4.5 Article

Non-native plant species integrate well into plant-pollinator networks in a diverse man-made flowering plant community

期刊

URBAN ECOSYSTEMS
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 1491-1502

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11252-022-01242-7

关键词

Flower color; Flower type; Honey bee; Plant origin; Wild bees

资金

  1. ELKH Centre for Ecological Research
  2. Tempus Public Foundation (TPF) [162992, AK-00224-002/2017]
  3. National Research, Development and Innovation Office -NKFIH [FK123813]
  4. Bolyai Janos Fellowship of the MTA
  5. [GINOP-2.3.2-15-2016-00057]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores the impact of non-native plant species on the flower visitation behavior of wild bees and honey bees. The results show that honey bees prefer North American plants and non-native plants can integrate well in diverse botanical gardens, forming complex plant-pollinator networks. There are rich connections among plant species with different origins, nationwide distribution, flower color, and type.
Urban green areas offer diverse flower resources for pollinators. Yet, the role of non-native plant species in local plant-pollinator networks is understudied. We explored the effects of plant origin, nationwide distribution, flower color and type on flower visitation by wild bees and honey bees as well as the structure of a plant-pollinator network in a botanical garden in Hungary. Honey bee preferred North American plants over Europeans; it had the highest degree and topological centrality value. The network had similar compactness with its simulated removal from the network model. The species richness and abundance of flower-visiting wild bees did not differ among the plants of different origins and flower color and type. Plant species of different origin, nationwide distribution, and flower color and type had the highest number of direct and indirect links. Our results suggest that non-native plant species can integrate well in diverse botanical gardens and wild bees can adopt these new foraging resources.

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

4.5
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