The relative contribution of diurnal and nocturnal pollinators to plant female fitness in a specialized nursery pollination system

Abstract

Nursery pollination is an unusual plant–insect interaction in which an insect is both pollinator and seed predator. Depending on the abundance of the nursery pollinator and of other pollinators, this interaction can range from mutualism to parasitism and it is thus likely to vary geographically. We investigated this mechanism in the widespread species Silene latifolia in a Mediterranean environment that is likely to offer a rich pollinator community to the plant, thus decreasing the dependence on the nursery pollinator. Surprisingly, we found that although generalist pollinators contribute significantly to plant fitness, the nursery pollinator is still the more efficient.

A global review demonstrating the importance of nocturnal pollinators for crop plants

“…Nocturnal flower visitors can act as primary pollinators (e.g. Scopece et al, 2018), secondary pollinators (e.g. Pelletier et al, 2001), or as co-pollinators with diurnal pollinators (e.g.…”

Friend or foe? A parasitic wasp shifts the cost/benefit ratio in a nursery pollination system impacting plant fitness

“…The cost/benefit analysis of these interactions is never simple, as associations between organisms do not evolve in isolation, but rather within a complex ecological context, where third parties—such as copollinators, exploiters, predators, or parasites—may play an important role modifying the plant–insect interaction (Bronstein, Wilson, & Morris, 2003; Gomulkiewicz, Nuismer, & Thompson, 2003; Harrison, 2014; Holland & Fleming, 2002; Schatz, Magali, Rakhi, Borges, & Hossaert‐McKey, 2006; Scopece, Campese, Duffy, & Cozzolino, 2018). This means that the net outcome of the interaction may change from a mutualism to an antagonism or commensalism in a reversible fashion depending on the specific environment in which the interaction occurs (Bronstein, 1994; Bronstein, Alarcon, & Geber, 2006; Dufaÿ & Anstett, 2003; Pellmyr, 1989; Pellmyr et al, 1996; Thompson & Cunningham, 2002; Thompson & Fernandez, 2006; Thompson & Pellmyr, 1992; Westerbergh, 2004; Westerbergh & Westerbergh, 2001).…”