Literature DB >> 17080257

Asymmetric specialization and extinction risk in plant-flower visitor webs: a matter of morphology or abundance?

Martina Stang1, Peter G L Klinkhamer, Eddy van der Meijden.   

Abstract

A recently discovered feature of plant-flower visitor webs is the asymmetric specialization of the interaction partners: specialized plants interact mainly with generalized flower visitors and specialized flower visitors mainly with generalized plants. Little is known about the factors leading to this asymmetry and their consequences for the extinction risk of species. Previous studies have proposed random interactions proportional to species abundance as an explanation. However, the simulation models used in these studies did not include potential biological constraints. In the present study, we tested the potential role of both morphological constraints and species abundance in promoting asymmetric specialization. We compared actual field data of a Mediterranean plant-flower visitor web with predictions of Monte Carlo simulations including different combinations of the potential factors structuring the web. Our simulations showed that both nectar-holder depth and abundance were able to produce asymmetry; but that the expected degree of asymmetry was stronger if based on both. Both factors can predict the number of interaction partners, but only nectar-holder depth was able to predict the degree of asymmetry of a certain species. What is more, without the size threshold the influence of abundance would disappear over time. Thus, asymmetric specialization seems to be the result of a size threshold and, only among the allowed interactions above this size threshold, a result of random interactions proportional to abundance. The simulations also showed that asymmetric specialization could not be the reason that the extinction risk of specialists and generalists is equalized, as suggested in the literature. In asymmetric webs specialists clearly had higher short-term extinction risks. In fact, primarily generalist visitors seem to profit from asymmetric specialization. In our web, specialists were less abundant than generalists. Therefore, including abundance in the simulation models increased the difference between specialists and generalists even more.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17080257     DOI: 10.1007/s00442-006-0585-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.298


  6 in total

1.  The nested assembly of plant-animal mutualistic networks.

Authors:  Jordi Bascompte; Pedro Jordano; Carlos J Melián; Jens M Olesen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-07-24       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  The pollination ecology of an assemblage of grassland asclepiads in South Africa.

Authors:  Jeff Ollerton; Steven D Johnson; Louise Cranmer; Sam Kellie
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.357

3.  Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions.

Authors:  Jane Memmott; Nickolas M Waser; Mary V Price
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-12-22       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Ecological specialization and susceptibility to disturbance: conjectures and refutations.

Authors:  Diego P Vázquez; Daniel Simberloff
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.926

5.  Using functional morphology to examine the ecology and evolution of specialization.

Authors:  Lara A Ferry-Graham; Daniel I Bolnick; Peter C Wainwright
Journal:  Integr Comp Biol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.326

6.  The measure of order and disorder in the distribution of species in fragmented habitat.

Authors:  Wirt Atmar; Bruce D Patterson
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 3.225

  6 in total
  30 in total

1.  Optimizing size thresholds in a plant-pollinator interaction web: towards a mechanistic understanding of ecological networks.

Authors:  Sébastien Ibanez
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Do extrafloral nectar resources, species abundances, and body sizes contribute to the structure of ant-plant mutualistic networks?

Authors:  Scott A Chamberlain; Jeffrey R Kilpatrick; J Nathaniel Holland
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2010-06-06       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  A network model for plant-pollinator community assembly.

Authors:  Colin Campbell; Suann Yang; Réka Albert; Katriona Shea
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Size-specific interaction patterns and size matching in a plant-pollinator interaction web.

Authors:  Martina Stang; Peter G L Klinkhamer; Nickolas M Waser; Ingo Stang; Eddy van der Meijden
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 4.357

5.  A global test of the pollination syndrome hypothesis.

Authors:  Jeff Ollerton; Ruben Alarcón; Nickolas M Waser; Mary V Price; Stella Watts; Louise Cranmer; Andrew Hingston; Craig I Peter; John Rotenberry
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2009-02-14       Impact factor: 4.357

Review 6.  Uniting pattern and process in plant-animal mutualistic networks: a review.

Authors:  Diego P Vázquez; Nico Blüthgen; Luciano Cagnolo; Natacha P Chacoff
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2009-03-21       Impact factor: 4.357

7.  Evaluating factors that predict the structure of a commensalistic epiphyte-phorophyte network.

Authors:  Roberto Sáyago; Martha Lopezaraiza-Mikel; Mauricio Quesada; Mariana Yolotl Álvarez-Añorve; Alfredo Cascante-Marín; Jesus Ma Bastida
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Functional importance of avian seed dispersers changes in response to human-induced forest edges in tropical seed-dispersal networks.

Authors:  Francisco Saavedra; Isabell Hensen; Stephan G Beck; Katrin Böhning-Gaese; Denis Lippok; Till Töpfer; Matthias Schleuning
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 3.225

9.  Processes entangling interactions in communities: forbidden links are more important than abundance in a hummingbird-plant network.

Authors:  Jeferson Vizentin-Bugoni; Pietro Kiyoshi Maruyama; Marlies Sazima
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Pollinators show flower colour preferences but flowers with similar colours do not attract similar pollinators.

Authors:  Sara Reverté; Javier Retana; José M Gómez; Jordi Bosch
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 4.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.