Laura Moquet1, Lydiane Bruyère1, Benoit Pirard1, Anne-Laure Jacquemart1. 1. Genetics, Reproduction, and Populations research group, Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Croix du Sud 2, Box L7.05.14, B-1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Pollination performance may depend on the type of floral resource (pollen or nectar) foraged by visitors. In buzz-pollinated plant species, the poricidal anthers release pollen during active pollen collection that induces flower vibrations. These buzz-pollinated species generally do not produce nectar. Nevertheless, several Ericaceae are buzz-pollinated and produce nectar. We estimated the relative effectiveness of visitors according to the type of resource collected, nectar or pollen (buzzing). METHODS: We compared the relative performance of pollen removal, transport, and deposition (effectiveness) of the main insect visitors on four ericaceous species: three buzz-pollinated species with different pore sizes, Erica tetralix, Vaccinium myrtillus, and V. vitis-idaea; and one non-buzz-pollinated species, Calluna vulgaris. KEY RESULTS: Bumblebees were the main pollinators for the three buzz-pollinated species, whereas hoverflies were the main pollinators for the non-buzz-pollinated generalist C. vulgaris. For the studied plant species, we observed no difference in pollination effectiveness among bumblebee species. Buzzing bumblebees were the most effective visitors for pollination per flower visit for the two Vaccinium species, whereas nectar foragers were the most effective visitors for pollination of E. tetralix. In the case of Vaccinium myrtillus, nectar foragers contributed the most to pollination success because they were more abundant than pollen foragers. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that consideration of the resource collected by visitors and their behavior is necessary to compare their relative performance. The combination of visitation rate and effectiveness per visit reveals that nectar foragers make a substantial contribution to pollination of the buzz-pollinated ericaceous species.
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Pollination performance may depend on the type of floral resource (pollen or nectar) foraged by visitors. In buzz-pollinated plant species, the poricidal anthers release pollen during active pollen collection that induces flower vibrations. These buzz-pollinated species generally do not produce nectar. Nevertheless, several Ericaceae are buzz-pollinated and produce nectar. We estimated the relative effectiveness of visitors according to the type of resource collected, nectar or pollen (buzzing). METHODS: We compared the relative performance of pollen removal, transport, and deposition (effectiveness) of the main insect visitors on four ericaceous species: three buzz-pollinated species with different pore sizes, Erica tetralix, Vaccinium myrtillus, and V. vitis-idaea; and one non-buzz-pollinated species, Calluna vulgaris. KEY RESULTS: Bumblebees were the main pollinators for the three buzz-pollinated species, whereas hoverflies were the main pollinators for the non-buzz-pollinated generalist C. vulgaris. For the studied plant species, we observed no difference in pollination effectiveness among bumblebee species. Buzzing bumblebees were the most effective visitors for pollination per flower visit for the two Vaccinium species, whereas nectar foragers were the most effective visitors for pollination of E. tetralix. In the case of Vaccinium myrtillus, nectar foragers contributed the most to pollination success because they were more abundant than pollen foragers. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that consideration of the resource collected by visitors and their behavior is necessary to compare their relative performance. The combination of visitation rate and effectiveness per visit reveals that nectar foragers make a substantial contribution to pollination of the buzz-pollinated ericaceous species.
Authors: Siri L Olsen; Marianne Evju; Jens Åström; Jørn O Løkken; Sondre Dahle; Jonas L Andresen; Nina E Eide Journal: Ecol Evol Date: 2022-05-23 Impact factor: 3.167