Experimental species introduction shapes network interactions in a plant-pollinator community

Biological Invasions volume 21, pages3505–3519(2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Invasive species that form mutualistic interactions can perturb resident communities by creating new interactions, or weakening the strength of existing interactions via competition. We hypothesized that introducing a super-generalist plant species to bee-plant networks would lead to (1) increases in the weighted and unweighted average degree, nestedness, and connectance and (2) decreases in the modularity. We constructed visitation networks of bees to five native plant species in experimental research plots, in the presence and absence of an invasive thistle and while varying thistle abundance and time/duration of introduction. Species introduction did not change the visitation rate of bees to co-occurring native plants, or the interaction structure between the native plant species and bee visitors; seed set of a focal native plant species was also unaffected. We found the number of bee species with which the introduced species interacted (generality) correlated with significant increases in unweighted and weighted average degree, nestedness, and connectance, but not modularity. When comparing the impact of the introduced species either early or late in the season, we found similar relationships between introduced species generality and weighted and unweighted average degree and connectance; there was a significant negative relationship between introduced species generality and modularity early in the season, and a significant positive relationship with nestedness late in the season, suggesting introduction timing within a season may affect some measures differently. Overall, the native community was robust to the introduction of the super-generalist; our experimental test of network theory predictions demonstrates an improving mechanistic understanding of how mutualistic networks respond to ecological perturbations.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Aizen M, Morales C, Morales J (2008) Invasive mutualists erode native pollination webs. PLoS Biol 6:396–403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060031

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allen MR, Shea K (2006) Spatial segregation of congeneric invaders in central Pennsylvania, USA. Biol Invasions 8:509–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-005-6407-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Almeida-Neto M, Guimaraes P, Guimaraes PR Jr, Loyola RD, Ulrich W (2008) A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos 117:1227–1239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bartomeus I, Vilà M, Santamaría L (2008) Contrasting effects of invasive plants in plant–pollinator networks. Oecologia 155:761–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-007-0946-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barton K (2018) MuMIn: multi-model inference. In: R Packag. version 1.42.1

  6. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48

    Google Scholar 

  7. Blüthgen N, Menzel F, Blüthgen N (2006) Measuring specialization in species interaction networks. BMC Ecol 6:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-6-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bond W, Lawton J, May R (1994) Do mutualisms matter? Assessing the impact of pollinator and disperser disruption on plant extinction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 344:83–90. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1994.0055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Burkle LA, Marlin JC, Knight TM (2013) Plant-pollinator interactions over 120 years: loss of species, co-occurrence, and function. Science 339:1611–1615. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232728

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Campbell C, Yang S, Shea K, Albert R (2012) Topology of plant-pollinator networks that are vulnerable to collapse from species extinction. Phys Rev E 86(2):021924

  11. Campbell C, Yang S, Albert R, Shea K (2015) Plant-pollinator community network response to species invasion depends on both invader and community characteristics. Oikos 124:406–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.02039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cariveau DP, Winfree R (2015) Causes of variation in wild bee responses to anthropogenic drivers. Curr Opin Insect Sci 10:104–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COIS.2015.05.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Carvalheiro LG, Biesmeijer JC, Benadi G et al (2014) The potential for indirect effects between co-flowering plants via shared pollinators depends on resource abundance, accessibility and relatedness. Ecol Lett 17:1389–1399. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Crone EE (2013) Responses of social and solitary bees to pulsed floral resources. Am Nat 182:465–473. https://doi.org/10.1086/671999

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. DeBarros N (2010) Floral resource provisioning for bees in Pennsylvania and the mid-Atlantic region, Masters Th. Pennsylvania State University

  16. Desrochers AM, Bain JF, Warwick SI (1988) The biology of Canadian weeds: Carduus nutans L. and Carduus acanthoides L. Can J Plant Sci 68:1053–1068. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps88-126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dormann CF, Fründ J, Blüthgen N, Gruber B (2009) Indices, graphs and null models: analyzing bipartite ecological networks. Open Ecol J 2:7–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Droege S, Tepedino VJ, Lebuhn G et al (2010) Spatial patterns of bee captures in North American bowl trapping surveys. Insect Conserv Divers 3:15–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2009.00074.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ehrenfeld JG (2010) Ecosystem consequences of biological invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:59–80. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fortuna MA, Stouffer DB, Olesen JM et al (2010) Nestedness versus modularity in ecological networks: two sides of the same coin? J Anim Ecol 79:811–817. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01688.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Forup ML, Henson KSE, Craze PG, Memmott J (2007) The restoration of ecological interactions: plant-pollinator networks on ancient and restored heathlands. J Appl Ecol 45:742–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01390.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hegland SJ, Nielsen A, Lázaro A et al (2009) How does climate warming affect plant-pollinator interactions? Ecol Lett 12:184–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01269.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kaiser-Bunbury CN, Muff S, Memmott J et al (2010) The robustness of pollination networks to the loss of species and interactions: a quantitative approach incorporating pollinator behaviour. Ecol Lett 13:442–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01437.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kaiser-Bunbury CNCN, Valentin T, Mougal J et al (2011) The tolerance of island plant-pollinator networks to alien plants. J Ecol 99:202–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01732.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kiers E, Palmer T, Ives A et al (2010) Mutualisms in a changing world: an evolutionary perspective. Ecol Lett 13:1459–1474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01538.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lopezaraiza-Mikel M, Hayes R, Whalley M, Memmott J (2007) The impact of an alien plant on a native plant-pollinator network: an experimental approach. Ecol Lett 10:539–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. McKinney AM, Goodell K (2011) Plant–pollinator interactions between an invasive and native plant vary between sites with different flowering phenology. Plant Ecol 212:1025–1035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-010-9882-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Memmott J, Waser NM (2002) Integration of alien plants into a native flower–pollinator visitation web. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269:2395–2399. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Montero-Castaño A, Vilà M (2016) Influence of the honeybee and trait similarity on the effect of a non-native plant on pollination and network rewiring. Funct Ecol 31:142–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Moragues E, Traveset A (2005) Effect of Carpobrotus spp. on the pollination success of native plant species of the Balearic Islands. Biol Conserv 122:611–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2004.09.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Morales C, Aizen M (2005) Invasive mutualisms and the structure of plant–pollinator interactions in the temperate forests of north-west Patagonia, Argentina. J Ecol 94:171–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Morente-López J, Lara-Romero C, Ornosa C, Iriondo JM (2018) Phenology drives species interactions and modularity in a plant-flower visitor network. Sci Rep 8:9386. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27725-2

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Newman MEJ, Girvan M (2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E 69:026113. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.69.026113

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Russo L, Shea K (2016) Deliberately increased network connectance in a plant-pollinator community experiment. J Complex Netw. https://doi.org/10.1093/comnet/cnw024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Russo L, Memmott J, Montoya D et al (2014) Patterns of introduced species interactions affect multiple aspects of network structure in plant-pollinator communities. Ecology 95:2953–2963. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-2229.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Russo L, Nichol C, Shea K (2016) Pollinator floral provisioning by a plant invader: Quantifying beneficial effects of detrimental species. Divers Distrib 22:189–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Russo L, Vaudo AD, Fisher CJ, Grozinger CM, Shea K (2019) Bee community preference for an invasive thistle associated with higher pollen protein content. Oecologia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-019-04462-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Shea K, Roxburgh SH, Rauschert ESJ (2004) Moving from pattern to process: coexistence mechanisms under intermediate disturbance regimes. Ecol Lett 7:491–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00600.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Skarpaas O, Shea K (2007) Dispersal patterns, dispersal mechanisms, and invasion wave speeds for invasive thistles. Am Nat 170:421–430. https://doi.org/10.1086/519854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sofaer HR, Jarnevich CS, Pearse IS (2018) The relationship between invader abundance and impact. Ecosphere 9:e02415. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Stinson KA, Campbell SA, Powell JR et al (2006) Invasive plant suppresses the growth of native tree seedlings by disrupting belowground mutualisms. PLoS Biol 4:e140. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040140

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Thébault E, Fontaine C (2010) Stability of ecological communities and the architecture of mutualistic and trophic networks. Science 329(5993):853–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tipping PW (1992) Density of Carduus and Cirsium thistles in selected areas of Maryland. Weed Technol 6:434–436. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890037X00035004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Tylianakis JM, Laliberté E, Nielsen A, Bascompte J (2010) Conservation of species interaction networks. Biol Conserv 143:2270–2279. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2009.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Vaudo AD, Patch HM, Mortensen DA et al (2014) Bumble bees exhibit daily behavioral patterns in pollen foraging. Arthropod Plant Interact 8:273–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-014-9312-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Vilà M, Bartomeus I, Dietzsch AC et al (2009) Invasive plant integration into native plant–pollinator networks across Europe. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 276:3887–3893. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Walsworth TE, Budy P, Thiede GP (2013) Longer food chains and crowded niche space: effects of multiple invaders on desert stream food web structure. Ecol Freshw Fish 22:439–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/eff.12038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Weiner CN, Werner M, Linsenmair KE, Blüthgen N (2014) Land-use impacts on plant–pollinator networks: interaction strength and specialization predict pollinator declines. Ecology 95:466–474. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0436.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Williams NM, Regetz J, Kremen C (2012) Landscape-scale resources promote colony growth but not reproductive performance of bumble bees. Ecology 93:1049–1058. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1006.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Yang S, Ferrari MJ, Shea K (2011) Pollinator behavior mediates negative interactions between two congeneric invasive plant species. Am Nat 177:110–118. https://doi.org/10.1086/657433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Zhang R, Shea K (2012) Integrating multiple disturbance aspects: management of an invasive thistle, Carduus nutans. Ann Bot 110:1395–1401. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcr312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the farmers at the Russell Larson Research Farm, especially S. Smiles and W. S. Harkcom, greenhouse manager, L.S. Burghard, field assistants D. Brough, C.J. Fisher, and K. McIlroy, S. Droege for identifications, and J. Keller for additional field assistance. KS was supported by NSF Grant #1556444 and NSF Grant #DMS-1313115. LR was supported by National Science Foundation grant #DMS-1313115 and a Marie Curie Fellowship (FOMN-705287).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16801, USA

    L. Russo, C. Campbell & K. Shea

  2. Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA

    L. Russo

  3. Department of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16801, USA

    R. Albert

  4. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Mount Union, Alliance, OH, 44601, USA

    C. Campbell

Authors
  1. L. Russo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Albert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Shea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Russo.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 406 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Russo, L., Albert, R., Campbell, C. et al. Experimental species introduction shapes network interactions in a plant-pollinator community. Biol Invasions 21, 3505–3519 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02064-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Disturbance timing/duration
  • Invader abundance
  • Management
  • Pollination services