| Literature DB >> 27941984 |
Noelia L Volpe1, W Douglas Robinson1, Sarah J K Frey2, Adam S Hadley2, Matthew G Betts2.
Abstract
Habitat loss and fragmentation influence species distributions and therefore ecological processes that depend upon them. Pollination may be particularly susceptible to fragmentation, as it depends on frequent pollinator movement. Unfortunately, most pollinators are too small to track efficiently which has precluded testing the hypothesis that habitat fragmentation reduces or eliminates pollen flow by disrupting pollinator movement. We used radio-telemetry to examine space use of the green hermit hummingbird (Phaethornis guy), an important 'hub' pollinator of understory flowering plants across substantial portions of the neotropics and the primary pollinator of a keystone plant which shows reduced pollination success in fragmented landscapes. We found that green hermits strongly avoided crossing large stretches of non-forested matrix and preferred to move along stream corridors. Forest gaps as small as 50 m diminished the odds of movement by 50%. Green hermits occurred almost exclusively inside the forest, with the odds of occurrence being 8 times higher at points with >95% canopy cover compared with points having <5% canopy cover. Nevertheless, surprisingly. the species occurred in fragmented landscapes with low amounts of forest (~30% within a 2 km radius). Our results indicate that although green hermits are present even in landscapes with low amounts of tropical forest, movement within these landscapes ends up strongly constrained by forest gaps. Restricted movement of pollinators may be an underappreciated mechanism for widespread declines in pollination and plant fitness in fragmented landscapes, even when in the presence of appropriate pollinators.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27941984 PMCID: PMC5152895 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167513
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Fig 1Effect of canopy cover (A) and number of Heliconia plants (B) on the odds of the green hermit hummingbird choosing a given location, as calculated from the point-level regression model.
Model coefficients, standard errors, confidence intervals, odds ratios and AICc values for the candidate models used to predict observed hummingbird movement steps in relation to random unused steps as a function of the following variables.
The top-ranked AICc model is bold.
| Model | Variable | Coeff. | SE | Ci | Cs | OR | AICc | ΔAICc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stream | -0.020 | 0.003 | -0.026 | -0.014 | 0.981 | 5218 | 0 | |
| TotGap | -0.019 | 0.005 | -0.029 | -0.009 | 0.981 | 5218 | ||
| Stream + TotGap | Stream | -0.0181 | 0.003 | -0.024 | -0.012 | 0.982 | 5224 | 6 |
| TotGap | -0.010 | 0.004 | -0.018 | -0.002 | 0.990 | 5224 | ||
| TotGap | -0.005 | 0.006 | -0.017 | 0.007 | 0.995 | 5224 | ||
| Stream + MeanGap | Stream | -0.019 | 0.003 | -0.026 | -0.013 | 0.981 | 5229 | 10 |
| MeanGap | -0.020 | 0.006 | -0.032 | -0.008 | 0.980 | 5229 | ||
| Stream + MeanGap | Stream | -0.017 | 0.003 | -0.023 | -0.011 | 0.983 | 5242 | 24 |
| MeanGap | 0.003 | 0.004 | -0.005 | 0.011 | 1.003 | 5242 | ||
| MeanGap | -0.007 | 0.007 | -0.020 | 0.007 | 0.993 | 5242 | ||
| TotGap | TotGap | -0.033 | 0.009 | -0.051 | -0.015 | 0.968 | 5320 | 101 |
| Stream + PropInFor | Stream | -0.017 | 0.003 | -0.023 | -0.011 | 0.983 | 5322 | 104 |
| PropInFor | 0.779 | 0.501 | -0.223 | 1.781 | 2.180 | 5322 | ||
| Stream + NumGap | Stream | -0.0177 | 0.003 | -0.024 | -0.012 | 0.982 | 5332 | 114 |
| NumGap | -0.218 | 0.225 | -0.668 | 0.232 | 0.804 | 5332 | ||
| NumGap | -0.726 | 0.620 | -1.966 | 0.514 | 0.484 | 5332 | ||
| Stream + ForAm | Stream | -0.021 | 0.004 | -0.029 | -0.013 | 0.979 | 5333 | 114 |
| ForAm | 0.353 | 0.253 | -0.153 | 0.859 | 1.423 | 5333 | ||
| Stream + NumGap | Stream | -0.018 | 0.005 | -0.028 | -0.009 | 0.982 | 5334 | 116 |
| NumGap | -0.169 | 0.281 | -0.731 | 0.393 | 0.845 | 5334 | ||
| MeanGap | MeanGap | -0.042 | 0.011 | -0.064 | -0.02 | 0.959 | 5338 | 120 |
| Stream | Stream | -0.018 | 0.004 | -0.026 | -0.009 | 0.983 | 5358 | 139 |
| PropInFor | PropInFor | 1.702 | 0.849 | 0.004 | 3.399 | 5.484 | 5415 | 197 |
| NumGap | NumGap | -0.539 | 0.324 | -1.189 | 0.109 | 0.583 | 5433 | 215 |
| ForAm | ForAm | 0.523 | 0.320 | -0.117 | 1.163 | 1.687 | 5449 | 231 |
SE: standard errors, Ci: confidence intervals, Cs: confidence intervals, OR: odds ratios, Stream: distance to stream, TotGap: total gap length along a step, ForAm: percentage of forest inside a buffer surrounding the step, PropInFor: proportion of the step in forest habitat, NumGap: number of gaps along the step, MeanGap: mean gap size, Pasture: proportion of the gap that takes place inside pasture,
* Indicates an interaction between two variables.
Fig 2(a) Effect of total gap distance on the odds of the green hermit hummingbird choosing a given step, as calculated from the top step selection function model provided in Table 2. (b) Large gaps in tropical forest are unlikely to be crossed.
Final models predicting the individual-specific coefficients for total gap length and distance to stream from the step selection function (SSF) models.
None of the explanatory variables (forest amount, connectivity and sex of the bird) were able to explain the variability observed in the selection coefficients for stream distance, while only connectivity affected the selection coefficients for total gap length.
| SSF variable | Variable | Coefficient | SE | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.01 | 0.008 | 0.0925 | |
| Connectivity | -0.00052 | 0.00010 | 0.0001 | |
| Intercept | -0.017 | 0.003 | <0.0001 |