Skip to main content

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

Oecologia volume 173, pages 881–893 (2013)Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  • Alley TR (1982) Competition theory, evolution, and the concept of an ecological niche. Acta Biotheor 31:165–179

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arroyo MTK, Armesto JJ, Villagrán C (1981) Plant phenological patterns in the high Andean cordillera of central Chile. J Ecol 69:205–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell G (1985) On the function of flowers. Proc R Soc Lond B 224:223–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 274:2595–2601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blionis GJ, Halley JM, Vokou D (2001) Flowering phenology of Campanula on Mt Olympos, Greece. Ecography 24:696–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosch M, Waser NM (1999) Effects of local density on pollination and reproduction in Delphinium nuttallianum and Aconitum columbianum (Ranunculaceae). Am J Bot 86:871–879

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 12:597–603

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Calcagno V, de Mazancourt C (2010) glmulti: an R package for easy automated model selection with (generalized) linear models. J Stat Softw 34:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 78:600–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Chittka L, Thomson JD (2001) Cognitive ecology of pollination: animal behavior and floral evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong TJ, Waser NM, Klinkhamer PGL (1993) Geitonogamy: the neglected side of selfing. Trends Ecol Evol 8:321–325

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieringer G (1991) Variation in individual flowering time and reproductive success of Agalinis strictifolia (Scrophulariaceae). Am J Bot 78:497–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisig H (1995) Ideal free distributions of nectar foraging bumblebees. Oikos 72:161–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 98:275–282

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckhart VM (1991) The effects of floral display on pollinator visitation vary among populations of Phacelia linearis (Hydrophyllaceae). Evol Ecol 5:370–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faegri K, van der Pijl L (1966) The principles of pollination ecology. Pergamon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinsinger P, Tiebout HM III, Young BE (1991) Do tropical bird-pollinated plants exhibit density-dependent interactions? Field experiments. Ecology 72:1953–1963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenster CB, Armbruster WS, Wilson P, Dudash MR, Thomson JD (2004) Pollination syndromes and floral specialization. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:375–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 166:969–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 81:120–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galen C, Newport MEA (1987) Bumble bee behaviour and selection on flower size in the sky pilot, Polemonium viscosum. Oecologia 74:20–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez JM, Perfectti F, Bosch J, Camacho JPM (2009) A geographic selection mosaic in a generalized plant-pollinator-herbivore system. Ecol Monogr 79:245–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D (2003) Bumblebees: behaviour and ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 113:502–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 19:383–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harder LD, Johnson SD (2009) Darwin’s beautiful contrivances: evolutionary and functional evidence for floral adaptation. New Phytol 183:530–545

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegland S-J, Totland Ø (2005) Relationships between species’ floral traits and pollinator visitation in a temperate grassland. Oecologia 145:586–594

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hersch EI, Roy BA (2007) Context-dependent pollinator behavior: an explanation for patterns of hybridization among three species of Indian paintbrush. Evolution 61:111–124

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 141:136–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennersten O (1988) Pollination in Dianthus deltoides (Caryophyllaceae): effects of habitat fragmentation on visitation and seed set. Conserv Biol 2:359–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennersten O, Nilsson SG (1993) Insect flower visitation frequency and seed production in relation to patch size of Viscaria vulgaris (Caryophyllaceae). Oikos 68:283–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalisz S, Vogler DW, Hanley KM (2004) Context-dependent autonomous self-fertilization yields reproductive assurance and mixed mating. Nature 430:884–887

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Karoly K (1992) Pollinator limitation in the facultatively autogamous annual, Lupinus nanus (Leguminosae). Am J Bot 79:49–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karron JD, Thumser NN, Tucker R, Hessenauer AJ (1995) The influence of population density in outcrossing rates in Mimulus ringens. Heredity 75:175–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 57:399–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klinkhamer PGL, de Jong TJ (1993) Atractiveness to pollinators—a plants dilemma. Oikos 66:180–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kudo G (1993) Relationship between flowering time and fruit-set of the entomophilous alpine shrub, Rhododendron aureum (Ericaceae), inhabiting snow patches. Am J Bot 80:1300–1304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunin WE (1993) Sex and the single mustard: population density and pollinator behaviour effects on seed-set. Ecology 74:2145–2160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwak MM, Bergman P (1996) Early flowers of Bartsia alpina (Scrophulariaceae) and the visitation by bumblebees. Acta Bot Neerl 45:355–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson BMH, Barrett SCH (2000) A comparative analysis of pollen limitation in flowering plants. Biol J Linn Soc 69:503–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lázaro A, Totland Ø (2010) Population dependence in the interactions with neighbors for pollination: a field experiment with Taraxacum officinale. Am J Bot 97:760–769

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lázaro A, Lundgren R, Totland Ø (2009) Co-flowering neighbors influence the diversity and identity of pollinator groups visiting plant species. Oikos 118:691–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lázaro A, Nielsen A, Totland Ø (2010) Factors related to the inter-annual variation in plants’ pollination generalization levels within a community. Oikos 119:825–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 21:87–95

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 79:434–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RJ, Karron JD, Holmquist KG, Bell JM (2004) The influence of Mimulus ringens floral display size on pollinator visitation patterns. Funct Ecol 18:116–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moeller DA (2004) Facilitative interactions among plants via shared pollinators. Ecology 85:3289–3301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 160:753–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mossberg B, Stenberg L (2007) Gyldendals Store Nordiske Flora. Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 16:492–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauw A (2007) Collapse of a pollination web in small conservation areas. Ecology 88:1759–1769

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 86:2106–2116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Rathcke BJ (1983) Competition and facilitation among plants for pollination. In: Real L (ed) Pollination biology. Academic Press, Orlando, pp 305–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson AW, Macnair MR (1995) The effects of floral display size on pollinator service to individual flowers of Myosotis and Mimulus. Oikos 72:106–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schemske DW (1981) Floral convergence and pollinator sharing in two bee-pollinated tropical herbs. Ecology 62:946–954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt J (1983) Flowering plant density and pollinator visitation in Senecio. Oecologia 60:97–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 45:268–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JD (2001) How do visitation patterns vary among pollinators in relation to floral display and floral design in a generalist pollination system? Oecologia 126:386–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Totland Ø (1993) Pollination in alpine Norway: flowering phenology, insect visitors, and visitation rates in two plant communities. Can J Bot 71:1072–1079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Totland Ø (2001) Environment-dependent pollen limitation and selection on floral traits in an alpine species. Ecology 82:2233–2244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wissman J (2006) Reproduction and population structure of Primula veris L. Primulaceae) in semi-natural grasslands—a landscape and management perspective. Doctoral dissertation, SLU

  • Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Biodiversity and Conservation, Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies (UIB-CSIC), C/Miquel Marqués 21, Esporles, Balearic Islands, 07190, Spain

    Amparo Lázaro

  2. Department of Plant Ecology and Evolution, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18d, 752 36, Uppsala, Sweden

    Anna Jakobsson

  3. Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, 1432, Ås, Norway

    Ørjan Totland

Authors
  1. Amparo Lázaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Jakobsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ørjan Totland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amparo Lázaro.

Additional information

Communicated by Katherine Gross.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 79 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lázaro, A., Jakobsson, A. & Totland, Ø. How do pollinator visitation rate and seed set relate to species’ floral traits and community context?. Oecologia 173, 881–893 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-013-2652-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-013-2652-5

Keywords

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