Size constraints and flower abundance determine the number of interactions in a plant /flower visitor web

The number of interactions with flower visitor species differs considerably among insect pollinated plants. Knowing the causes for this variation is central to the conservation of single species as well as whole plant � /flower visitor communities. Species specific constraints on flower visitor numbers are seldom investigated at the community level. In this study we tested whether flower size parameters set constraints on the morphology of the potential nectar feeding visitors and thus determine the number of visitor species. We studied three possible constraints: the depth and width of tubular structures hiding the nectar (nectar holder depth and width) and the size of flower parts that visitors can land on (size of the alighting place). In addition we assess the role of flower abundance on this relationship. We hypothesized that the stronger size constraints and the smaller flower abundance, the smaller the number of visitor species will be. Our study of a Mediterranean plant � /flower visitor community revealed that nectar holder depth, nectar holder width and number of flowers explained 71% of the variation in the number of visitor species. The size of the alighting place did not restrict the body length of the visitors and was not related to visitor species number. In a second step of the analyses we calculated for each plant species the potential number of visitors by determining for each insect species of the local visitor pool whether it passed the morphological limits set by the plant. These potential numbers were highly correlated with the observed numbers (r 2 � /0.5, p B /0.001). For each plant species we tested whether the observed visitors were a random selection out of these potential visitors by comparing the mean of the observed and expected proboscis length distributions. For most plant species the observed mean was not significantly different from the random means. Our findings shed light on the way plant � /flower visitor networks are structured. Knowing the constraints on interaction patterns will be an important prerequisite to formulate realistic null models and understand patterns of resource partitioning as well as coevolutionary processes.

[1]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Habitat selection by two species of nectarivore: habitat quality isolines , 1992 .

[2]  Jeff Ollerton,et al.  Latitudinal trends in plant‐pollinator interactions: are tropical plants more specialised? , 2002 .

[3]  S. Corbet.  Butterfly nectaring flowers: butterfly morphology and flower form , 2000 .

[4]  W. N. Ellis,et al.  To make a meadow it takes a clover and a bee: the entomophilous flora of N.W. Europe and its insects , 1993 .

[5]  A. Moldenke.  Niche specialization and species diversity along a California transect , 1975, Oecologia.

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

[7]  J Memmott,et al.  The structure of a plant-pollinator food web. , 1999, Ecology letters.

[8]  N. Gotelli,et al.  NULL MODELS IN ECOLOGY , 1996 .

[9]  W. Haber,et al.  A tropical hawkmoth community: Costa Rican dry forest Sphingidae , 1989 .

[10]  Y. Dupont,et al.  Influence of Geographical Distribution and Floral Traits on Species Richness of Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) Visiting Echium Species (Boraginaceae) of the Canary Islands , 2004, International Journal of Plant Sciences.

[11]  Lawrence D. Harder,et al.  Morphology as a Predictor of Flower Choice by Bumble Bees , 1985 .

[12]  J. Pleasants.  Bumblebee Response to Variation in Nectar Availability , 1981 .

[13]  Pat Willmer,et al.  LINKING BEES AND FLOWERS: HOW DO FLORAL COMMUNITIES STRUCTURE POLLINATOR COMMUNITIES? , 2003 .

[14]  L. Harder.  Measurement and estimation of functional proboscis length in bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) , 1982 .

[15]  Lynn V. Dicks,et al.  Compartmentalization in plant–insect flower visitor webs , 2002 .

[16]  E. Smets,et al.  The potential of marginal lands for bees and apiculture: nectar secretion in Mediterranean shrublands , 1995 .

[17]  Jane Memmott,et al.  Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[18]  L. Galetto,et al.  Are Nectar Sugar Composition and Corolla Tube Length Related to the Diversity of Insects that Visit Asteraceae Flowers? , 2002 .

[19]  Diego P. Vázquez,et al.  Degree distribution in plant–animal mutualistic networks: forbidden links or random interactions? , 2005 .

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

[21]  S. Corbet.  Conserving Compartments in Pollination Webs , 2000 .

[22]  J. Bascompte,et al.  Invariant properties in coevolutionary networks of plant-animal interactions , 2002 .

[23]  H. Dreisig.  Ideal free distributions of nectar foraging bumblebees , 1995 .

[24]  Steiner,et al.  Generalization versus specialization in plant pollination systems. , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[25]  S. Fretwell,et al.  On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds , 1969 .

[26]  C. Herrera,et al.  Floral Traits and Plant Adaptation to Insect Pollinators: A Devil’s Advocate Approach , 1996 .

[27]  Salvatore J. Agosta,et al.  Body size distributions of large Costa Rican dry forest moths and the underlying relationship between plant and pollinator morphology , 2005 .

[28]  E. Meelis,et al.  How to Test for Proportionality in the Reproductive Effort of Plants , 1990, The American Naturalist.

[29]  F. Gilbert.  Foraging ecology of hoverflies: morphology of the mouthparts in relation to feeding on nectar and pollen in some common urban species , 1981 .

[30]  E. Heithaus.  THE ROLE OF PLANT-POLLINATOR INTERACTIONS IN DETERMINING COMMUNITY STRUCTURE1 , 1974 .

[31]  Functional, evolutionary and ecological aspects of feeding-related mouthpart specializations in parasitoid flies , 1998 .

[32]  Jane Memmott,et al.  Integration of alien plants into a native flower–pollinator visitation web , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[33]  Pedro Jordano,et al.  Patterns of Mutualistic Interactions in Pollination and Seed Dispersal: Connectance, Dependence Asymmetries, and Coevolution , 1987, The American Naturalist.

[34]  Knut Faegri,et al.  The principles of pollination ecology , 1967 .

[35]  D. Vokou,et al.  POLLINATION AND POLLEN ENERGETICS IN MEDITERRANEAN ECOSYSTEMS , 1990 .

[36]  T. Tscharntke,et al.  Early succession of butterfly and plant communities on set-aside fields , 1997, Oecologia.

[37]  P. Warren.  Making connections in food webs. , 1994, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[38]  Pedro Jordano,et al.  GEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS IN PLANT–POLLINATOR MUTUALISTIC NETWORKS , 2002 .

[39]  Theodora Petanidou,et al.  Pollinating Fauna of a Phryganic Ecosystem: Composition and Diversity , 1993 .

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

[41]  D. Schemske,et al.  Geographic patterns in plant-pollinator mutualistic networks: Comment , 2004 .