4.5 Article

Intraspecific size shifts in generalist bumblebees and flowers lead to low functional consequences

期刊

ECOSPHERE
卷 14, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.4640

关键词

bee behavior; bee size; Bombus terrestris; Borago officinalis; Echium plantagineum; flower size; plant fitness; pollen deposition

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Body size does not have a significant impact on foraging behavior and pollen deposition efficiency in plant-pollinator interactions. Only in the case of small flowers of Borago officinalis, small bees deposited more pollen. This suggests that generalist plant-pollinator interactions may be resilient to size mismatches.
Body size is a trait that can affect plant-pollinator interaction efficiency and plant reproductive success. We explored the impact of intraspecific size shifts on the interactions between pollinators and flowering plants under controlled conditions. We considered two development conditions leading to the production of large and small individual flowers of Borago officinalis and Echium plantagineum. We also used the natural variability of worker size within bumblebee colonies to isolate small and large workers. We performed a fully crossed experiment with the two flower sizes of each plant species and the two sizes of bumblebee workers. Our results show that the size of both partners did not affect bee foraging behavior in most of the evaluated parameters and both bee sizes were equally efficient in depositing pollen. Significant differences were found only in pollen deposition across the life of a flower in small flowers of B. officinalis, with the greatest quantity of pollen deposited by small bees. We did not find a relationship between pollinator size and plant fitness. Our results suggest that generalist plant-pollinator interactions may be resilient to future potential mismatches in the size of the partners but remain to be tested if they are still resilient under the new environmental conditions resulting from global changes.

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