Insect visitation and pollen deposition in an invaded prairie plant community

Larson, Diane L.; Royer, Ronald A.; Royer, Margaret R.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.12.009

Cited by 130 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bumble bees visited Collinsia parviflora only in a plant community lacking Plectritis congesta (Elle and Carney 2003). Sweat bees visited native plants less often, and less pollen was deposited, when the alien plant Euphorbia esula invaded plant communities (Larson et al 2006). Pollen deposition by hummingbirds on Ipomopsis aggregata decreased when Castilleja linariaefolia was present in experimental plots (Caruso 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a complex natural community, however, floral visitors respond not only to shifts in floral display of potential host species, but also to the collective display and reward properties of the co-flowering plant community (e.g., Johnson et al 2003, Moeller 2004, Knight et al 2005b, Larson et al 2006. There is substantial evidence indicating that AMF can have impacts on plants that range from parasitic to mutualistic (Klironomos 2003), suggesting that floral displays may be enhanced by AMF in some species, and reduced by AMF in others.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Disruption of a Belowground Mutualism Alters Interactions Between Plants and Their Floral Visitors

Cahill

Elle

Smith

et al. 2008

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Plants engage in diverse and intimate interactions with unrelated taxa. For example, aboveground floral visitors provide pollination services, while belowground arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) enhance nutrient capture. Traditionally in ecology, these processes were studied in isolation, reinforcing the prevailing assumption that these above-and belowground processes were also functionally distinct. More recently, there has been a growing realization that the soil surface is not a barrier to many ecological interactions, particularly those involving plants (who live simultaneously above and below ground). Because of the potentially large impact that mycorrhizae and floral visitors can have on plant performance and community dynamics, we designed an experiment to test whether these multi-species mutualisms were interdependent under field conditions. Using benomyl, a widely used fungicide, we suppressed AMF in a native grassland, measuring plant, fungal, and floralvisitor responses after three years of fungal suppression. AMF suppression caused a shift in the community of floral visitors from large-bodied bees to small-bodied bees and flies, and reduced the total number of floral visits per flowering stem 67% across the 23 flowering species found in the plots. Fungal suppression has species-specific effects on floral visits for the six most common flowering plants in this experiment. Exploratory analyses suggest these results were due to changes in floral-visitor behavior due to altered patch-level floral display, rather than through direct effects of AMF suppression on floral morphology. Our findings indicate that AMF are an important, and overlooked, driver of floral-visitor community structure with the potential to affect pollination services. These results support the growing body of research indicating that interactions among ecological interactions can be of meaningful effect size under natural field conditions and may influence individual performance, population dynamics, and community structure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disruption of a Belowground Mutualism Alters Interactions Between Plants and Their Floral Visitors

Cahill

Elle

Smith

et al. 2008

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some Euphorbiaceae have pale green flowers. However, they are frequently visited by insects (e.g., Euphorbia esula L. and Euphorbia helioscopia L. (Euphorbiaceae)) (Larson et al 2006; Benvenuti S., pers. observ.).…”

Section: Do Generalist Insect Pollinators Serve Weeds Better? Not Alwaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weed-insect pollinator networks as bio-indicators of ecological sustainability in agriculture. A review

Rollin¹,

Benelli

Benvenuti

et al. 2016

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The intensification of agricultural practices contributes to the decline of many taxa such as insects and wild plants. Weeds are serious competitors for crop production and are thus controlled. Nonetheless, weeds enhance floral diversity in agricultural landscapes. Weeds provide food for insects in exchange for pollination. The stability of mutualistic interactions in pollination networks depends on conservation of insect pollinator and weed communities. Some agricultural practices can destabilize interactions and thus modify the stability of pollination networks. Therefore, more knowledge on weed-insect networks is needed. Here, we review the interactions involved in insect visits to weed flowers in temperate arable lands. Our main findings are that (1) weed pollination by insects has a key role in maintaining weed communities in arable lands; (2) weed-insect pollinator interactions are modulated by the flowers' features and their quality which are attracting insects; (3) most weeds are associated with generalist insect pollinators; and (4) even if weed-pollinator networks are largely mutualistic, some antagonist networks can be observed when deception occurs. We propose three weed-insect pollinator networks as potential bio-indicators to evaluate the ecological sustainability of arable land management strategies in temperate areas: (1) Geometridae and Bombyliidae species visiting Caryophyllaceae, (2) Papilionidae foraging on Apiaceae, and (3) Syrphidae visiting Asteraceae.

show abstract

“…For example, Impatiens glandulifera and Lythrum 51 salicaria had negative impacts on both visitation rate and reproductive success of the 52 considered native species (Chittka and Schürkens, 2001; Brown et al, 2002). Studies on other 53 invasive species showed mixed effects, depending on the native species considered, the year 54 and/or the site, and positive effect has even been found in some cases (Moragues and 55 Traveset, 2005; Larson et al, 2006). A recent review stressed the lack of long term studies, as 56 most of them were carried out only over one or two years, and rarely throughout the whole 57 vegetation season (Bjerknes et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introduction 42mentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant–pollinator interactions: comparison between an invasive and a native congeneric species

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insect visitation and pollen deposition in an invaded prairie plant community

Cited by 130 publications

References 32 publications

Disruption of a Belowground Mutualism Alters Interactions Between Plants and Their Floral Visitors

Disruption of a Belowground Mutualism Alters Interactions Between Plants and Their Floral Visitors

Weed-insect pollinator networks as bio-indicators of ecological sustainability in agriculture. A review

Plant–pollinator interactions: comparison between an invasive and a native congeneric species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About