Pollinators visit related plant species across 29 plant–pollinator networks
Article first published online: 10 MAY 2014
© 2014 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Ecology and Evolution
Volume 4, Issue 12, pages 2303–2315, June 2014
How to Cite
Ecology and Evolution 2014; 4(12):2303–2315
- Issue published online: 17 JUN 2014
- Article first published online: 10 MAY 2014
- Manuscript Accepted: 9 MAR 2014
- Manuscript Revised: 19 DEC 2013
- Manuscript Received: 2 AUG 2013
- linkage rules;
- phylogenetic community ecology;
- phylogenetic signal;
- plant–pollinator networks
Understanding the evolution of specialization in host plant use by pollinators is often complicated by variability in the ecological context of specialization. Flowering communities offer their pollinators varying numbers and proportions of floral resources, and the uniformity observed in these floral resources is, to some degree, due to shared ancestry. Here, we find that pollinators visit related plant species more so than expected by chance throughout 29 plant–pollinator networks of varying sizes, with “clade specialization” increasing with community size. As predicted, less versatile pollinators showed more clade specialization overall. We then asked whether this clade specialization varied with the ratio of pollinator species to plant species such that pollinators were changing their behavior when there was increased competition (and presumably a forced narrowing of the realized niche) by examining pollinators that were present in at least three of the networks. Surprisingly, we found little evidence that variation in clade specialization is caused by pollinator species changing their behavior in different community contexts, suggesting that clade specialization is observed when pollinators are either restricted in their floral choices due to morphological constraints or innate preferences. The resulting pollinator sharing between closely related plant species could result in selection for greater pollinator specialization.