Macroevolution of the plant–hummingbird pollination system

ABSTRACTPlant–hummingbird interactions are considered a classic example of coevolution, a process in which mutually dependent species influence each other's evolution. Plants depend on hummingbirds for pollination, whereas hummingbirds rely on nectar for food. As a step towards understanding coevolution, this review focuses on the macroevolutionary consequences of plant–hummingbird interactions, a relatively underexplored area in the current literature. We synthesize prior studies, illustrating the origins and dynamics of hummingbird pollination across different angiosperm clades previously pollinated by insects (mostly bees), bats, and passerine birds. In some cases, the crown age of hummingbirds pre‐dates the plants they pollinate. In other cases, plant groups transitioned to hummingbird pollination early in the establishment of this bird group in the Americas, with the build‐up of both diversities coinciding temporally, and hence suggesting co‐diversification. Determining what triggers shifts to and away from hummingbird pollination remains a major open challenge. The impact of hummingbirds on plant diversification is complex, with many tropical plant lineages experiencing increased diversification after acquiring flowers that attract hummingbirds, and others experiencing no change or even a decrease in diversification rates. This mixed evidence suggests that other extrinsic or intrinsic factors, such as local climate and isolation, are important covariables driving the diversification of plants adapted to hummingbird pollination. To guide future studies, we discuss the mechanisms and contexts under which hummingbirds, as a clade and as individual species (e.g. traits, foraging behaviour, degree of specialization), could influence plant evolution. We conclude by commenting on how macroevolutionary signals of the mutualism could relate to coevolution, highlighting the unbalanced focus on the plant side of the interaction, and advocating for the use of species‐level interaction data in macroevolutionary studies

Data standardization of plant-pollinator interactions

Background Animal pollination is an important ecosystem function and service, ensuring both the integrity of natural systems and human well-being. Although many knowledge shortfalls remain, some high-quality data sets on biological interactions are now available. The development and adoption of standards for biodiversity data and metadata has promoted great advances in biological data sharing and aggregation, supporting large-scale studies and science-based public policies. However, these standards are currently not suitable to fully support interaction data sharing. Results Here we present a vocabulary of terms and a data model for sharing plant–pollinator interactions data based on the Darwin Core standard. The vocabulary introduces 48 new terms targeting several aspects of plant–pollinator interactions and can be used to capture information from different approaches and scales. Additionally, we provide solutions for data serialization using RDF, XML, and DwC-Archives and recommendations of existing controlled vocabularies for some of the terms. Our contribution supports open access to standardized data on plant–pollinator interactions. Conclusions The adoption of the vocabulary would facilitate data sharing to support studies ranging from the spatial and temporal distribution of interactions to the taxonomic, phenological, functional, and phylogenetic aspects of plant–pollinator interactions. We expect to fill data and knowledge gaps, thus further enabling scientific research on the ecology and evolution of plant–pollinator communities, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, and the development of public policies. The proposed data model is flexible and can be adapted for sharing other types of interactions data by developing discipline-specific vocabularies of terms

Data standardization of plant-pollinator interactions

Background: Animal pollination is an important ecosystem function and service, ensuring both the integrity of natural systems and human well-being. Although many knowledge shortfalls remain, some high-quality data sets on biological interactions are now available. The development and adoption of standards for biodiversity data and metadata has promoted great advances in biological data sharing and aggregation, supporting large-scale studies and science-based public policies. However, these standards are currently not suitable to fully support interaction data sharing. Results: Here we present a vocabulary of terms and a data model for sharing plant–pollinator interactions data based on the Darwin Core standard. The vocabulary introduces 48 new terms targeting several aspects of plant–pollinator interactions and can be used to capture information from different approaches and scales. Additionally, we provide solutions for data serialization using RDF, XML, and DwC-Archives and recommendations of existing controlled vocabularies for some of the terms. Our contribution supports open access to standardized data on plant–pollinator interactions. Conclusions: The adoption of the vocabulary would facilitate data sharing to support studies ranging from the spatial and temporal distribution of interactions to the taxonomic, phenological, functional, and phylogenetic aspects of plant–pollinator interactions. We expect to fill data and knowledge gaps, thus further enabling scientific research on the ecology and evolution of plant–pollinator communities, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, and the development of public policies. The proposed data model is flexible and can be adapted for sharing other types of interactions data by developing discipline-specific vocabularies of terms.Fil: Salim, José A. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Saraiva, Antonio M.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Zermoglio, Paula Florencia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Centro Cientifico Tecnologico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones En Recursos Naturales, Agroecologia y Desarrollo Rural. - Universidad Nacional de Rio Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones En Recursos Naturales, Agroecologia y Desarrollo Rural.; ArgentinaFil: Agostini, Kayna. Universidade Federal do São Carlos; BrasilFil: Wolowski, Marina. Universidade Federal de Alfenas; BrasilFil: Drucker, Debora P.. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria (embrapa);Fil: Soares, Filipi M.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Bergamo, Pedro J.. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Varassin, Isabela G.. Universidade Federal do Paraná; BrasilFil: Freitas, Leandro. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Maués, Márcia M.. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria (embrapa);Fil: Rech, Andre R.. Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri; BrasilFil: Veiga, Allan K.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Acosta, Andre L.. Instituto Tecnológico Vale; BrasilFil: Araujo, Andréa C. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Nogueira, Anselmo. Universidad Federal do Abc; BrasilFil: Blochtein, Betina. Pontificia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul; BrasilFil: Freitas, Breno M.. Universidade Estadual do Ceará; BrasilFil: Albertini, Bruno C.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Maia Silva, Camila. Universidade Federal Rural Do Semi Arido; BrasilFil: Nunes, Carlos E. P.. University of Stirling; BrasilFil: Pires, Carmen S. S.. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria (embrapa);Fil: Dos Santos, Charles F.. Pontificia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul; BrasilFil: Queiroz, Elisa P.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Cartolano, Etienne A.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: de Oliveira, Favízia F. Universidade Federal da Bahia; BrasilFil: Amorim, Felipe W.. Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho; BrasilFil: Fontúrbel, Francisco E.. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso; ChileFil: da Silva, Gleycon V.. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia; BrasilFil: Consolaro, Hélder. Universidade Federal de Catalão; Brasi

Data standardization of plant–pollinator interactions

Background: Animal pollination is an important ecosystem function and service, ensuring both the integrity of natural systems and human well-being. Although many knowledge shortfalls remain, some high-quality data sets on biological interactions are now available. The development and adoption of standards for biodiversity data and metadata has promoted great advances in biological data sharing and aggregation, supporting large-scale studies and science-based public policies. However, these standards are currently not suitable to fully support interaction data sharing. Results: Here we present a vocabulary of terms and a data model for sharing plant–pollinator interactions data based on the Darwin Core standard. The vocabulary introduces 48 new terms targeting several aspects of plant–pollinator interactions and can be used to capture information from different approaches and scales. Additionally, we provide solutions for data serialization using RDF, XML, and DwC-Archives and recommendations of existing controlled vocabularies for some of the terms. Our contribution supports open access to standardized data on plant–pollinator interactions. Conclusions: The adoption of the vocabulary would facilitate data sharing to support studies ranging from the spatial and temporal distribution of interactions to the taxonomic, phenological, functional, and phylogenetic aspects of plant–pollinator interactions. We expect to fill data and knowledge gaps, thus further enabling scientific research on the ecology and evolution of plant–pollinator communities, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, and the development of public policies. The proposed data model is flexible and can be adapted for sharing other types of interactions data by developing discipline-specific vocabularies of termsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

ATLANTIC EPIPHYTES: a data set of vascular and non-vascular epiphyte plants and lichens from the Atlantic Forest

Epiphytes are hyper-diverse and one of the frequently undervalued life forms in plant surveys and biodiversity inventories. Epiphytes of the Atlantic Forest, one of the most endangered ecosystems in the world, have high endemism and radiated recently in the Pliocene. We aimed to (1) compile an extensive Atlantic Forest data set on vascular, non-vascular plants (including hemiepiphytes), and lichen epiphyte species occurrence and abundance; (2) describe the epiphyte distribution in the Atlantic Forest, in order to indicate future sampling efforts. Our work presents the first epiphyte data set with information on abundance and occurrence of epiphyte phorophyte species. All data compiled here come from three main sources provided by the authors: published sources (comprising peer-reviewed articles, books, and theses), unpublished data, and herbarium data. We compiled a data set composed of 2,095 species, from 89,270 holo/hemiepiphyte records, in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay, recorded from 1824 to early 2018. Most of the records were from qualitative data (occurrence only, 88%), well distributed throughout the Atlantic Forest. For quantitative records, the most common sampling method was individual trees (71%), followed by plot sampling (19%), and transect sampling (10%). Angiosperms (81%) were the most frequently registered group, and Bromeliaceae and Orchidaceae were the families with the greatest number of records (27,272 and 21,945, respectively). Ferns and Lycophytes presented fewer records than Angiosperms, and Polypodiaceae were the most recorded family, and more concentrated in the Southern and Southeastern regions. Data on non-vascular plants and lichens were scarce, with a few disjunct records concentrated in the Northeastern region of the Atlantic Forest. For all non-vascular plant records, Lejeuneaceae, a family of liverworts, was the most recorded family. We hope that our effort to organize scattered epiphyte data help advance the knowledge of epiphyte ecology, as well as our understanding of macroecological and biogeographical patterns in the Atlantic Forest. No copyright restrictions are associated with the data set. Please cite this Ecology Data Paper if the data are used in publication and teaching events. © 2019 The Authors. Ecology © 2019 The Ecological Society of Americ

Abundance and phenology drive plant–pollinator network responses to restoration in the Southern Atlantic rainforest in Brazil

Ecological restoration has been increasingly considering biotic interactions. Different restoration strategies usually rely on different composition and abundance of plants with potential impact on the establishment of plant–pollinator interactions. We evaluated the restoration of plant–pollinator interaction networks in young restoration areas in the South Atlantic rainforest, Brazil. We assessed the relative contribution of two restoration strategies (natural regeneration vs. reforestation), geographic distance, plant composition, pollinator composition, abundance of flowers and insects, and plant–pollinator temporal overlap, that is, phenological coupling, to predict the establishment of pairwise interactions. We expected that restoration strategies would indirectly affect the patterns (identity and frequency) of pairwise interactions due to their influence on the processes driving interactions. We sampled monthly pollinators and the plants they visited on six reforestation sites and six natural regeneration sites during 20 months. We surveyed flower abundance in summer. We analyzed the relative contribution of each factor to predict the identity and frequency of pairwise interactions using structural equation modeling. Contrary to expectations, the restoration strategy did not predict interactions, probably because the sites under restoration were surrounded by natural and conserved landscapes. Since we found no effect of restoration strategies on plant composition, abundance, and phenological coupling, the restoration strategy did not predict interactions. Phenological coupling explained more than half of the interaction patterns, representing the best predictor of interactions followed by abundance and plant composition. Therefore, these predictors should be considered to select plant species in restoration projects that encompass interactions and pollination services.Fil: de Souza, Jana M. T.. Universidade Federal do Paraná; BrasilFil: Vazquez, Diego P.. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas. Provincia de Mendoza. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas; ArgentinaFil: Varassin, Isabela G.. Universidade Federal do Paraná; Brasi

Shifts From Specialized To Generalized Pollination Systems In Miconieae (melastomataceae) And Their Relation With Anther Morphology And Seed Number.

Most species in Melastomataceae have poricidal anthers related to specialized bee buzz-pollination, while some have anthers with large openings associated to non-bee pollination systems. We tracked the evolution of anther morphology and seed number on the Miconieae phylogenetic tree to understand the evolutionary shifts on such pollination systems. Anther morphometric data and seed number were recorded for 54 taxa. Pollinators (bees, flies, wasps) were recorded for 20 available species. Ancestral state reconstruction was made using Maximum Likelihood from nrITS sequences. We used phylogenetic eigenvector regressions to estimate phylogenetic signal and the adaptive component for these traits. Species pollinated by bees or bees and wasps tend to have smaller pores and fruits with more seeds. Species pollinated by flies or flies and bees and/or wasps tend to have larger pores and fruits with less seeds. Independent evolution occurred three times for anthers with large pores and twice for fruits with few seeds. We detected a phylogenetic signal in both traits, and negative correlated evolution between them. In actinomorphic small-flowered Miconieae, changes in anther morphology can be related to generalization in the pollination system incorporating flies and wasps as pollinators and lessening the importance of buzzing bees in such process. Differences in pollen removal and deposition may explain differences in anther morphology and seed number in Miconieae. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved