Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorKing, Caroline
dc.contributor.authorBallantyne, Gavin Andrew
dc.contributor.authorWillmer, Patricia Gillian
dc.date.accessioned2014-08-31T23:01:28Z
dc.date.available2014-08-31T23:01:28Z
dc.date.issued2013-09
dc.identifier63457716
dc.identifier2a8fcf8a-def5-4018-9c84-cca8af545c23
dc.identifier84883360049
dc.identifier.citationKing , 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.12074en
dc.identifier.issn2041-210X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/5299
dc.descriptionFunding: NERC studentship (CK - NE/H527291/1), St Andrews Scholarship (GB)en
dc.description.abstractSummary 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.
dc.format.extent8
dc.format.extent348084
dc.format.extent340460
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofMethods in Ecology and Evolutionen
dc.subjectFlower visitoren
dc.subjectNetworken
dc.subjectPollen depositionen
dc.subjectPollination syndromesen
dc.subjectPollinatoren
dc.subjectSpecialization/generalizationen
dc.subjectQH301 Biologyen
dc.subject.lccQH301en
dc.titleWhy flower visitation is a poor proxy for pollination : measuring single-visit pollen deposition, with implications for pollination networks and conservationen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Biologyen
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/2041-210X.12074
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.date.embargoedUntil2014-09-01


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record