Foraging efficiency and size matching in a plant-pollinator community: the importance of sugar content and tongue length.
Asteraceae
foraging efficiency
handling time
interaction probability
nectar tube depth
optimal foraging
pollination
proboscis length
size matching
Journal
Ecology letters
ISSN: 1461-0248
Titre abrégé: Ecol Lett
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101121949
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
13
08
2018
revised:
27
09
2018
accepted:
14
11
2018
pubmed:
5
1
2019
medline:
8
8
2019
entrez:
5
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A long-standing question in ecology is how species interactions are structured within communities. Although evolutionary theory predicts close size matching between floral nectar tube depth and pollinator proboscis length of interacting species, such size matching has seldom been shown and explained in multispecies assemblages. Here, we investigated the degree of size matching among Asteraceae and their pollinators and its relationship with foraging efficiency. The majority of pollinators, especially Hymenoptera, choose plant species on which they had high foraging efficiencies. When proboscides were shorter than nectar tubes, foraging efficiency rapidly decreased because of increased handling time. When proboscides were longer than nectar tubes, a decreased nectar reward rather than an increased handling time made shallow flowers more inefficient to visit. Altogether, this led to close size matching. Overall, our results show the importance of nectar reward and handling time as drivers of plant-pollinator network structure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30609161
doi: 10.1111/ele.13204
pmc: PMC6850310
doi:
Substances chimiques
Plant Nectar
0
Sugars
0
Types de publication
Letter
Langues
eng
Pagination
469-479Subventions
Organisme : Leiden University Fund
Organisme : Dr. Christine Buisman Fund
Organisme : Catharine van Tussenbroek Fund
Organisme : Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Ecology Letters published by CNRS and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Nat Commun. 2016 May 13;7:11644
pubmed: 27173441
J Evol Biol. 2016 Aug;29(8):1631-42
pubmed: 27206242
Ann Bot. 2004 Aug;94(2):269-80
pubmed: 15229123
BMC Evol Biol. 2010 Jul 07;10:204
pubmed: 20604973
Evolution. 2008 Jan;62(1):220-5
pubmed: 18067570
Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Mar 7;278(1706):725-32
pubmed: 20843845
Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Dec 22;271(1557):2605-11
pubmed: 15615687
Funct Ecol. 2017 Jan;31(1):101-115
pubmed: 28344378
Ecology. 2009 Aug;90(8):2039-46
pubmed: 19739366
Oecologia. 1979 Aug;41(3):301-304
pubmed: 28309767
Am Nat. 2006 Jan;167(1):105-17
pubmed: 16475103
Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1979 Sep 21;205(1161):489-511
pubmed: 42057
Naturwissenschaften. 2013 Nov;100(11):1083-93
pubmed: 24258261
Br Foreign Med Chir Rev. 1862 Oct;30(60):312-318
pubmed: 30163543
Oecologia. 1989 Aug;80(2):241-248
pubmed: 28313114
Oecologia. 2005 Oct;145(4):586-94
pubmed: 16028095
Ann Bot. 2009 Jun;103(9):1459-69
pubmed: 19228701
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Aug 5;100(16):9383-7
pubmed: 12881488
Oecologia. 2007 Mar;151(3):442-53
pubmed: 17080257
Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 22;269(1491):631-6
pubmed: 11916480
J Evol Biol. 2015 Mar;28(3):678-87
pubmed: 25682841
Oecologia. 1980 May;45(2):197-201
pubmed: 28309530
Ann Bot. 2009 Jun;103(9):1445-57
pubmed: 19304996
Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Jun 22;276(1665):2147-52
pubmed: 19324745
Oecologia. 1983 Mar;57(1-2):274-280
pubmed: 28310186
Oecologia. 2012 Sep;170(1):233-42
pubmed: 22415527
New Phytol. 2016 Sep;211(4):1402-11
pubmed: 27112321