St Andrews Research Repository

St Andrews University Home
View Item 
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  • Login
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

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

Thumbnail
View/Open
king2013methodecolevol811.pdf (339.9Kb)
king2013methodecolevol811_supplementary_tables.pdf (332.4Kb)
Date
09/2013
Author
King, Caroline
Ballantyne, Gavin Andrew
Willmer, Patricia Gillian
Keywords
Flower visitor
Network
Pollen deposition
Pollination syndromes
Pollinator
Specialization/generalization
QH301 Biology
Metadata
Show full item record
Altmetrics Handle Statistics
Altmetrics DOI Statistics
Abstract
Summary The 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.
Citation
King , C , Ballantyne , G A & Willmer , P G 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 , vol. 4 , no. 9 , pp. 811-818 . https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12074
Publication
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Status
Peer reviewed
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12074
ISSN
2041-210X
Type
Journal article
Rights
© 2013 The Authors. Methods in Ecology and Evolution © 2013 British Ecological Society. This is the accepted version of the following article: Why flower visitation is a poor proxy for pollination: measuring single-visit pollen deposition, with implications for pollination networks and conservation King, C., Ballantyne, G. A. & Willmer, P. G. Sep 2013 In : Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 4, 9, p. 811-818, which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.12074/pdf. In addition, authors may also transmit, print and share copies with colleagues, provided that there is no systematic distribution of the submitted version, e.g. posting on a listserve, network or automated delivery.
 
© 2013 The Authors. Methods in Ecology and Evolution © 2013 British Ecological Society. This is the accepted version of the following article: Why flower visitation is a poor proxy for pollination: measuring single-visit pollen deposition, with implications for pollination networks and conservation King, C., Ballantyne, G. A. & Willmer, P. G. Sep 2013 In : Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 4, 9, p. 811-818, which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.12074/pdf. In addition, authors may also transmit, print and share copies with colleagues, provided that there is no systematic distribution of the submitted version, e.g. posting on a listserve, network or automated delivery.
Description
Funding: NERC studentship (CK - NE/H527291/1), St Andrews Scholarship (GB)
Collections
  • University of St Andrews Research
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10023/5299

Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Advanced Search

Browse

All of RepositoryCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateNamesTitlesSubjectsClassificationTypeFunderThis CollectionBy Issue DateNamesTitlesSubjectsClassificationTypeFunder

My Account

Login

Open Access

To find out how you can benefit from open access to research, see our library web pages and Open Access blog. For open access help contact: openaccess@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Accessibility

Read our Accessibility statement.

How to submit research papers

The full text of research papers can be submitted to the repository via Pure, the University's research information system. For help see our guide: How to deposit in Pure.

Electronic thesis deposit

Help with deposit.

Repository help

For repository help contact: Digital-Repository@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Give Feedback

Cookie policy

This site may use cookies. Please see Terms and Conditions.

Usage statistics

COUNTER-compliant statistics on downloads from the repository are available from the IRUS-UK Service. Contact us for information.

© University of St Andrews Library

University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013532.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter