vol 1, Monograph 27. Agriculture Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
Moeller DA, Geber MA, Eckhart VM, Tiffin P (2011) Reduced pollinator service and elevated pollen limitation at the geographic range limit of an annual plant. Ecology 93:1036–1048. doi:10.1890/11-1462.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran MD (2003) Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies. Oikos 100:403–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petanidou T, Kallimanis AS, Tzanopoulos J et al (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. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01170.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D (2014) R Core Team (2014) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-117Google Scholar
Potts SG, Vulliamy B, Dafni A et al (2003) Linking bees and flowers: how do floral communities structure pollinator communities? Ecology 84:2628–2642. doi:10.1890/02-0136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proctor M, Yeo P, Lack A (1996) The natural history of pollination. Timber Press, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
Rader R, Edwards W, Westcott DA, Cunningham SA, Howlett BG (2011) Pollen transport differs among bees and flies in a human-modified landscape. Divers Distrib 17:519–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scaven VL, Rafferty NE (2013) Physiological effects of climate warming on flowering plants and insect pollinators and potential consequences for their interactions. Curr Zool 59:418–426CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Vicens N, Bosch J (2000) Weather-dependent pollinator activity in an apple orchard, with special reference to Osmia cornuta and Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae and Apidae). Environ Entomol 29:413–420. doi:10.1603/0046-225X-29.3.413CrossRefGoogle Scholar