7 research outputs found

    FLORAL SCENT IN A WHOLE-PLANT CONTEXT Floral volatiles controlling ant behaviour

    Get PDF
    Summary 1. Ants show complex interactions with plants, both facultative and mutualistic, ranging from grazers through seed predators and dispersers to herders of some herbivores and guards against others. But ants are rarely pollinators, and their visits to flowers may be detrimental to plant fitness. 2. Plants therefore have various strategies to control ant distributions, and restrict them to foliage rather than flowers. These 'filters' may involve physical barriers on or around flowers, or 'decoys and bribes' sited on the foliage (usually extrafloral nectaries -EFNs). Alternatively, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are used as signals to control ant behaviour, attracting ants to leaves and ⁄ or deterring them from functional flowers. Some of the past evidence that flowers repel ants by VOCs has been equivocal and we describe the shortcomings of some experimental approaches, which involve behavioural tests in artificial conditions. 3. We review our previous study of myrmecophytic acacias, which used in situ experiments to show that volatiles derived from pollen can specifically and transiently deter ants during dehiscence, the effects being stronger in ant-guarded species and more effective on resident ants, both in African and Neotropical species. In these plants, repellence involves at least some volatiles that are known components of ant alarm pheromones, but are not repellent to beneficial bee visitors. 4. We also present new evidence of ant repellence by VOCs in temperate flowers, which is usually pollen-based and active on common European ants. We use these data to indicate that across a wide range of plants there is an apparent trade-off in ant-controlling filter strategies between the use of defensive floral volatiles and the alternatives of decoying EFNs or physical barriers

    Why flower visitation is a poor proxy for pollination: measuring single-visit pollen deposition, with implications for pollination networks and conservation

    Get PDF
    SummaryThe relative importance of specialized and generalized plant-pollinator relationships is contentious, yet analyses usually avoid direct measures of pollinator quality (effectiveness), citing difficulties in collecting such data in the field and so relying on visitation data alone.We demonstrate that single-visit deposition (SVD) of pollen on virgin stigmas is a practical measure of pollinator effectiveness, using 13 temperate and tropical plant species. For each flower the most effective pollinator measured from SVD was as predicted from its pollination syndrome based on traditional advertisement and reward traits. Overall, c. 40% of visitors were not effective pollinators (range 0–78% for different flowers); thus, flower–pollinator relationships are substantially more specialized than visitation alone can reveal.Analyses at species level are crucial, as significant variation in SVD occurred within both higher-level taxonomic groups (genus, family) and within functional groups.Other measures sometimes used to distinguish visitors from pollinators (visit duration, frequency, or feeding behaviour in flowers) did not prove to be suitable proxies.Distinguishing between ‘pollinators’ and ‘visitors’ is therefore crucial, and true ‘pollination networks’ should include SVD to reveal pollinator effectiveness (PE). Generating such networks, now underway, could avoid potential misinterpretations of the conservation values of flower visitors, and of possible extinction threats as modelled in existing networks

    Data from: Constructing more informative plant-pollinator networks: visitation and pollen deposition networks in a heathland plant community

    No full text
    Interaction networks are widely used as tools to understand plant–pollinator communities, and to examine potential threats to plant diversity and food security if the ecosystem service provided by pollinating animals declines. However, most networks to date are based on recording visits to flowers, rather than recording clearly defined effective pollination events. Here we provide the first networks that explicitly incorporate measures of pollinator effectiveness (PE) from pollen deposition on stigmas per visit, and pollinator importance (PI) as the product of PE and visit frequency. These more informative networks, here produced for a low diversity heathland habitat, reveal that plant–pollinator interactions are more specialized than shown in most previous studies. At the studied site, the specialization index Embedded Image was lower for the visitation network than the PE network, which was in turn lower than Embedded Image for the PI network. Our study shows that collecting PE data is feasible for community-level studies in low diversity communities and that including information about PE can change the structure of interaction networks. This could have important consequences for our understanding of threats to pollination systems.,Ballantyne et al 2015 visitation and pollen deposition data file
    corecore