2018
DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.2106
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How plant reproductive success is determined by the interplay of antagonists and mutualists

Abstract: Abstract. Plant reproductive success is often the outcome of mutualistic and antagonistic plant-animal interactions, which can be moderated by landscape composition. Studies addressing single plant-animal interactions are common, but studies simultaneously considering multiple plant-animal interactions in a landscape context are still scarce. We selectively excluded flower-visiting insects on phytometer plants and quantified how mutualistic and antagonistic interactions shaped the reproductive success of a com… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
16
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
(111 reference statements)
3
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Bean mass per plant was higher in insect‐pollinated compared with self‐pollinated plants, and this insect pollination benefit was higher for aphid‐free plants. Similar interactions between insect pollination and insect herbivory have been found for several crops (Grass et al., 2018; Lundin et al., 2013; Sutter & Albrecht, 2016; van Gils et al., 2016). Possible mechanisms are that herbivore‐infested plants are less attractive to pollinators due to a reduced ability to invest into floral rewards, or, alternatively, increased defence mechanisms reducing the quality or palatability of floral rewards (Jacobsen & Raguso, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 65%
“…Bean mass per plant was higher in insect‐pollinated compared with self‐pollinated plants, and this insect pollination benefit was higher for aphid‐free plants. Similar interactions between insect pollination and insect herbivory have been found for several crops (Grass et al., 2018; Lundin et al., 2013; Sutter & Albrecht, 2016; van Gils et al., 2016). Possible mechanisms are that herbivore‐infested plants are less attractive to pollinators due to a reduced ability to invest into floral rewards, or, alternatively, increased defence mechanisms reducing the quality or palatability of floral rewards (Jacobsen & Raguso, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 65%
“…This suggests that antagonist–antagonist interactions are not limited by the dependence of antagonists on resource quantity (Rusman et al, ). Herbivory affects flower quantity and quality differently (Hoffmeister et al, ; Rusman, Poelman, et al, ), and mutualists and antagonists have contrasting effects on plant reproduction (Grass, Bohle, Tscharntke, & Westphal, ; Soper Gorden & Adler, ). Therefore, variable importance of resource quantity and quality for mutualists and antagonists is likely important for indirect plant fitness consequences of herbivory.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In some systems, plants demonstrate resilience to land use change. This is exemplified when there is no detectable effect of land use change on plant reproductive success ( Lopes and Buzato, 2007 ; Ekroos et al, 2015 ; Skogen et al, 2016 ; Grass et al, 2018 ) likely because these landscapes select for pollinator species that are tolerant to disturbance and/or have a high dispersal ability. In restored prairies, increasing proportion of agriculture in the surrounding landscape did not increase pollen limitation in a pollinator dependent forb ( Ritchie et al, 2020 ).…”
Section: Land Use Change Affects Floral Traits Mediated By Pollinatomentioning
confidence: 99%