4.6 Review

Flower visitors and pollination in the Oriental (Indomalayan) Region

期刊

BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS
卷 79, 期 3, 页码 497-532

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1017/S1464793103006341

关键词

Asia; conservation; flowers; insects; Oriental Region; pollination; vertebrates.

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current knowledge of flower x visitors and pollination in the Oriental Region is summarised. Much less is known about pollination than seed dispersal and the coverage of habitats and taxa in the region is very uneven. The available evidence suggests that pollination in lowland forests is dominated by highly social bees (mainly Trigona and Apis species), with beetles probably the next most important group, followed by other bees and flies. In comparison with the better-studied Neotropics, large solitary bees, moths, Lepidoptera and vertebrates are relatively less important. The,,c differences are greatest in the canopy of the lowland dipterocarp forests of Southeast Asia, where they, probably reflect the unique temporal pattern of floral resource availability resulting from ',general flowering' at supra-annual intervals. Apis bees (but not Trigona species) are also important in most montane, subtropical and non-forest habitats. Apart from the figs (Ficus spp.), there are few well-documented examples of plant species visiwd by a single potential pollinator and most plant-pollinator relationships in the region appear to be relatively generalised. The small sizes of most pollinators and the absence of direct human exploitation probably make pollination mutualisms less vulnerable to failure as a result of human impacts than dispersal mutualisms, but more subtle impacts, as a resulst of altered gene flows, arc likely to be widespread. On current evidence pollination systems in the Oriental Region do not require any specific conservation action, but this review reinforces arguments for making the preservation (or restoration) of habitat connectivity the major focus of Oriental conservation.

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

4.6
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