Skip to content

Research at St Andrews

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Author(s)

Caroline King, Gavin Andrew Ballantyne, Patricia Gillian Willmer

School/Research organisations

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.
Close

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)811-818
Number of pages8
JournalMethods in Ecology and Evolution
Volume4
Issue number9
Early online date16 Jul 2013
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2013

    Research areas

  • Flower visitor, Network, Pollen deposition, Pollination syndromes, Pollinator, Specialization/generalization

Discover related content
Find related publications, people, projects and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations

Related by author

  1. Estimating pollinator performance of visitors to the self-incompatible crop-plant Brassica rapa by single visit deposition and pollen germination: a comparison of methods

    Patchett, R. B., Ballantyne, G. A. & Willmer, P. G., 1 Dec 2017, In: Journal of Pollination Ecology. 21, 3, p. 78-85 8 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  2. A dual function for 4-methoxybenzaldehyde in Petasites fragrans? Pollinator-attractant and ant-repellent

    Pattrick, J. G., Shepherd, T., Hoppitt, W., Plowman, N. S. & Willmer, P., Oct 2017, In: Arthropod-Plant Interactions. 11, 5, p. 623-627 5 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  3. Pollinator importance networks illustrate the crucial value of bees in a highly speciose plant community

    Ballantyne, G., Baldock, K. C. R., Rendell, L. & Willmer, P. G., 21 Aug 2017, In: Scientific Reports. 7, 13 p., 8389.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  4. Insights from measuring pollen deposition: quantifying the pre-eminence of bees as flower visitors and effective pollinators

    Willmer, P. G., Cunnold, H. E. & Ballantyne, G. A., Jun 2017, In: Arthropod-Plant Interactions. 11, 3, p. 411-425 15 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  5. Constructing more informative plant-pollinator networks: visitation and pollen deposition networks in a heathland plant community

    Ballantyne, G. A., Baldock, K. C. R. & Willmer, P. G., 2 Sep 2015, In: Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 282, 9 p., 20151130.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Related by journal

  1. Methods in Ecology and Evolution (Journal)

    Michael Blair Morrissey (Member of editorial board)

    1 Jan 20171 Jan 2020

    Activity: Publication peer-review and editorial work typesEditor of research journal

  2. Methods in Ecology and Evolution (Journal)

    Theoni Photopoulou (Editor)

    2017 → …

    Activity: Publication peer-review and editorial work typesEditor of research journal

  3. Methods in Ecology and Evolution (Journal)

    Oscar Eduardo Gaggiotti (Member of editorial board)

    1 Sep 2014 → …

    Activity: Publication peer-review and editorial work typesEditor of research journal

Related by journal

  1. A field and video-annotation guide for baited remote underwater stereo-video surveys of demersal fish assemblages

    Langlois, T., Goetze, J., Bond, T., Monk, J., Abesamis, R. A., Asher, J., Barrett, N., Bernard, A. T. F., Bouchet, P. J., Birt, M. J., Cappo, M., Currey-Randall, L. M., Driessen, D., Fairclough, D. V., Fullwood, L. A. F., Gibbons, B. A., Harasti, D., Heupel, M. R., Hicks, J., Holmes, T. H. & 21 others, Huveneers, C., Ierodiaconou, D., Jordan, A., Knott, N. A., Lindfield, S., Malcolm, H. A., McLean, D., Meekan, M., Miller, D., Mitchell, P. J., Newman, S. J., Radford, B., Rolim, F. A., Saunders, B. J., Stowar, M., Smith, A. N. H., Travers, M. J., Wakefield, C. B., Whitmarsh, S. K., Williams, J. & Harvey, E. S., Nov 2020, In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 11, 11, p. 1401-1409

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  2. A spatial capture-recapture model to estimate call rate and population density from passive acoustic surveys

    Stevenson, B. C., van Dam-Bates, P., Young, C. K. Y. & Measey, J., 29 Oct 2020, In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution. Accepted Articles

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  3. Fast, flexible alternatives to regular grid designs for spatial capture-recapture

    Durbach, I. N., Borchers, D. L., Sutherland, C. & Sharma, K., 9 Nov 2020, In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution. Early View

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  4. Listening and watching: do camera traps or acoustic sensors more efficiently detect wild chimpanzees in an open habitat?

    Crunchant, A-S., Borchers, D., Kühl, H. & Piel, A., Apr 2020, In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 11, 4, p. 542-552

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  5. Revisiting advice on the analysis of count data

    Morrissey, M. B. & Ruxton, G. D., 26 Jul 2020, In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution. Early View, 8 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

ID: 63457716

Top