Size-specific interaction patterns and size matching in a plant-pollinator interaction web.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Many recent studies show that plant-pollinator interaction webs exhibit consistent structural features such as long-tailed distributions of the degree of generalization, nestedness of interactions and asymmetric interaction dependencies. Recognition of these shared features has led to a variety of mechanistic attempts at explanation. Here it is hypothesized that beside size thresholds and species abundances, the frequency distribution of sizes (nectar depths and proboscis lengths) will play a key role in determining observed interaction patterns. METHODS To test the influence of size distributions, a new network parameter is introduced: the degree of size matching between nectar depth and proboscis length. The observed degree of size matching in a Spanish plant-pollinator web was compared with the expected degree based on joint probability distributions, integrating size thresholds and abundance, and taking the sampling method into account. KEY RESULTS Nectar depths and proboscis lengths both exhibited right-skewed frequency distributions across species and individuals. Species-based size matching was equally close for plants, independent of nectar depth, but differed significantly for pollinators of dissimilar proboscis length. The observed patterns were predicted well by a model considering size distributions across species. Observed size matching was closer when relative abundances of species were included, especially for flowers with openly accessible nectar and pollinators with long proboscises, but was predicted somewhat less successfully by the model that included abundances. CONCLUSIONS The results suggest that in addition to size thresholds and species abundances, size distributions are important for understanding interaction patterns in plant-pollinator webs. It is likely that the understanding will be improved further by characterizing for entire communities how nectar production of flowers and energetic requirements of pollinators covary with size, and how sampling methods influence the observed interaction patterns.

[1]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  A neutral‐niche theory of nestedness in mutualistic networks , 2008 .

[2]  P. Klinkhamer,et al.  Size constraints and flower abundance determine the number of interactions in a plant /flower visitor web , 2006 .

[3]  L. Nilsson,et al.  The evolution of flowers with deep corolla tubes , 1988, Nature.

[4]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  The ecological consequences of complex topology and nested structure in pollination webs. , 2006 .

[5]  P. Raven,et al.  Energetics and pollination ecology. , 1972, Science.

[6]  Jan Kozłowski,et al.  Why are species’ body size distributions usually skewed to the right? , 2002 .

[7]  Diego P. Vázquez,et al.  ASYMMETRIC SPECIALIZATION: A PERVASIVE FEATURE OF PLANT-POLLINATOR INTERACTIONS , 2004 .

[8]  Joan Saldaña,et al.  Body sizes of animal predators and animal prey in food webs , 1993 .

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

[10]  A. Shmida,et al.  PROGRESSIVE REDUCTION IN THE MEAN BODY SIZES OF SOLITARY BEES ACTIVE DURING THE FLOWERING SEASON AND ITS CORRELATION WITH THE SIZES OF BEE FLOWERS OF THE MINT FAMILY (LAMIACEAE) , 1990 .

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

[12]  S. Johnson,et al.  LONG‐TONGUED FLY POLLINATION AND EVOLUTION OF FLORAL SPUR LENGTH IN THE DISA DRACONIS COMPLEX (ORCHIDACEAE) , 1997, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[13]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Patterns in body mass distributions: sifting among alternative hypotheses. , 2006, Ecology letters.

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

[15]  P. Klinkhamer,et al.  Asymmetric specialization and extinction risk in plant–flower visitor webs: a matter of morphology or abundance? , 2007, Oecologia.

[16]  R. Buschbom,et al.  A General Weight vs. Length Relationship for Insects , 1976 .

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

[18]  D. Inouye.  The effect of proboscis and corolla tube lengths on patterns and rates of flower visitation by bumblebees , 1980, Oecologia.

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

[20]  G. E. Hutchinson,et al.  A Theoretical Ecological Model of Size Distributions Among Species of Animals , 1959, The American Naturalist.

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

[22]  J. Bascompte,et al.  Structure in plant–animal interaction assemblages , 2006 .

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

[24]  M. Rodríguez-Gironés,et al.  Resource partitioning among flower visitors and evolution of nectar concealment in multi–species communities , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  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 .

[26]  L. Chittka,et al.  Cognitive Ecology of Pollination: Animal Behaviour and Floral Evolution , 2005 .

[27]  J. Bascompte,et al.  Effects of phenotypic complementarity and phylogeny on the nested structure of mutualistic networks , 2007 .

[28]  Neal M. Williams,et al.  Species abundance and asymmetric interaction strength in ecological networks , 2007 .

[29]  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.

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

[31]  E. Ranta,et al.  Resource partitioning in bumblebees: the significance of differences in proboscis length. , 1980 .

[32]  W. Ulrich.  Body weight distributions of European Hymenoptera , 2006 .

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

[34]  A. D. Brian.  DIFFERENCES IN THE FLOWERS VISITED BY FOUR SPECIES OF BUMBLE-BEES AND THEIR CAUSES , 1957 .

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

[36]  P. Wilson.  Selection for pollination success and the mechanical fit of Impatiens flowers around bumblebee bodies , 1995 .

[37]  M. Rodríguez-Gironés,et al.  Models of optimal foraging and resource partitioning: deep corollas for long tongues , 2006 .

[38]  Martina Stang.  The structure of flower visitation webs : how morphology and abundance affect interaction patterns between flowers and flower visitors , 2007 .

[39]  G. Pyke.  Optimal Foraging Theory: A Critical Review , 1984 .

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

[41]  D. Goulson,et al.  Does intraspecific size variation in bumblebees allow colonies to efficiently exploit different flowers? , 2005 .

[42]  C. Herrera.  Components of pollinator "quality": comparative analysis of a diverse insect assemblage , 1987 .

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

[44]  R. Raguso.  Start making scents: the challenge of integrating chemistry into pollination ecology , 2008 .

[45]  D. M. Unwin,et al.  The competition box: a graphical aid to forecasting pollinator performance , 1995 .

[46]  Luis Santamaría,et al.  Linkage Rules for Plant–Pollinator Networks: Trait Complementarity or Exploitation Barriers? , 2007, PLoS biology.

[47]  Jeffrey A. Riffell,et al.  Behavioral consequences of innate preferences and olfactory learning in hawkmoth–flower interactions , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[48]  B. J. Borrell.  Long Tongues and Loose Niches: Evolution of Euglossine Bees and Their Nectar Flowers 1 , 2005 .

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

[50]  C. Herrera,et al.  Pollinator abundance, morphology, and flower visitation rate: analysis of the “quantity” component in a plant-pollinator system , 1989, Oecologia.

[51]  M. V. Price,et al.  Mechanisms of hummingbird-mediated selection for flower width in Ipomopsis aggregata , 1996 .

[52]  P. Goldblatt,et al.  The long-proboscid fly pollination system in southern Africa. , 2000 .

[53]  P. Ewald,et al.  Effect of floral orifice width and shape on hummingbird-flower interactions , 1996, Oecologia.