4.7 Article

Consequences of plant population size and density for plant-pollinator interactions and plant performance

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY
卷 89, 期 1, 页码 80-87

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.2001.00521.x

关键词

geitonogamy; habitat fragmentation; Lychnis viscaria; plant-pollinator interaction; population density; population size

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1 Habitat fragmentation and the resulting decline in the local abundance of plant species can affect biological interactions. We examined the effects of abundance on plant-pollinator interactions by observing the pollinator service and subsequent reproductive output of a mostly outbreeding, but self-compatible, plant, Lychnis viscaria, in experimental populations of different sizes (number of individuals) and densities (distance between individuals). 2 Bumblebees, the main pollinators of L. viscaria, preferred larger populations, but visitation rates were higher in sparser populations. Pollinators were attracted to the larger inflorescences in sparse populations, which were also more visible due to their larger area for a given size. 3 Bumblebees probed more flowers within plants in sparse populations, probably due to the larger inflorescences and longer flight distances between individuals. 4 Subsequent reproductive success (capsule production) was higher in sparse populations, due to differences in pollination success and resource competition, and their interaction. In self-compatible species, such as L. viscaria, reproductive success may be determined more by resource availability, whereas self-incompatible plants may be more sensitive to changes in pollinator abundance. 5 We conclude that plant-pollinator interactions are sensitive to changes in both the size and spatial arrangement of plant populations, which can affect their demography and genetics. In this study, species density had a greater effect than size and the unexpectedly beneficial effects of low density may be due to greater resource availability.

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

4.7
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