Effect of robbing intensity on reproductive success of Symphytum officinale (Boraginaceae).
Symphytum officinale
Mixed foraging strategy
Plant-animal interactions
Reproductive success
Robbing intensity
Journal
Journal of plant research
ISSN: 1618-0860
Titre abrégé: J Plant Res
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 9887853
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Mar 2024
20 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
19
09
2022
accepted:
28
02
2024
medline:
20
3
2024
pubmed:
20
3
2024
entrez:
20
3
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The intervention of nectar robbers in plant pollination systems will cause some pollinators to modify their foraging behavior to act as secondary robbers, consequently adopting a mixed foraging strategy. The influence of nectar robbing on pollinator behavior may be affected by spatio-temporal difference of robbing intensity, and consequently, may have different effects on the pollination of host plants. However, whether and how the nectar robbing might influence pollinators under different robbing intensity still needs further investigation. In this study, Symphytum officinale was used to detect the effect of nectar robbers on pollinators under different robbing intensity as well as their effects on plant reproductive success. Six robbing levels and three bumblebees with mixed foraging behaviors were used to evaluate the effect of different robbing intensity on pollinator behavior, visitation rate, flower longevity and pollen deposition. Our results indicated that the robbing rate increased gradually with the proportion of robbed flowers, but which did not affect the frequency of legitimate visits. The increase of robbing rate promoted the corolla abscission, and then enhanced the self-pollen deposition, but which had no significant effect on cross-pollen deposition. These results indicate that the overall fitness of S. officinale was improved by combined self and cross-pollination modes when visited by both pollinators and nectar robbers simultaneously. Although nectar robbing is not uncommon, its consequences for pollination in the interaction web have not been well studied. Our results emphasize the significance of indirect impacts in mediating the adaptive outcomes of species interactions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38506958
doi: 10.1007/s10265-024-01536-1
pii: 10.1007/s10265-024-01536-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 31860051
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 32260054
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to The Botanical Society of Japan.
Références
Arizmendi MDC (2001) Multiple ecological interactions: nectar robbers and hummingbirds in a highland forest in Mexico. Can J Zool 79:997–1006. https://doi.org/10.1139/z01-066
doi: 10.1139/z01-066
Bronstein JL (2001) The exploitation of mutualisms. Ecol Lett 4:277–287. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00218.x
doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00218.x
Chittka L, Gumbert A, Kunze J (1997) Foraging dynamics of bumble bees: correlates of movements within and between plant species. Behav Ecol 8:239–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/8.3.239
doi: 10.1093/beheco/8.3.239
Chittka L, Thomson JD, Waser NM (1999) Flower constancy, insect psychology, and plant evolution. Naturwissenschaften 86:361–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001140050636
doi: 10.1007/s001140050636
Dyer WT (1877) The effects of cross and self-fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom. Nature 15:329–332. https://doi.org/10.1038/015329a0
doi: 10.1038/015329a0
Fumero-Cabán JJ, Meléndez‐Ackerman EJ (2007) Relative pollination effectiveness of floral visitors of Pitcairnia angustifolia (Bromeliaceae). Am J Bot 94:419–424. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.94.3.419
doi: 10.3732/ajb.94.3.419
pubmed: 21636411
Gonzalez-Gomez PL, Valdivia CE (2005) Direct and indirect effects of nectar robbing on the pollinating behavior of Patagona gigas (Trochilidae). Biotropica 37:693–696. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2005.00088.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2005.00088.x
Grüter C, Moore H, Firmin N, Helanterä H, Ratnieks FL (2011) Flower constancy in honey bee workers (Apis mellifera) depends on ecologically realistic rewards. J Exp Biol 214:1397–1402. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.050583
doi: 10.1242/jeb.050583
pubmed: 21430217
Guitian J, Sánchez JM, Guitian P (1994) Pollination ecology of Petrocoptis Grandiflora Rothm (Caryophyllaceae): a species endemic to the north-west part of the Iberian Peninsula. Bot J Linn Soc 115:19–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.1994.tb01764.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.1994.tb01764.x
Hou QZ, Ehmet N, Chen DW, Wang TH, Xu YF, Ma J, Sun K (2021) Corolla abscission triggered by nectar robbers positively affects reproduction by enhancing self-pollination in Symphytum officinale (Boraginaceae). Biology 10:903. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10090903
doi: 10.3390/biology10090903
pubmed: 34571781
pmcid: 8471318
Inouye DW (1980a) The effect of proboscis and corolla tube lengths on patterns and rates of flower visitation by bumblebees. Oecologia 45:197–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00346460
doi: 10.1007/BF00346460
pubmed: 28309530
Inouye DW (1983) The biology of nectaries: the ecology of nectar robbing. Columbia University, New York, pp 153–173
Irwin RE, Brody AK (1998) Nectar robbing in Ipomopsis aggregata: effects on pollinator behavior and plant fitness. Oecologia 116:519–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050617
doi: 10.1007/s004420050617
pubmed: 28307521
Irwin RE, Maloof JE (2002) Variation in nectar robbing over time, space, and species. Oecologia 133:525–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-1060-z
doi: 10.1007/s00442-002-1060-z
pubmed: 28466170
Irwin RE, Brody AK, Waser NM (2001) The impact of floral larceny on individuals, populations, and communities. Oecologia 129:161–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420100739
doi: 10.1007/s004420100739
pubmed: 28547611
Irwin RE, Bronstein JL, Manson JS, Richardson L (2010) Nectar robbing: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:271–292. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120330
doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120330
Klinkhamer PGL, de Jong TJ (1993) Attractiveness to pollinators: a plant’s dilemma. Oikos 66:180–184. https://doi.org/10.2307/3545212
doi: 10.2307/3545212
Lara C, Ornelas J (2001) Preferential nectar robbing of flowers with long corollas: experimental studies of two hummingbird species visiting three plant species. Oecologia 128:263–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420100640
doi: 10.1007/s004420100640
pubmed: 28547475
Laverty TM (1994) Bumble bee learning and flower morphology. Anim Behav 47:531–545. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1994.1077
doi: 10.1006/anbe.1994.1077
Lewis AC (1986) Memory constraints and flower choice in Pieris rapae. Science 232:863–865. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.232.4752.863
doi: 10.1126/science.232.4752.863
pubmed: 17755969
Maloof JE (2001) The effects of a bumble bee nectar robber on plant reproductive success and pollinator behavior. Am J Bot 88:1960–1965. https://doi.org/10.2307/3558423
doi: 10.2307/3558423
pubmed: 21669629
Maruyama PK, Vizentin-Bugoni J, Dalsgaard B, Sazima I, Sazima M (2015) Nectar robbery by a hermit hummingbird: association to floral phenotype and its influence on flowers and network structure. Oecologia 178:783–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-015-3275-9
doi: 10.1007/s00442-015-3275-9
pubmed: 25740333
McNaughton SJ, Banyikwa FF, McNaughton MM (1997) Promotion of the cycling of diet-enhancing nutrients by African grazers. Science 278:1798–1800. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.278.5344.179
doi: 10.1126/science.278.5344.179
pubmed: 9388182
Morris WF (1996) Mutualism denied? Nectar-robbing bumble bees do not reduce female or male success of bluebells. Ecology 77:1451–1462. https://doi.org/10.2307/2265542
doi: 10.2307/2265542
Nagano Y, Yokoi T (2022) Honeybees with extensive foraging experience rob nectar more frequently. Sci Nat 109: 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-021-01781-7
Pyke GH (1982) Local geographic distributions of bumblebees near Crested Butte, Colorado: competition and community structure. Ecology 63:555–573. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN11284
doi: 10.1603/EN11284
Pyke GH, Inouye DW, Thomson JD (2012) Local geographic distributions of bumble bees near Crested Butte, Colorado: competition and community structure revisited. Environ Entom 41:1332–1349. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN11284
doi: 10.1603/EN11284
Real LA (1991) Animal choice behavior and the evolution of cognitive architecture. Science 253:980–986. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1606
doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1606
pubmed: 1887231
Richardson SC (2004) Are nectar-robbers mutualists or antagonists? Oecologia 139:246–254. https://doi.org/10.2307/177331
doi: 10.2307/177331
pubmed: 14767755
Richman SK, Irwin RE, Bronstein JL (2017) Foraging strategy predicts foraging economy in a facultative secondary nectar robber. Oikos 126:1250–1257. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.04229
doi: 10.1111/oik.04229
Rodriguez-Girones MA, Santamaría L (2007) Resource competition, character displacement, and the evolution of deep corolla tubes. Am Nat 170:455–464. https://doi.org/10.1086/520121
doi: 10.1086/520121
pubmed: 17879195
Rojas-Nossa SV, Sánchez JM, Navarro L (2016) Nectar robbing: a common phenomenon mainly determined by accessibility constraints, nectar volume and density of energy rewards. Oikos 125:1044–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.02685
doi: 10.1111/oik.02685
Singh VK, Barman C, Tandon R (2014) Nectar robbing positively influences the reproductive success of Tecomella Undulata (Bignoniaceae). PLoS ONE 9:e102607. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102607
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102607
pubmed: 25036554
pmcid: 4103821
Stout JC, Allen JA, Goulson D (2000) Nectar robbing, forager efficiency and seed set: bumblebees foraging on the self incompatible plant Linaria vulgaris (Scrophulariaceae). Acta Oecol 21:277–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1146-609X(00)01085-7
doi: 10.1016/S1146-609X(00)01085-7
Thompson J (2009) The coevolutionary process. University of Chicago, Chicago, p 404
Varma S, Sinu P (2019) Nectar robbing in bellflower (Sesamum radiatum) benefited pollinators but unaffected maternal function of plant reproduction. Sci Rep 9:8357. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44741-y
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-44741-y
pubmed: 31175314
pmcid: 6555787
Wang Y, Wu H, Wang S (2015) Invasibility of nectar robbers in pollination-mutualisms. Appl Math Comput 250:908–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2014.11.027
doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2014.11.027
Ye ZM, Jin XF, Wang QF, Yang CF, Inouye DW (2017) Nectar replenishment maintains the neutral effects of nectar robbing on female reproductive success of Salvia przewalskii (Lamiaceae), a plant pollinated and robbed by bumble bees. Ann Bot 119:1053–1059. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcw285
doi: 10.1093/aob/mcw285
pubmed: 28158409
pmcid: 5604579
Ye ZM, Jin XF, Inouye DW, Wang QF, Yang CF (2018) Variation in composition of two bumble bee species across communities affects nectar robbing but maintains pollinator visitation rate to an alpine plant, Salvia przewalskii. Ecol Entomol 43:363–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12509
doi: 10.1111/een.12509
Zhang YW, Zhao JM, Inouye DW (2014) Nectar thieves influence reproductive fitness by altering behaviour of nectar robbers and legitimate pollinators in Corydalis Ambigua (Fumariaceae). J Ecol 102:229–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12166
doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12166
Zimmerman M, Cook S (1985) Pollinator foraging, experimental nectar-robbing and plant fitness in Impatiens capensis. Am Midl Nat 113:84–91
doi: 10.2307/2425350