Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:25:25.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visiting insect behaviour and pollen transport for a generalist oak-savannah wildflower, Camassia quamash (Asparagaceae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2018

N.F. Rammell ,
S.D. Gillespie Open the ORCID record for S.D. Gillespie [Opens in a new window]  and
E. Elle
N.F. Rammell
Affiliation:
Evolutionary and Behavioural Ecology Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada
S.D. Gillespie
Affiliation:
Evolutionary and Behavioural Ecology Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada
E. Elle*
Affiliation:
Evolutionary and Behavioural Ecology Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada
*
1Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many studies have investigated plant-pollinator interactions using visit records of insects contacting floral reproductive organs. However, these studies may not reflect the effectiveness of visits, since factors such as visitor behaviour and the composition of pollen on their bodies may influence conspecific pollen transfer required for fertilisation in plants. Here we study how pollen transport to a generalist wildflower, Camassia quamash (Pursh) Greene (Asparagaceae), is influenced by the behaviour and body pollen of five functional visitor groups (Andrena Fabricius (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae)/Halictidae (Hymenoptera), Apis mellifera Linnaeus (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Bombus Latreille (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Osmia Panzer (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae), and Syrphidae (Diptera). We found that functional visitor groups differed in their behaviour (Bombus and Osmia were legitimate visitors, contacting both anthers and stigmas) and in the amount of conspecific pollen on their bodies (A. mellifera had the highest levels and Andrena/Halictidae the lowest). Conspecific pollen receipt by C. quamash stigmas was high (>80%), and best explained by visitor behaviour rather than the proportion of visitors with high amounts of conspecific body pollen. Our findings highlight the utility of pollen analyses for understanding pollinator effectiveness.

Type
Behaviour & Ecology
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 151 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 58 - 68
Copyright
© 2018 Entomological Society of Canada 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Subject editor: Christopher Cutler

References

Alarcón, R. 2010. Congruence between visitation and pollen-transport networks in a California plant–pollinator community. Oikos, 119: 35–44.Google Scholar
Armbruster, W., Edwards, M., and Debevec, E. 1994. Floral character displacement generates assemblage structure of Western Australian triggerplants (Stylidium). Ecology, 75: 315–329.Google Scholar
Ballantyne, G., Baldock, K., and Willmer, P. 2015. Constructing more informative plant–pollinator networks: visitation and pollen deposition networks in a heathland plant community. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282: 20151130.Google Scholar
Brosi, B. and Briggs, H. 2013. Single pollinator species losses reduce floral fidelity and plant reproductive function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110: 13044–13048.Google Scholar
Carbonari, V., Polatto, L., and Alves, J. 2009. Evaluation of the impact on Pyrostegia venusta (Bignoniaceae) flowers due to nectar robbery by Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Sociobiology, 54: 373–382.Google Scholar
Caruso, C. 2000. Competition for pollination influences selection on floral traits of Ipomopsis aggregata . Evolution, 54: 1546–1557.Google Scholar
Castro, S., Loureiro, J., Ferrero, V., Silveira, P., and Navarro, L. 2013. So many visitors and so few pollinators: variation in insect frequency and effectiveness governs the reproductive success of an endemic milkwort. Plant Ecology, 214: 1233–1245.Google Scholar
Chagnon, M., Gingras, J., and DeOliveira, D. 1993. Complementary aspects of strawberry pollination by honey and indigenous bees (Hymenoptera). Journal of Economic Entomology, 86: 416–420.Google Scholar
Chittka, L., Thomson, J., and Waser, N. 1999. Flower constancy, insect psychology, and plant evolution. Naturwissenschaften, 86: 361–377.Google Scholar
Engel, E. and Irwin, R. 2003. Linking pollinator visitation rate and pollen receipt. American Journal of Botany, 90: 1612–1618.Google Scholar
Fenster, C., Armbruster, W., Wilson, P., Dudash, M., and Thomson, J. 2004. Pollination syndromes and floral specialization. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35: 375–403.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M. and Venable, D. 1996. Evolution of inflorescence design: theory and data. Evolution, 50: 2165–2177.Google Scholar
Free, J. 1968. The behaviour of bees visiting runner beans (Phaseolus multiflorus). Journal of Applied Ecology, 5: 631–638.Google Scholar
Fuchs, M. 2001. Towards a recovery strategy for Garry oak and associated ecosystems in Canada: ecological assessment and literature review. Technical Report GBEI/EC-00-030. Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
Gielens, G., Gillespie, S., Neame, L., and Elle, E. 2014. Pollen limitation is uncommon in an endangered oak savannah ecosystem. Botany, 92: 743–748.Google Scholar
Gillespie, S., Bayley, J., and Elle, E. 2017. Native bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) pollinators vary in floral resource use across an invasion gradient. The Canadian Entomologist, 149: 204–213.Google Scholar
Goulson, D. 2003. Bumblebees: behaviour and ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Goulson, D. and Wright, N. 1998. Flower constancy in the hoverflies Episyrphus balteatus (Degeer) and Syrphus ribesii (L.) (Syrphidae). Behavioral Ecology, 9: 213–219.Google Scholar
Greenleaf, S., Williams, N., Winfree, R., and Kremen, C. 2007. Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia, 153: 589–596.Google Scholar
Herrera, C.M. 1987. Components of pollinator “quality”: comparative analysis of a diverse insect assemblage. Oikos, 50: 79–90.Google Scholar
Hoehn, P., Tscharntke, T., Tylianakis, J., and Steffan-Dewenter, I. 2008. Functional group diversity of bee pollinators increases crop yield. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 275: 2283–2291.Google Scholar
Irwin, R., Bronstein, J., Manson, J., and Richardson, L. 2010. Nectar robbing: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 41: 271–292.Google Scholar
Javorek, S., Mackenzie, K., and Vander-Kloet, S. 2002. Comparative pollination effectiveness among bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) on lowbush blueberry (Ericaceae: Vaccinium angustifolium). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 95: 345–351.Google Scholar
Kearns, C. and Inouye, D. 1993. Techniques for pollination biologists. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, United States of America.Google Scholar
Kearns, C. and Inouye, D. 1994. Fly pollination of Linum lewisii (Linaceae). American Journal of Botany, 81: 1091–1095.Google Scholar
King, C., Ballantyne, G., and Willmer, P. 2013. Why flower visitation is a poor proxy for pollination: measuring single-visit pollen deposition, with implications for pollination networks and conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4: 811–818.Google Scholar
Koch, L., Lunau, K., and Wester, P. 2017. To be on the safe site – ungroomed spots on the bee’s body and their importance for pollination. Public Library of Science One, 12: e0182522.Google Scholar
Larson, D., Royer, R., and Royer, M. 2006. Insect visitation and pollen deposition in an invaded prairie plant community. Biological Conservation, 130: 148–159.Google Scholar
Larsson, M. 2005. Higher pollinator effectiveness by specialist than generalist flower-visitors of unspecialized Knautia arvensis (Dipsacaceae). Oecologia, 146: 394–403.Google Scholar
Mayfield, M., Waser, N., and Price, M. 2001. Exploring the ‘most effective pollinator principle’ with complex flowers: bumblebees and Ipomopsis aggregata . Annals of Botany, 88: 591–596.Google Scholar
Michener, C.D., McGinley, R.J., and Danforth, B.N. 1994. The bee genera of North and Central America (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.Google Scholar
Neame, L., Griswold, T., and Elle, E. 2013. Pollinator nesting guilds respond differently to urban habitat fragmentation in an oak-savannah ecosystem. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 6: 57–66.Google Scholar
Ne’eman, G., Jürgens, A., Newstrom-Lloyd, L., Potts, S., and Dafni, A. 2010. A framework for comparing pollinator performance: effectiveness and efficiency. Biological Reviews, 85: 435–451.Google Scholar
Ollerton, J., Winfree, R., and Tarrant, S. 2011. How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos, 120: 321–326.Google Scholar
Parachnowitsch, A. and Elle, E. 2005. Insect visitation to wildflowers in the endangered Garry Oak, Quercus garryana, ecosystem of British Columbia. The Canadian Field-Naturalist, 119: 245–253.Google Scholar
Pojar, J. and Mackinnon, A. 1994. Plants of coastal British Columbia: including Washington, Oregon & Alaska. Lone Tree Publishing, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
Popic, T., Wardle, G., and Davila, Y. 2013. Flower-visitor networks only partially predict the function of pollen transport by bees. Austral Ecology, 38: 76–86.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2009. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Rader, R., Edwards, W., Westcott, D., Cunningham, S., and Howlett, B. 2011. Pollen transport differs among bees and flies in a human-modified landscape. Diversity and Distributions, 17: 519–529.Google Scholar
Rader, R., Howlett, B., Cunningham, S., Westcott, D., Newstrom-Lloyd, L., Walker, M., and Edwards, W. 2009. Alternative pollinator taxa are equally efficient but not as effective as the honeybee in a mass flowering crop. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46: 1080–1087.Google Scholar
Sahli, H. and Conner, J. 2007. Visitation, effectiveness, and efficiency of 15 genera of visitors to wild radish, Raphanus raphanistrum (Brassicaceae). American Journal of Botany, 94: 203–209.Google Scholar
Sakamoto, R., Morinaga, S., Ito, M., and Kawakubo, N. 2012. Fine-scale flower-visiting behavior revealed by using a high-speed camera. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 66: 669–674.Google Scholar
Schemske, D. and Horvitz, C. 1984. Variation among floral visitors in pollination ability: a precondition for mutualism specialization. Science, 225: 519–521.Google Scholar
Snow, A. and Roubik, D. 1987. Pollen deposition and removal by bees visiting two tree species in Panama. Biotropica, 19: 57–63.Google Scholar
Stephen, W.P., Bohart, G.E., and Torchio, P.F. 1969. The biology and external morphology of bees, with a synopsis of the genera of northwestern America. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, United States of America.Google Scholar
Vockeroth, J.R. and Thompson, F.C. 1987. Syrphidae. In Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Volume 2. Edited by J.F. McAlpine. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Waser, N.M. 1986. Flower constancy: definition, cause, and measurement. The American Naturalist, 127: 593–603.Google Scholar
Westrich, P. 1996. Habitat requirements of central European bees and the problems of partial habitats. Linnean Society Symposium Series, 18: 1–16.Google Scholar
Wray, J.C. and Elle, E. 2016. Pollen preferences of two species of Andrena in British Columbia’s oak-savannah ecosystem. Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia, 113: 39–48.Google Scholar
Yang, C., Gituru, R., and Guo, Y. 2007. Reproductive isolation of two sympatric louseworts, Pedicularis rhinanthoides and Pedicularis longiflora (Orobanchaceae): how does the same pollinator type avoid interspecific pollen transfer? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 90: 37–48.Google Scholar