Skip Navigation


AOBPreview originally published online on February 18, 2009
Annals of Botany 2009 103(9):1459-1469; doi:10.1093/aob/mcp027
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
103/9/1459    most recent
mcp027v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in Ann Bot
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stang, M.
Right arrow Articles by van der Meijden, E.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stang, M.
Right arrow Articles by van der Meijden, E.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Stang, M.
Right arrow Articles by van der Meijden, E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

This article appears in the following Annals of Botany issue: Special Issue: Plant-Pollinator Interactions [View the issue table of contents]

Size-specific interaction patterns and size matching in a plant–pollinator interaction web

Martina Stang1,*, Peter G. L. Klinkhamer1, Nickolas M. Waser2, Ingo Stang1 and Eddy van der Meijden1

1 University of Leiden, Institute of Biology Leiden, Section of Plant Ecology, PO Box 9516, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
2 The University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

* For correspondence. E-mail m.stang{at}biology.leidenuniv.nl

Received: 14 October 2008    Returned for revision: 6 November 2008    Accepted: 15 December 2008    Published electronically: 18 February 2009

Background and Aims: Many recent studies show that plant–pollinator interaction webs exhibit consistent structural features such as long-tailed distributions of the degree of generalization, nestedness of interactions and asymmetric interaction dependencies. Recognition of these shared features has led to a variety of mechanistic attempts at explanation. Here it is hypothesized that beside size thresholds and species abundances, the frequency distribution of sizes (nectar depths and proboscis lengths) will play a key role in determining observed interaction patterns.

Methods: To test the influence of size distributions, a new network parameter is introduced: the degree of size matching between nectar depth and proboscis length. The observed degree of size matching in a Spanish plant–pollinator web was compared with the expected degree based on joint probability distributions, integrating size thresholds and abundance, and taking the sampling method into account.

Key Results: Nectar depths and proboscis lengths both exhibited right-skewed frequency distributions across species and individuals. Species-based size matching was equally close for plants, independent of nectar depth, but differed significantly for pollinators of dissimilar proboscis length. The observed patterns were predicted well by a model considering size distributions across species. Observed size matching was closer when relative abundances of species were included, especially for flowers with openly accessible nectar and pollinators with long proboscises, but was predicted somewhat less successfully by the model that included abundances.

Conclusions: The results suggest that in addition to size thresholds and species abundances, size distributions are important for understanding interaction patterns in plant–pollinator webs. It is likely that the understanding will be improved further by characterizing for entire communities how nectar production of flowers and energetic requirements of pollinators covary with size, and how sampling methods influence the observed interaction patterns.

Key words: Plant–pollinator community, flower morphology, generalization, nectar, pollination network, body size, size matching, specialization


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in Ann Bot:

ContentSnapshots

Ann Bot 2009 103: i. [Extract] [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ScienceHome page
J. Ollerton and E. Coulthard
Evolution of Animal Pollination
Science, November 6, 2009; 326(5954): 808 - 809.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
R. J. Mitchell, R. J. Flanagan, B. J. Brown, N. M. Waser, and J. D. Karron
New frontiers in competition for pollination
Ann. Bot., June 1, 2009; 103(9): 1403 - 1413.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
R. J. Mitchell, R. E. Irwin, R. J. Flanagan, and J. D. Karron
Ecology and evolution of plant-pollinator interactions
Ann. Bot., June 1, 2009; 103(9): 1355 - 1363.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.