4.6 Article

Consequences of invasion for pollen transfer and pollination revealed in a tropical island ecosystem

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 221, 期 1, 页码 142-154

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.15366

关键词

Apis mellifera; dry tropical forest; floral traits; Hawaii; heterospecific pollen; interspecific pollen transfer; invasive species; pollination network

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DBI-1523771, DEB 1241006, DEB 1452386]
  2. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1523771] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pollination is known to be sensitive to environmental change but we lack direct estimates of how quantity and quality of pollen transferred between plant species shifts along disturbance gradients. This limits our understanding of how species compositional change impacts pollen receipt per species and structure of pollen transfer networks. We constructed pollen transfer networks along a plant invasion gradient in the Hawaiian dry tropical forest ecosystem. Flowers and stigmas were collected from both native and introduced plants, pollen was identified and enumerated and floral traits were measured. We also characterized pollen loads carried by individuals of the dominant invasive pollinator, Apis mellifera. Species flowering in native-dominated sites were more tightly connected by pollen transfer than those in heavily invaded sites. Compositional turnover in the pollen loads of A. mellifera was correlated (70%) with turnover in the composition of pollen transfer networks. Floral traits predicted species roles within pollen transfer networks, but many of these differed qualitatively depending on whether plants were native or introduced. Our work indicates that pollen transfer networks change with invasion. Floral morphology and foraging behaviour of the introduced super-generalist pollinator are implicated as key in determining the roles introduced species play within native pollen transfer networks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据