Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 437–450

Functional and phylogenetic diversity of plant communities differently affect the structure of flower-visitor interactions and reveal convergences in floral traits

  • Robert R. Junker
  • Nico Blüthgen
  • Alexander Keller
Original Paper

Abstract

Community ecology has moved from descriptive studies to more mechanistic approaches asking questions about causes and consequences of community composition and interactions between species. Many ecological processes are shaped by the presence or absence of functional groups, not necessarily species. Thus, the diversity of functional traits, i.e. their interspecific variation, is a key feature of plant communities with consequences on other trophic levels. In a simulation study based on a quantitative flower-visitor network and quantitative measurements of flower traits, we tested how the functional FDiv and phylogenetic diversity PDiv of plant communities affect animal species richness and diversity as well as network properties. Within the limitations of the assumption that plants maintain the qualitative and quantitative interactions with animals in subsampled communities, we found that functionally diverse plant communities support a large number of animal species (not necessarily animal diversity). Additionally, the network structure was more complementarily specialized (higher \(H_{2}^{\prime }\)-values) and comprised a larger number of unrealized links (low connectance) and thus a higher partitioning of resources among consumers in functionally diverse plant communities than in communities with a lower FDiv. For the phylogenetic diversity PDiv of plant communities we found contrasting effects, which may be explained by divergences or convergences of functional traits. Our results support the notion that functionally diverse plant communities offer a large number of niches that can be occupied by a larger number of flower visiting species specialized to a specific set of flower traits. Thus, functional flower traits serve as barriers that exclude some flower visitors but also as attractive features that facilitate interactions with other animal species. Our study fosters a trait-based definition of niches and functional groups and may stimulate field studies testing the predictions of this simulation.

Keywords

Antagonistic flower visitors Barriers Divergences Evolution of flower traits Networks Quantitative functional traits 

Supplementary material

10682_2014_9747_MOESM1_ESM.docx (111 kb)
Mean and 95 % confidence intervals of r-values of correlations between each of two predictor variables (FDiv or Pdiv) and each of the four predicted variables: animal species richness, animal diversity (Shannon indes), network connectance and complementary specialization (H2) (DOCX 110 kb)
10682_2014_9747_MOESM2_ESM.docx (140 kb)
Qualitative and quantitative persistence of interactions across six temporally and eight spatially separated networks (DOCX 139 kb)
10682_2014_9747_MOESM3_ESM.docx (111 kb)
Correlation between PDistij and FDistij based on each of the eight traits alone and all traits combined (Mantel statistic based on Pearson’s product-moment correlation) (DOCX 111 kb)
10682_2014_9747_MOESM4_ESM.docx (255 kb)
Tanglegrams linking trees based on phylogenetic relationships and functional distances (based on quantitative measurements of phenology, floral reflectance, display size, flowers per inflorescence, flower height, nectar-tube depth, sugar provided per flower, pollen-mass per flower) (DOCX 254 kb)

References

  1. Ackerly DD, Reich PB (1999) Convergence and correlations among leaf size and function in seed plants: a comparative test using independent contrasts. Am J Bot 86:1272–1281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Aizen MA, Vazquez DP (2006) Flowering phenologies of hummingbird plants from the temperate forest of southern South America: is there evidence of competitive displacement? Ecography 29:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alarcon R, Waser NM, Ollerton J (2008) Year-to-year variation in the topology of a plant-pollinator interaction network. Oikos 117:1796–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson B, Johnson SD (2009) Geographical covariation and local convergence of flower depth in a guild of fly-pollinated plants. New Phytol 182:533–540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold SEJ, Faruq S, Savolainen V, McOwan PW, Chittka L (2010) FReD: the floral reflectance database—a web portal for analyses of flower colour. PLoS One 5(12):e14287CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Begon M, Harper J, Townsend C (1998) Ökologie. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag GmbH, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  7. Benson DA, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, Sayers EW (2010) GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res 38:D46–D51CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernhardt P (2000) Convergent evolution and adaptive radiation of beetle-pollinated angiosperms. Plant Syst Evol 222:293–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biesmeijer JC, Roberts SPM, Reemer M, Ohlemuller R, Edwards M, Peeters T, Schaffers AP, Potts SG, Kleukers R, Thomas CD, Settele J, Kunin WE (2006) Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313:351–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Blüthgen N, Menzel F, Blüthgen N (2006) Measuring specialization in species interaction networks. BMC Ecol 6:9CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradshaw HD, Schemske DW (2003) Allele substitution at a flower colour locus produces a pollinator shift in monkeyflowers. Nature 426:176–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cadotte M, Albert CH, Walker SC (2013) The ecology of differences: assessing community assembly with trait and evolutionary distances. Ecol Lett 16:1234–1244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Callaway RM, Walker LR (1997) Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology 78:1958–1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Charleston MA, Robertson DL (2002) Preferential host switching by primate lentiviruses can account for phylogenetic similarity with the primate phylogeny. Syst Biol 51:528–535CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Devictor V, Mouillot D, Meynard C, Jiguet F, Thuiller W, Mouquet N (2010) Spatial mismatch and congruence between taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity: the need for integrative conservation strategies in a changing world. Ecol Lett 13:1030–1040PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Faegri K, Pijl Lvd (1979) The principles of pollination ecology, 3rd edn. Pergamon Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  17. Fründ J, Linsenmair KE, Blüthgen N (2010) Pollinator diversity and specialization in relation to flower diversity. Oikos 119:1581–1590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galen C, Kaczorowski R, Todd SL, Geib J, Raguso RA (2011) Dosage-dependent impacts of a floral volatile compound on pollinators, larcenists, and the potential for floral evolution in the Alpine Skypilot Polemonium viscosum. Am Nat 177:258–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gascuel O (1997) BIONJ: an improved version of the NJ algorithm based on a simple model of sequence data. Mol Biol Evolut 14:685–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graham CH, Ron SR, Santos JC, Schneider CJ, Moritz C (2004) Integrating phylogenetics and environmental niche models to explore speciation mechanisms in dendrobatid frogs. Evolution 58:1781–1793CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Grant PR, Grant BR (2006) Evolution of character displacement in Darwin’s finches. Science 313:224–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Heemsbergen DA, Berg MP, Loreau M, van Haj JR, Faber JH, Verhoef HA (2004) Biodiversity effects on soil processes explained by interspecific functional dissimilarity. Science 306:1019–1020CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hutchinson GE (1957) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 22:415–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Irwin RE, Adler LS, Brody AK (2004) The dual role of floral traits: pollinator attraction and plant defense. Ecology 85:1503–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Junker RR, Blüthgen N (2010) Floral scents repel facultative flower visitors, but attract obligate ones. Ann Bot 105:777–782CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Junker RR, Höcherl N, Blüthgen N (2010) Responses to olfactory signals reflect network structure of flower-visitor interactions. J Anim Ecol 79:818–823PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Junker RR, Daehler CC, Dötterl S, Keller A, Blüthgen N (2011) Hawaiian ant-flower networks: nectar-thieving ants prefer undefended native over introduced plants with floral defenses. Ecol Monogr 81:295–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Junker RR, Blüthgen N, Brehm T, Binkenstein J, Paulus J, Schaefer HM, Stang M (2013) Specialization on traits as basis for the niche-breadth of flower visitors and as structuring mechanism of ecological networks. Funct Ecol 27:329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Larkin MA, Blackshields G, Brown NP, Chenna R, McGettigan PA, McWilliam H, Valentin F, Wallace IM, Wilm A, Lopez R, Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Higgins DG (2007) Clustal W and clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics 23:2947–2948CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Maron JL, Crone E (2006) Herbivory: effects on plant abundance, distribution and population growth. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:2575–2584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Olesen JM, Bascompte J, Elberling H, Jordano P (2008) Temporal dynamics in a pollination network. Ecology 89:1573–1582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Pearman PB, Guisan A, Broennimann O, Randin CF (2008) Niche dynamics in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 23:149–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Petanidou T, Kallimanis AS, Tzanopoulos AS, Sgardelis SP, Pantis JD (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 11:564–575CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Potts SG, Vulliamy B, Roberts S, O’Toole C, Dafni A, Ne’eman G, Willmer PG (2004) Nectar resource diversity organises flower-visitor community structure. Entomol Exp Appl 113:103–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prinzing A, Durka W, Klotz S, Brandl R (2001) The niche of higher plants: evidence for phylogenetic conservatism. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 268:2383–2389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS (1997) From tropics to tundra: global convergence in plant functioning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:13730–13734CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Schemske DW (1981) Floral convergence and pollinator sharing in 2 bee-pollinated tropical herbs. Ecology 62:946–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stone GN, Willmer P, Rowe JA (1998) Partitioning of pollinators during flowering in an African Acacia community. Ecology 79:2808–2827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Webb CO, Ackerly DD, McPeek MA, Donoghue MJ (2002) Phylogenies and community ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:475–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wolf M, Ruderisch B, Dandekar T, Schultz J, Muller T (2008) ProfDistS: (profile-) distance based phylogeny on sequence—structure alignments. Bioinformatics 24:2401–2402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert R. Junker
    • 1
  • Nico Blüthgen
    • 2
  • Alexander Keller
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Organismic BiologyUniversity SalzburgSalzburgAustria
  2. 2.Department of BiologyTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  3. 3.Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, DNA Analytics Core FacilityUniversity WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations