Article

Are insect pollinators more generalist than insect herbivores?

NERC Centre for Population Biology, Division of Biology, Imperial College London, , Silwood Park Campus, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7PY, UK.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (Impact Factor: 5.29). 07/2009; 276(1669):3027-33. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0635
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recent community-level studies have acknowledged that generalist species are more widespread than previously thought and highlighted their preponderant impact on community functioning and evolution. It is suggested that the type of interaction, trophic versus mutualistic, should affect species generalization level; however, no direct comparison has been made yet. Here, we performed such a comparison using 44 plant-insect networks describing either pollination or herbivory communities. Our analysis shows that the type of interaction does indeed have an impact on various aspects of species generalism, from the distribution of generalism in the community to the phylogenetic diversity of the plants with which a given insect species interacts. However, the amplitude of the observed differences depends on the aspect of species generalism studied. While the non-quantitative and quantitative measures of generalism suggest that pollinators interact with more plant species and more evenly than herbivores, phylogenetic measures clearly show that herbivores interact with plant species far more closely related to each other than pollinators. This comparative approach offers a promising perspective to better understand the functioning and evolution of multispecies assemblages by pointing out some fundamental singularities of communities depending on the type of interaction considered.

0 Followers
 · 
88 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Antagonistic interactions, such as parasitism and herbivory, are generally specialised and have a strong phylogenetic signal for specialisation. As lianas and trees interact antagonistically, we expect to find phylogenetic signal for specialisation. Aims: We aimed to answer the following questions: (1) Is the liana–tree network specialised? (2) Is the specialisation of liana–tree network related to the abundance of both the life forms? (3) Is liana and tree specialisation related to species phylogeny? (4) Do phylogenetically related liana species occupy phylogenetically related tree species, and vice versa? Methods: For three areas in southern Brazil, we calculated the specialisation value of each liana and tree species (d') and of the entire network (H2′). Binomial regression and null models were used to test the role of abundance on d' and H2′, respectively. We searched for the presence of phylogenetic signal with phylogenetic independent contrasts for d'. We also compared the similarity of species sets and their interaction with phylogenetic distance between them using Mantel test. Results: All three networks had significant values of H2′, but the values of d' did not have significant phylogenetic signals. Closely related lianas did not share similar host-tree assemblages and vice versa. Rare species were more specialised than abundant species, and abundance did not influence H2′. Conclusions: Our study indicates that the significant H2′ may be due to co-evolution in some lineages of lianas and trees. Nevertheless, the abundance of species may also play an important role in species interaction, mainly rare species.
    Plant Ecology & Diversity 01/2015; 8(3). DOI:10.1080/17550874.2015.1004561 · 1.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Different kinds of species interactions can lead to different structures within ecological networks. Antagonistic interactions (such as between herbivores and host plants) often promote increasing host specificity within a compartmentalized network structure, whereas mutualistic networks (such as pollination networks) are associated with higher levels of generalization and form nested network structures. However, we recently showed that the host specificity of flower-visiting beetles from three different feeding guilds (herbivores, fungivores, and predators) in an Australian rainforest canopy was equal to that of herbivores on leaves, suggesting that antagonistic herbivores on leaves are no more specialized than flower-visitors. We therefore set out to test whether similarities in the host specificity of these different assemblages reflect similarities in underlying network structures. As shown before at the species level, mutualistic communities on flowers showed levels of specialization at the network scale similar to those of the antagonistic herbivore community on leaves. However, the network structure differed, with flower-visiting assemblages displaying a significantly more nested structure than folivores, and folivores displaying a significantly more compartmentalized structure than flower-visitors. These results, which need further testing in other forest systems, demonstrate that both antagonistic and mutualistic interactions can result in equally high levels of host specialization among beetle assemblages in tropical rainforests. If this is a widespread phenomenon, it may alter our current perceptions of food web dynamics, species diversity patterns, and co-evolution in tropical rainforests. © 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2014, ●●, ●●–●●.
    Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 12/2014; 114(2). DOI:10.1111/bij.12430 · 2.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Host-plants may rarely leave their ancestral niche and in which case they tend to be surrounded by phylogenetically distant neighbours. Phylogenetically isolated host-plants might share few mutualists with their neighbours and might suffer from a decrease in mutualist support. In addition host plants leaving their ancestral niche might face a deterioration of their abiotic and biotic environment and might hence need to invest more into mutualist partners. We tested whether phylogenetic isolation of hosts from neighbours decreases or increases abundance and activity of their mutualists and whether mutualist activity may help to compensate deterioration of the environment. We study oak-hosts and their ectomycorrhizal fungi mutualists established in the litter layer formed by the phylogenetically closely or distantly related neighbourhood. We find that oaks surrounded by phylogenetically distant neighbours show increased abundance and enzymatic activity of ectomycorrhizal fungi in the litter. Moreover, oaks surrounded by phylogenetically distant neighbours also show delayed budburst but ectomycorrhizal fungi activity partly compensates this negative effect of phylogenetic isolation. This suggests decreased nutrient availability in a phylogenetically distant litter partly compensated by increased litter-degradation by ectomycorrhizal fungi activity. Most observed effects of phylogenetic isolation cannot be explained by a change in baseline soil fertility (as reflected by nutritional status of fresh oak litter, or soil microbial biomass and activity) nor by simple reduction of percentages of oak neighbours, nor by the presence of gymnosperms. Our results show that colonizing new niche represented by the presence of distantly related neighbours may delay plant phenology but may be supported by mycorrhizal mutualists. Studies on other host-plant species are required to generalize our findings.
    Soil Biology and Biochemistry 11/2014; 78:204–212. DOI:10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.08.003 · 4.41 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
1 Download
Available from