Are flowers red in teeth and claw? Exploitation barriers and the antagonist nature of mutualisms

Santamarı́a, Luis; Rodríguez‐Gironés, Miguel A.

doi:10.1007/s10682-015-9757-8

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These bees would either need to visit multiple flowers or they would potentially be discouraged from visiting these plants (Harder, 1990b;Nicholls & Hempel de Ibarra, 2017). Poricidal anthers could thus act as filter to insect taxa that cannot produce the necessary vibrations Sun & Rychtář, 2015), and restrict access to pollen rewards in a similar way in which long nectar tubes exclude insects with short probosces from accessing nectar rewards (Newman et al, 2014;Santamaría & Rodríguez-Gironés, 2015;Zung et al, 2015). This vibration filter might be particularly effective in discouraging visitation from small bees that produce lower velocity vibrations and do not make contact with reproductive organs (Solís-Montero & Vallejo-Marín, 2017).…”

Section: The Influence Of Vibration Velocity On Pollen Dispensing Schmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollen dispensing schedules in buzz-pollinated plants: Experimental comparison of species with contrasting floral morphologies

Kemp

Vallejo‐Marín

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. In buzz-pollinated plants, bees apply vibrations to remove pollen from anthers that have small apical pores or slits. These poricidal anthers potentially function as mechanism to stagger pollen release, but this has rarely been tested across plant species differing in anther morphology. 2. In Solanum section Androceras, three pairs of buzz-pollinated Solanum species have undergone independent evolutionary shifts between large- and small-flowered taxa. These shifts in flower size are accompanied by replicate changes in anther morphology, and we used these shifts in anther morphology to characterise the association between anther morphology and pollen dispensing schedules. We characterised pollen dispensing schedules by applying simulated bee-like vibrations directly to anthers to elicit pollen release. We then compared pollen dispensing schedules across anther morphologies, and we further investigated how vibration velocity affects pollen release. Finally, we assessed whether particular anther traits, presented in the Buchmann-Hurley model, can predict pollen dispensing schedules. 3. We show that replicate transitions in Solanum anther morphology are associated with consistent changes in pollen dispensing schedules. We found that small-flowered taxa with small anthers release their pollen at higher rates than their large-flowered counterparts, showing an association between general anther morphology and pollen dispensing. Further, higher vibration velocities resulted in quicker pollen dispensing and more total pollen released, which suggested that bees that produce high-energy vibrations can access more reward than bees producing low-energy vibrations. Finally, both the pollen dispensing rate and the amount of pollen released in the first vibration were negatively related to anther wall area, but, surprisingly, we did not observe any association between pore size and pollen dispensing. 4. Our results provide the first empirical demonstration that the pollen dispensing properties of poricidal anthers depend on both floral characteristics and bee vibration properties, and suggest that morphological modification of anthers could provide a mechanism to exploit different pollination environments.

show abstract

Section: The Influence Of Vibration Velocity On Pollen Dispensing Schmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollen dispensing schedules in buzz-pollinated plants: Experimental comparison of species with contrasting floral morphologies

Kemp

Vallejo‐Marín

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5), an animal nectarivory pursuer has to overcome plant toughness traits which are exploitation barriers (Santamaría & Rodríguez-Gironés, 2015). For the plant's focal goal, the power of the plant pollination pursuer is a functional mechanism for the precise transfer of pollen (Santamaría & Rodríguez-Gironés, 2015).…”

Section: Stage 3: Explaining the Subgoal Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating trait-based mechanisms, alternative interaction modes and forbidden links increases the minimum trait dimensionality of ecological networks

Boddy

Eastwood

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trait-based approaches in direct intraspecific and interspecific interactions address proximate and evolutionary questions across biological systems. However, interest in particular questions or systems has led to specialised descriptions of how interactions occur. We propose a generalised description in which interactions can be: defined by goals (e.g. consumption, parasitism, pollination); charted systematically (with logic statements); and explained by performance inequalities (comparing traits of individuals). Consequently, goal failures ('forbidden links') are interaction outcomes; alternative strategies to goal success exist; and matching traits are reformulated as difference traits. To illustrate, we introduce a new network measure: minimum mechanistic dimensionality, the minimum number of traits for the mechanistic explanation of the outcomes. Our dimensionality offers alternative explanations for intransitive networks. We show that previous approaches underestimate the dimensionality of 658 published empirical ecological networks (animal dominance, food webs, pollination, parasitism, seed dispersal) by omitting concepts emerging from the framework (mechanistic perspective, trait-mediated goal failures, generalisation to alternative interaction strategies). Such underestimation can prevent models from generating networks at the interaction outcome level. The framework provides a common mechanistic basis for proximate and evolutionary questions, inspiring hypotheses and trait-based models of social network dynamics, antagonistic or mutualistic community assembly or invasion, and coevolution.

show abstract

“…The majority of flowering plants are pollinated by animals (Ollerton et al 2011), and most animalpollinated species offer resources such as pollen, nectar, oils and scents as rewards to attract floral visitors. The degree to which these resources are accessible to floral visitors varies between plant species, and the accessibility of resources is often modulated through morphological restrictions, such as nectar tubes or keel flowers (Córdoba andCocucci 2011, Santamaría andRodríguez-Gironés 2015). Although morphological restrictions can limit or prevent inefficient pollen vectors or resource thieves from gaining access to floral resources (van der Kooi et al 2021), these barriers can also influence visitation by efficient pollinators, particularly when floral resources can more easily be obtained from flowers that do not restrict access to resources.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduced visitation to the buzz-pollinatedCyanella hyacinthoidesin the presence of other pollen sources in the hyperdiverse Cape Floristic Region

Kemp

Telles

Vallejo-Marin

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many plant species have floral morphologies that restrict access to floral resources, such as pollen or nectar, and only a subset of floral visitors can perform the complex handling behaviours required to extract restricted resources. Due to the time and energy required to extract resources from morphologically complex flowers, these plant species potentially compete for pollinators with co-flowering plants that have more easily accessible resources. A widespread floral mechanism restricting access to pollen is the presence of tubular anthers that open through small pores or slits (poricidal anthers). Some bees have evolved the capacity to remove pollen from poricidal anthers using vibrations, giving rise to the phenomenon of buzz-pollination. These bee vibrations that are produced for pollen extraction are presumably energetically costly, and to date, few studies have investigated whether buzz-pollinated flowers may be at a disadvantage when competing for pollinators' attention with plant species that present unrestricted pollen resources. Here, we studied Cyanella hyacinthoides (Tecophilaeaceae), a geophyte with poricidal anthers in the hyperdiverse Cape Floristic Region of South Africa, to assess how the composition and relative abundance of flowers with easily accessible pollen affect bee visitation to a buzz-pollinated plant. We found that the number of pollinator species was not influenced by community composition. However, visitation rates to C. hyacinthoides were negatively related to the abundance of flowers with more accessible resources. Visitation rates were strongly associated with petal colour, showing that flower colour is important in mediating these interactions. We conclude that buzz-pollinated plants might be at a competitive disadvantage when many easily accessible pollen sources are available, particularly when competitor species share its floral signals.

show abstract

Are flowers red in teeth and claw? Exploitation barriers and the antagonist nature of mutualisms

Cited by 18 publications

References 58 publications

Pollen dispensing schedules in buzz-pollinated plants: Experimental comparison of species with contrasting floral morphologies

Pollen dispensing schedules in buzz-pollinated plants: Experimental comparison of species with contrasting floral morphologies

Incorporating trait-based mechanisms, alternative interaction modes and forbidden links increases the minimum trait dimensionality of ecological networks

Reduced visitation to the buzz-pollinatedCyanella hyacinthoidesin the presence of other pollen sources in the hyperdiverse Cape Floristic Region

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About