Serveur d'exploration sur le saule

Attention, ce site est en cours de développement !
Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts.
Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Are nectar-robbers mutualists or antagonists?

Identifieur interne : 001E29 ( Main/Corpus ); précédent : 001E28; suivant : 001E30

Are nectar-robbers mutualists or antagonists?

Auteurs : Sarah C. Richardson

Source :

RBID : pubmed:14767755

English descriptors

Abstract

As "exploiters" of plant-pollinator mutualisms, nectar-robbers remove rewards (nectar) without providing pollination services. Though one might expect nectar-robbing to be costly to plants, it may instead benefit plants by indirectly increasing pollen dispersal. I investigated the direct effects of nectar-robbing bees ( Xylocopa californica) on floral rewards and behaviors of pollinators visiting desert willow ( Chilopsis linearis) and indirect effects of robbing on the reproductive success of the plant. Nectar-robbers reduced nectar; while unrobbed and robbed flowers were equally likely to contain nectar, nectar volumes were smaller in robbed flowers with nectar. Apis mellifera (honeybees), ineffective pollinators in terms of pollen deposition, avoided robbed flowers. In contrast, Bombus sonorus (bumblebees), effective pollinators, did not avoid robbed flowers. While bumblebees tended to spend less time in robbed flowers, the time that they spent in flowers was not correlated with pollen deposition. Using powder mimicking pollen, I found that on some days, powder was dispersed farther or to more flowers from robbed flowers, indicating that robbing may sometimes benefit plants by increasing male reproductive success. Powder movement suggested that the effect of robbing on male reproductive success ranged from costly to beneficial. The outcome for flowers that were marked early each morning was a function of prevalence of robbing and abundances of effective pollinators, but not a function of spatial variability among trees in prevalence of robbing or the abundance of ineffective honeybees. Unlike powder dispersal, female reproductive success, measured by fruit set and the number of pollen tubes growing in styles, was not affected by robbing. Thus, robbers did not reduce plants' female reproductive success either directly by damaging flowers or indirectly by reducing pollen deposition by pollinators. Overall, this study indicates that nectar-robbers were not often costly to plants, and sometimes even benefited plants.

DOI: 10.1007/s00442-004-1504-8
PubMed: 14767755

Links to Exploration step

pubmed:14767755

Le document en format XML

<record>
<TEI>
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title xml:lang="en">Are nectar-robbers mutualists or antagonists?</title>
<author>
<name sortKey="Richardson, Sarah C" sort="Richardson, Sarah C" uniqKey="Richardson S" first="Sarah C" last="Richardson">Sarah C. Richardson</name>
<affiliation>
<nlm:affiliation>Indiana University, Department of Biology, Jordan Hall 015, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. srichard@bio.indiana.edu</nlm:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno>
<date when="2004">2004</date>
<idno type="RBID">pubmed:14767755</idno>
<idno type="pmid">14767755</idno>
<idno type="doi">10.1007/s00442-004-1504-8</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Corpus">001E29</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Main" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">001E29</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<biblStruct>
<analytic>
<title xml:lang="en">Are nectar-robbers mutualists or antagonists?</title>
<author>
<name sortKey="Richardson, Sarah C" sort="Richardson, Sarah C" uniqKey="Richardson S" first="Sarah C" last="Richardson">Sarah C. Richardson</name>
<affiliation>
<nlm:affiliation>Indiana University, Department of Biology, Jordan Hall 015, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. srichard@bio.indiana.edu</nlm:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series>
<title level="j">Oecologia</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0029-8549</idno>
<imprint>
<date when="2004" type="published">2004</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc>
<textClass>
<keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en">
<term>Adaptation, Physiological (MeSH)</term>
<term>Animals (MeSH)</term>
<term>Bignoniaceae (physiology)</term>
<term>Biological Evolution (MeSH)</term>
<term>Feeding Behavior (MeSH)</term>
<term>Flowers (MeSH)</term>
<term>Hymenoptera (MeSH)</term>
<term>Pollen (MeSH)</term>
<term>Population Dynamics (MeSH)</term>
<term>Reproduction (MeSH)</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="physiology" xml:lang="en">
<term>Bignoniaceae</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en">
<term>Adaptation, Physiological</term>
<term>Animals</term>
<term>Biological Evolution</term>
<term>Feeding Behavior</term>
<term>Flowers</term>
<term>Hymenoptera</term>
<term>Pollen</term>
<term>Population Dynamics</term>
<term>Reproduction</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front>
<div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">As "exploiters" of plant-pollinator mutualisms, nectar-robbers remove rewards (nectar) without providing pollination services. Though one might expect nectar-robbing to be costly to plants, it may instead benefit plants by indirectly increasing pollen dispersal. I investigated the direct effects of nectar-robbing bees ( Xylocopa californica) on floral rewards and behaviors of pollinators visiting desert willow ( Chilopsis linearis) and indirect effects of robbing on the reproductive success of the plant. Nectar-robbers reduced nectar; while unrobbed and robbed flowers were equally likely to contain nectar, nectar volumes were smaller in robbed flowers with nectar. Apis mellifera (honeybees), ineffective pollinators in terms of pollen deposition, avoided robbed flowers. In contrast, Bombus sonorus (bumblebees), effective pollinators, did not avoid robbed flowers. While bumblebees tended to spend less time in robbed flowers, the time that they spent in flowers was not correlated with pollen deposition. Using powder mimicking pollen, I found that on some days, powder was dispersed farther or to more flowers from robbed flowers, indicating that robbing may sometimes benefit plants by increasing male reproductive success. Powder movement suggested that the effect of robbing on male reproductive success ranged from costly to beneficial. The outcome for flowers that were marked early each morning was a function of prevalence of robbing and abundances of effective pollinators, but not a function of spatial variability among trees in prevalence of robbing or the abundance of ineffective honeybees. Unlike powder dispersal, female reproductive success, measured by fruit set and the number of pollen tubes growing in styles, was not affected by robbing. Thus, robbers did not reduce plants' female reproductive success either directly by damaging flowers or indirectly by reducing pollen deposition by pollinators. Overall, this study indicates that nectar-robbers were not often costly to plants, and sometimes even benefited plants.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<pubmed>
<MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM">
<PMID Version="1">14767755</PMID>
<DateCompleted>
<Year>2004</Year>
<Month>08</Month>
<Day>03</Day>
</DateCompleted>
<DateRevised>
<Year>2018</Year>
<Month>11</Month>
<Day>13</Day>
</DateRevised>
<Article PubModel="Print-Electronic">
<Journal>
<ISSN IssnType="Print">0029-8549</ISSN>
<JournalIssue CitedMedium="Print">
<Volume>139</Volume>
<Issue>2</Issue>
<PubDate>
<Year>2004</Year>
<Month>Apr</Month>
</PubDate>
</JournalIssue>
<Title>Oecologia</Title>
<ISOAbbreviation>Oecologia</ISOAbbreviation>
</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Are nectar-robbers mutualists or antagonists?</ArticleTitle>
<Pagination>
<MedlinePgn>246-54</MedlinePgn>
</Pagination>
<Abstract>
<AbstractText>As "exploiters" of plant-pollinator mutualisms, nectar-robbers remove rewards (nectar) without providing pollination services. Though one might expect nectar-robbing to be costly to plants, it may instead benefit plants by indirectly increasing pollen dispersal. I investigated the direct effects of nectar-robbing bees ( Xylocopa californica) on floral rewards and behaviors of pollinators visiting desert willow ( Chilopsis linearis) and indirect effects of robbing on the reproductive success of the plant. Nectar-robbers reduced nectar; while unrobbed and robbed flowers were equally likely to contain nectar, nectar volumes were smaller in robbed flowers with nectar. Apis mellifera (honeybees), ineffective pollinators in terms of pollen deposition, avoided robbed flowers. In contrast, Bombus sonorus (bumblebees), effective pollinators, did not avoid robbed flowers. While bumblebees tended to spend less time in robbed flowers, the time that they spent in flowers was not correlated with pollen deposition. Using powder mimicking pollen, I found that on some days, powder was dispersed farther or to more flowers from robbed flowers, indicating that robbing may sometimes benefit plants by increasing male reproductive success. Powder movement suggested that the effect of robbing on male reproductive success ranged from costly to beneficial. The outcome for flowers that were marked early each morning was a function of prevalence of robbing and abundances of effective pollinators, but not a function of spatial variability among trees in prevalence of robbing or the abundance of ineffective honeybees. Unlike powder dispersal, female reproductive success, measured by fruit set and the number of pollen tubes growing in styles, was not affected by robbing. Thus, robbers did not reduce plants' female reproductive success either directly by damaging flowers or indirectly by reducing pollen deposition by pollinators. Overall, this study indicates that nectar-robbers were not often costly to plants, and sometimes even benefited plants.</AbstractText>
</Abstract>
<AuthorList CompleteYN="Y">
<Author ValidYN="Y">
<LastName>Richardson</LastName>
<ForeName>Sarah C</ForeName>
<Initials>SC</Initials>
<AffiliationInfo>
<Affiliation>Indiana University, Department of Biology, Jordan Hall 015, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. srichard@bio.indiana.edu</Affiliation>
</AffiliationInfo>
</Author>
</AuthorList>
<Language>eng</Language>
<PublicationTypeList>
<PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType>
<PublicationType UI="D013485">Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't</PublicationType>
</PublicationTypeList>
<ArticleDate DateType="Electronic">
<Year>2004</Year>
<Month>02</Month>
<Day>07</Day>
</ArticleDate>
</Article>
<MedlineJournalInfo>
<Country>Germany</Country>
<MedlineTA>Oecologia</MedlineTA>
<NlmUniqueID>0150372</NlmUniqueID>
<ISSNLinking>0029-8549</ISSNLinking>
</MedlineJournalInfo>
<CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset>
<MeshHeadingList>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D000222" MajorTopicYN="N">Adaptation, Physiological</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D000818" MajorTopicYN="N">Animals</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D029402" MajorTopicYN="N">Bignoniaceae</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000502" MajorTopicYN="Y">physiology</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D005075" MajorTopicYN="N">Biological Evolution</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D005247" MajorTopicYN="Y">Feeding Behavior</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D035264" MajorTopicYN="N">Flowers</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D006927" MajorTopicYN="Y">Hymenoptera</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D011058" MajorTopicYN="N">Pollen</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D011157" MajorTopicYN="N">Population Dynamics</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D012098" MajorTopicYN="Y">Reproduction</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
</MeshHeadingList>
</MedlineCitation>
<PubmedData>
<History>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="received">
<Year>2003</Year>
<Month>05</Month>
<Day>15</Day>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="accepted">
<Year>2004</Year>
<Month>01</Month>
<Day>14</Day>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed">
<Year>2004</Year>
<Month>2</Month>
<Day>10</Day>
<Hour>5</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline">
<Year>2004</Year>
<Month>8</Month>
<Day>4</Day>
<Hour>5</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez">
<Year>2004</Year>
<Month>2</Month>
<Day>10</Day>
<Hour>5</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
</History>
<PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus>
<ArticleIdList>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">14767755</ArticleId>
<ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1007/s00442-004-1504-8</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
<ReferenceList>
<Reference>
<Citation>Nature. 1996 Mar 14;380(6570):155-6</Citation>
<ArticleIdList>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">8600388</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference>
<Citation>Science. 1977 Aug 5;197(4303):593-6</Citation>
<ArticleIdList>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">17774333</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference>
<Citation>Oecologia. 2001 Jul;128(2):263-273</Citation>
<ArticleIdList>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28547475</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference>
<Citation>Evolution. 1991 Mar;45(2):398-409</Citation>
<ArticleIdList>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28567876</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference>
<Citation>J Chem Ecol. 1982 Jul;8(7):1025-34</Citation>
<ArticleIdList>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">24415339</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference>
<Citation>Oecologia. 1986 Jul;69(4):561-566</Citation>
<ArticleIdList>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28311616</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference>
<Citation>Oecologia. 1998 Oct;116(4):519-527</Citation>
<ArticleIdList>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28307521</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference>
<Citation>Oecologia. 2001 Oct;129(2):161-168</Citation>
<ArticleIdList>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28547611</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference>
<Citation>Trends Ecol Evol. 1994 Jun;9(6):214-7</Citation>
<ArticleIdList>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">21236825</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference>
<Citation>Oecologia. 2002 Dec;133(4):525-533</Citation>
<ArticleIdList>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28466170</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference>
<Citation>Stain Technol. 1980 Jan;55(1):13-8</Citation>
<ArticleIdList>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">6158141</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference>
<Citation>Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Apr 22;269(1493):773-80</Citation>
<ArticleIdList>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">11958708</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference>
<Citation>Oecologia. 1993 May;94(2):244-246</Citation>
<ArticleIdList>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28314038</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
</PubmedData>
</pubmed>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Bois/explor/WillowV1/Data/Main/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001E29 | SxmlIndent | more

Ou

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001E29 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Bois
   |area=    WillowV1
   |flux=    Main
   |étape=   Corpus
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     pubmed:14767755
   |texte=   Are nectar-robbers mutualists or antagonists?
}}

Pour générer des pages wiki

HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Corpus/RBID.i   -Sk "pubmed:14767755" \
       | HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Corpus/biblio.hfd   \
       | NlmPubMed2Wicri -a WillowV1 

Wicri

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.37.
Data generation: Tue Nov 17 16:35:40 2020. Site generation: Tue Nov 17 16:39:32 2020