Blütenökologie

Vogel, S. W.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-66259-1_25

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With the notion that high disparity reflects a lineage's ability to adapt through a diversity of phenotypes (Minelli, 2016), we want to emphasize that > 50% of all known bee species can buzz flowers (> 10 000 species; Cardinal et al ., 2018). Melastomataceae are hence exposed to a large diversity of bees, offering tremendous potential for floral divergence in adaptation to different bees, without shifting to a different functional pollinator group (Vogel, 1975; Renner, 1989). While there is empirical evidence of effective specialization on distinct buzzing bees among co‐flowering Melastomataceae (Mesquita‐Neto et al ., 2018), we do not know at this point whether patterns of floral disparity differ among ‘buzz‐bee’ syndrome species specialized on few vs many bee species.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High floral disparity without pollinator shifts in buzz‐bee‐pollinated Melastomataceae

Kopper,

Schönenberger,

Dellinger

2024

New Phytologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Shifts among functional pollinator groups are commonly regarded as sources of floral morphological diversity (disparity) through the formation of distinct pollination syndromes. While pollination syndromes may be used for predicting pollinators, their predictive accuracy remains debated, and they are rarely used to test whether floral disparity is indeed associated with pollinator shifts. We apply classification models trained and validated on 44 functional floral traits across 252 species with empirical pollinator observations and then use the validated models to predict pollinators for 159 species lacking observations. In addition, we employ multivariate statistics and phylogenetic comparative analyses to test whether pollinator shifts are the main source of floral disparity in Melastomataceae. We find strong support for four well‐differentiated pollination syndromes (‘buzz‐bee’, ‘nectar‐foraging vertebrate’, ‘food‐body‐foraging vertebrate’, ‘generalist’). While pollinator shifts add significantly to floral disparity, we find that the most species‐rich ‘buzz‐bee’ pollination syndrome is most disparate, indicating that high floral disparity may evolve without pollinator shifts. Also, relatively species‐poor clades and geographic areas contributed substantially to total disparity. Finally, our results show that machine‐learning approaches are a powerful tool for evaluating the predictive accuracy of the pollination syndrome concept as well as for predicting pollinators where observations are missing.

show abstract