Open Access
Issue
Published:
21 May 2021
The flowerpiercers interactions with a community of high Andean plants
(
),
Luis Alejandro Arias-Sosa1(
),
Download citation
561
Views
21
Downloads
2
Crossref
2
WoS
2
Scopus
0
CSCD
Flowerpiercers (Diglossa) are traditionally considered as "parasites" of the pollination processes, as they can access the nectar without entering in contact with the reproductive structures of the plants. Nevertheless, the effect of flowerpiercers seems to vary according to their behavior and the flower's traits. So, in this work, we aimed to explore the floral characteristics that may determine the susceptibility to robbing and pollen transport by flowerpiercers. Also, we identified the potential types of interactions and studied interaction network properties.
We collected the information of 16 ornithophilic plants regarding their floral traits and robbing frequency. Also, we captured 4 species of flowerpiercers and evaluated pollen transport (frequency and loads). We tested the correlation between floral traits, robbing frequency, and pollen transportation. Later, we used these variables in a cluster and principal component analyses to identify the potential types of interactions. Finally, we analyzed and compared the structure of the plants-flowerpiercers interaction network.
Nectar production significantly influenced both nectar robbing and pollen transportation. While the corolla length was only correlated to the robbing susceptibility. Also, we found that particular flowerpiercers species transported higher loads of some plant pollen, which can be related to the differences in behavior and morphometric traits. We proposed the classification of five different types of plant-flowerpiercer interactions, that showed different potential mutualist or antagonist relations based on the affectation of nectar robbing and the service of pollen transportation. The interaction networks consisted of 49 links, with 2.4 links per species, and presented indicators of a medium to high resilience, stability, and resistance (nestedness, connectance, and robustness). Also, the network presented medium to low specialization and substantial niche overlap.
The ecological role of the flowerpiercers goes beyond its classic assignation as "parasites" as they can actively transport pollen of several Andean plants, affecting its evolutionary history and the stability of the systems.
menu
The flowerpiercers interactions with a community of high Andean plants
(
), Luis Alejandro Arias-Sosa1(
),
Abstract
Flowerpiercers (Diglossa) are traditionally considered as "parasites" of the pollination processes, as they can access the nectar without entering in contact with the reproductive structures of the plants. Nevertheless, the effect of flowerpiercers seems to vary according to their behavior and the flower's traits. So, in this work, we aimed to explore the floral characteristics that may determine the susceptibility to robbing and pollen transport by flowerpiercers. Also, we identified the potential types of interactions and studied interaction network properties.
We collected the information of 16 ornithophilic plants regarding their floral traits and robbing frequency. Also, we captured 4 species of flowerpiercers and evaluated pollen transport (frequency and loads). We tested the correlation between floral traits, robbing frequency, and pollen transportation. Later, we used these variables in a cluster and principal component analyses to identify the potential types of interactions. Finally, we analyzed and compared the structure of the plants-flowerpiercers interaction network.
Nectar production significantly influenced both nectar robbing and pollen transportation. While the corolla length was only correlated to the robbing susceptibility. Also, we found that particular flowerpiercers species transported higher loads of some plant pollen, which can be related to the differences in behavior and morphometric traits. We proposed the classification of five different types of plant-flowerpiercer interactions, that showed different potential mutualist or antagonist relations based on the affectation of nectar robbing and the service of pollen transportation. The interaction networks consisted of 49 links, with 2.4 links per species, and presented indicators of a medium to high resilience, stability, and resistance (nestedness, connectance, and robustness). Also, the network presented medium to low specialization and substantial niche overlap.
The ecological role of the flowerpiercers goes beyond its classic assignation as "parasites" as they can actively transport pollen of several Andean plants, affecting its evolutionary history and the stability of the systems.
References(67)
Almeida-Neto M, Guimarães P, Guimarães PR, Loyola RD, Ulrich W. A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos. 2008;117: 1227–39.
Ballantyne G, Baldock KCR, Willmer PG. Constructing more informative plant-pollinator networks: visitation and pollen deposition networks in a heathland plant community. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2015;282: 20151130.
Baumgartner MT. Connectance and nestedness as stabilizing factors in response to pulse disturbances in adaptive antagonistic networks. J Theor Biol. 2020;486: 110073.
Campbell C, Yang S, Albert R, Shea K. A network model for plant-pollinator community assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108: 197–202.
Cantor M, Pires MM, Marquitti FMD, Raimundo RLG, Sebastián-González E, Coltri PP, et al. Nestedness across biological scales. PLoS ONE. 2017;12: e0171691.
Castro S, Silveira P, Navarro L. Floral traits variation, legitimate pollination, and nectar robbing in Polygala vayredae (Polygalaceae). Ecol Res. 2009;24: 47–55.
Chapman CA, Wrangham R, Chapman LJ. Indices of habitat-wide fruit abundance in tropical forest. Biotropica. 1994;26: 160–71.
Cronk Q, Ojeda I. Bird-pollinated flowers in an evolutionary and molecular context. J Exp Bot. 2008;59: 715–27.
Cuevas E, Rosas-Guerrero V. Spatio-temporal variation of nectar robbing in Salvia gesneriflora and its effects on nectar production and legitimate visitors. Plant Biol. 2016;18: 9–14.
Dellinger AS, Penneys DS, Staedler YM, Fragner L, Weckwerth W, Schönenberger J. A specialized bird pollination system with a bellows mechanism for pollen transfer and staminal food body rewards. Curr Biol. 2014;24: 1615–9.
Dormann CF, Gruber B, Fründ J. Introducing the bipartite package: analysing ecological networks. R News. 2008;8: 8–11.
Dormann CF, Fründ J, Blüthgen N, Gruber B. Indices, graphs and null models: analyzing bipartite ecological networks. Open Ecol J. 2009;2: 7–24.
Fleming TH, Muchhala N. Nectar-feeding bird and bat niches in two worlds: pantropical comparisons of vertebrate pollination systems. J Biogeogr. 2008;35: 764–80.
Gonzalez O, Loiselle BA. Species interactions in an Andean bird-flowering plant network: phenology is more important than abundance or morphology. PeerJ. 2016;4: e2789.
Graves GR. Pollination of a Tristerix mistletoe (Loranthaceae) by Diglossa (Aves, Thraupidae). Biotropica. 1982;14: 316–7.
Gresty CEA, Clare E, Devey DS, Cowan RS, Csiba L, Malakasi P, et al. Flower preferences and pollen transport networks for cavity-nesting solitary bees: implications for the design of agri-environment schemes. Ecol Evol. 2018;8: 7574–87.
Hazlehurst JA, Karubian JO. Nectar robbing impacts pollinator behavior but not plant reproduction. Oikos. 2016;125: 1668–76.
Hazlehurst JA, Karubian JO. Impacts of nectar robbing on the foraging ecology of a territorial hummingbird. Behav Processes. 2018;149: 27–34.
Hu L, Dong Y, Sun S. Relative species abundance successfully predicts nestedness and interaction frequency of monthly pollination networks in an alpine meadow. PLoS ONE. 2019;14: e0224316.
Irwin RE, Brody AK. Nectar robbing in Ipomopsis aggregata: effects on pollinator behavior and plant fitness. Oecologia. 1998;116: 519–27.
Irwin RE, Bronstein JL, Manson JS, Richardson L. Nectar robbing: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2010;41: 271–92.
Johnson SD. The pollination niche and its role in the diversification and maintenance of the southern African flora. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2010;365: 499–516.
Kearns CA, Inouye DW, Waser NM. Endangered mutualisms: the conservation of plant-pollinator interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1998;29: 83–112.
Kuhnen VV, Romero GQ, Linhares AX, Vizentin-Bugoni J, Porto EAC, Setz EZF. Diet overlap and spatial segregation between two neotropical marsupials revealed by multiple analytical approaches. PLoS ONE. 2017;12: e0181188.
Lara C, Ornelas J. Preferential nectar robbing of flowers with long corollas: experimental studies of two hummingbird species visiting three plant species. Oecologia. 2001;128: 263–73.
Maruyama PK, Vizentin-Bugoni J, Dalsgaard B, Sazima I, Sazima M. Nectar robbery by a hermit hummingbird: association to floral phenotype and its influence on flowers and network structure. Oecologia. 2015;178: 783–93.
Memmott J, Waser NM, Price MV. Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2004;271: 2605–11.
Montoya JM, Pimm SL, Solé RV. Ecological networks and their fragility. Nature. 2006;442: 259–64.
Navarro L. Pollination ecology of Anthyllis vulneraria subsp. vulgaris (Fabaceae): nectar robbers as pollinators. Am J Bot. 2000;87: 980–5.
Navarro L. Reproductive biology and effect of nectar robbing on fruit production in Macleania bullata (Ericaceae). Plant Ecol. 2001;152: 59–65.
Navarro L, Guitián P, Ayensa G. Pollination ecology of Disterigma stereophyllum (Ericaceae) in south-western Colombia. Plant Biol. 2008;10: 512–8.
Navarro L, Medel R. Relationship between floral tube length and nectar robbing in Duranta erecta L. (Verbenaceae). Biol J Linn Soc. 2009;96: 392–8.
Parada-Quintero M, Alarcón-Jiménez D, Rosero-Lasprilla L. Flowering phenology of ornithophilous species from the lower stratum in two High-Andean habitats in the Parque Natural Municipal Rancheria (Paipa-Boyacá-Colombia). Caldasia. 2012;34: 139–54.
Pelayo RC, Soriano PJ, Márquez NJ, Navarro L. Phenological patterns and pollination network structure in a Venezuelan páramo: a community-scale perspective on plant-animal interactions. Plant Ecol Divers. 2019;12: 607–18.
Popic TJ, Wardle GM, Davila YC. Flower-visitor networks only partially predict the function of pollen transport by bees. Austral Ecol. 2013;38: 76–86.
Roitman GG, Montaldo NH, Medan D. Pollination biology of Myrrhinium atropurpureum (Myrtaceae): sweet, fleshy petals attract frugivorous birds. Biotropica. 1997;29: 162–8.
Rojas-Nossa SV. Strategies of nectar extraction by flowerpiercers (Aves: Diglossa and Diglossopis) and their effects on the pollination of high Andean plants. Ornitol Colomb. 2007;5: 21–39.
Rojas-Nossa SV. Association between nectar robbing and floral characteristics in a montane community of the Colombian Andes. Ecosistemas. 2013;22: 107–12.
Roubik DW. The ecological impact of nectar-robbing bees and pollinating hummingbirds on a tropical shrub. Ecology. 1982;63: 354–60.
Saavedra S, Rohr RP, Olesen JM, Bascompte J. Nested species interactions promote feasibility over stability during the assembly of a pollinator community. Ecol Evol. 2016;6: 997–1007.
Schondube JE, del Rio CM. The flowerpiercers' hook: an experimental test of an evolutionary trade-off. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2003;270: 195–8.
Schondube JE, del Rio CM. Sugar and protein digestion in flowerpiercers and hummingbirds: a comparative test of adaptive convergence. J Comp Physiol B. 2004;174: 263–73.
Singh VK, Barman C, Tandon R. Nectar robbing positively influences the reproductive success of Tecomella undulata (Bignoniaceae). PLoS ONE. 2014;9: e102607.
Stewart AB, Sritongchuay T, Teartisup P, Kaewsomboon S, Bumrungsri S. Habitat and landscape factors influence pollinators in a tropical megacity, Bangkok. Thailand PeerJ. 2018;6: e5335.
Stiles FG. Geographical aspects of bird-flower coevolution, with particular reference to Central America. Ann Missouri Bot Gard. 1981;68: 323–51.
Stiles FG, Ayala AV, Girón M. Polinizacion de las flores de Brachyotum (Melastomataceae) por dos especies de Diglossa (Emberizidae). Caldasia. 1992;17: 47–54.
Traveset A, Olesen JM, Nogales M, Vargas P, Jaramillo P, Antolín E, et al. Bird-flower visitation networks in the Galápagos unveil a widespread interaction release. Nat Commun. 2015;6: 6376.
Tur C, Vigalondo B, Trøjelsgaard K, Olesen JM, Traveset A. Downscaling pollen-transport networks to the level of individuals. J Anim Ecol. 2014;83: 306–17.
Valverde S, Piñero J, Corominas-Murtra B, Montoya J, Joppa L, Solé R. The architecture of mutualistic networks as an evolutionary spandrel. Nat Ecol Evol. 2018;2: 94–9.
Willcox BK, Howlett BG, Robson AJ, Cutting B, Evans L, Jesson L, et al. Evaluating the taxa that provide shared pollination services across multiple crops and regions. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 13538.
Ye ZM, Jin XF, Wang QF, Yang CF, Inouye DW. Nectar replenishment maintains the neutral effects of nectar robbing on female reproductive success of Salvia przewalskii (Lamiaceae), a plant pollinated and robbed by bumble bees. Ann Bot. 2017;119: 1053–9.
Zhang YW, Yu Q, Zhao JM, Guo YH. Differential effects of nectar robbing by the same bumble-bee species on three sympatric Corydalis species with varied mating systems. Ann Bot. 2009;104: 33–9.
Zhu XF, Wan JP, Li QJ. Nectar robbers pollinate flowers with sexual organs hidden within corollas in distylous Primula secundiflora (Primulaceae). Biol Lett. 2010;6: 785–7.
Publication history
Copyright
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Professor Pablo Emilio Rodriguez Africano for his valuable contribution in the coordination of this research and the staff of the municipal natural park El Sinaí for its support in the data collection.
Rights and permissions
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
FEEDBACK 
TOP