ASYMMETRIC SPECIALIZATION: A PERVASIVE FEATURE OF PLANT-POLLINATOR INTERACTIONS

Although specialization in species interactions has usually been equated to reciprocal specialization, asymmetric specialization (i.e., a specialist interacting with a generalist) is also likely. Recent studies have suggested that asymmetric specialization in species interactions could be more common than previously thought. We contrasted patterns of asymmetric specialization observed in 18 plant-pollinator interaction webs with pre- dictions based on null models. We found that asymmetric specialization is common in plant-pollinator interactions, and that its occurrence is more frequent than expected under a simple null model that assumed random interactions among species; furthermore, large assemblages with many pairs of interacting species tend to have more asymmetric inter- actions than smaller assemblages. A second null model, which incorporated a correlation between species frequency of interaction and degree of specialization observed in most data sets produced patterns that were generally closer to those present in the data. At least three kinds of explanations could account for the observed asymmetric specialization, including random interactions among individuals (rather than species), adaptive conse- quences of specialization, and artifacts, such as data aggregation and sampling biases. Future studies should be aimed at understanding the relative importance of each of these alternative explanations in generating asymmetric specialization in species interactions.

[1]  J. Thompson,et al.  The Coevolutionary Process , 1994 .

[2]  Carlos J. Melián,et al.  Complex networks: two ways to be robust? , 2002 .

[3]  Lars Chittka,et al.  Generalization in Pollination Systems, and Why it Matters , 1996 .

[4]  A. Newton.  Dynamics of Tropical Communities , 1999 .

[5]  Diego P. Vázquez,et al.  NULL MODEL ANALYSES OF SPECIALIZATION IN PLANT–POLLINATOR INTERACTIONS , 2003 .

[6]  M. Aizen.  FLOWER SEX RATIO, POLLINATOR ABUNDANCE, AND THE SEASONAL POLLINATION DYNAMICS OF A PROTANDROUS PLANT , 2001 .

[7]  Pierre Legendre,et al.  Untangling Multiple Factors in Spatial Distributions: Lilies, Gophers, and Rocks , 1996 .

[8]  S. Hubbell,et al.  The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography at age ten. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[9]  James H. Brown,et al.  Macroecology: The Division of Food and Space Among Species on Continents , 1989, Science.

[10]  W. N. Ellis,et al.  Interdependence of native bee faunas and floras in changing Mediterranean communities , 1996 .

[11]  D. W. Schemske,et al.  Limits to specialization and coevolution in plant-animal mutualisms , 1983 .

[12]  J. Cane,et al.  Spatial predictability and resource specialization of bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) at a superabundant, widespread resource , 1999 .

[13]  Diego P. Vázquez,et al.  Changes in interaction biodiversity induced by an introduced ungulate , 2003 .

[14]  P. A. Morrow,et al.  Specialization: species property or local phenomenon? , 1981, Science.

[15]  Carlos J. Melián,et al.  The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  J. Lawton,et al.  Interspecific abundance-range size relationships: An appraisal of mechanisms , 1997 .

[17]  D. Simberloff,et al.  Ecological Specialization and Susceptibility to Disturbance: Conjectures and Refutations , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[18]  David W. Inouye,et al.  Pollination biology in the Snowy Mountains of Australia: Comparisons with montane Colorado, USA , 1988 .

[19]  H. Prins,et al.  Effects of habitat fragmentation on plant pollinator interactions in the tropics. , 1998 .

[20]  Graham Bell,et al.  The Distribution of Abundance in Neutral Communities , 2000, The American Naturalist.