Differences in pollinator composition, species richness and flower visit abundance between Centaurea jacea (L.) and Leontodon hispidis (L.) in a meadow in Central Slovenia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14720/ns.8.2.55-65Keywords:
pollinators, composition, species richness, abundance, Centaurea jacea, Leontodon hispidisAbstract
In this pilot study, the differences in pollinator composition, species richness and pollinators’ visits between Centaurea jacea and Leontodon hispidis were investigated. For 15 minutes, the pollinators visiting the plants in a particular meadow were counted. There was a difference in composition. On C. jacea mostly Apis mellifera occurred, while L. hispidis was visited mainly by syrphids. Furthermore, due to the frequent visits by Apis mellifera, the abundance of pollinators on C. jacea was higher then on L. hispidis, while the evenness was higher in L. hispidis. The species richness did not differ between the plant species. The reasons for differences in pollinator visitation are discussed. Furthermore, it would be advisable to survey the differences in pollinator composition and abundance between similar plant species within the tribes/families of C. jacea and L. hispidis, for a better understanding of the pollinators’ choice for a plant species.
References
Andersson S. (2003): Foraging responses in the butterflies Inachis io, Aglias urticae (Nymphalidae), and Gonepteryx rhamni (Pieridae) to floral scents. Chemoecology 13: 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s000490300000
Bosch J., Retana, J., Cerdá, X. (1997): Flowering phenology, floral traits and pollinator composition in a herbaceous Mediterranean plant community. Oecologia 109: 583-591. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050120
Campbell D.R., Motten A.F. (1985): The mechanism of competition for pollination between two forest herbs. Ecology 66: 554–563. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1940404
Gilbert F.S. (1980): Flower visiting in hoverflies (Syrphidae). J. Biol. Educ. 14(1): 70-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1980.9654289
Gilbert F.S. (1981): Foraging ecology of hoverflies: morphology of the mouthparts in relation to feeding on nectar and pollen in some common urban species. Ecol. Entomol. 6: 245-262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1981.tb00612.x
Crawley M.J. (2005): Statistics, an introduction using R. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, pp 327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119941750
Dicks L.V., Corbet S.A., Pywell R.F. (2002): Compartmentalization in plant-insect flower visitor webs. J. Anim. Ecol. 71: 32–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021-8790.2001.00572.x
Duffield G.E., Gibson R.C., Gilhooly P.M., Hesse A.J., Inkley C.R., Gilbert F.S., Barnard C.J. (1993): Choice of flowers by foraging honey-bees (Apis mellifera): possible morphological cues. Ecol. Entomol. 18:191–197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1993.tb01089.x
Dupont Y.L., Hansen D.M., Olesen J.M. (2003): Structure of a plant flower-visitor network in the high-altitude sub-alpine desert of Tenerife, Canary Islands. Ecography 26: 301–310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0587.2003.03443.x
Goulson D. (1999): Foraging strategies of insects for gathering nectar and pollen, and implications for plant ecology and evolution. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2(2): 185-209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1078/1433-8319-00070
Hammer Ø., Harper D.A.T., Ryan P.D. (2001): PAST: Palaeontological Statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1): 9.
Hegland S.J., Totland O. (2005): Relationships between species floral traits and pollinator visitation in a temperate grassland. Oecologia 145: 586-594. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0165-6
Herrera J. (1988): Pollination relationships in southern Spanish Mediterranean shrublands. J. Ecol. 76: 274–287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2260469
Hirsch M., Pfaff S., Wolters, V. (2003): The influence of matrix type on flower visitors of Centaurea jacea L. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 98: 331-337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00093-8
Jaccard P. (1912): The distribution of flora in the alpine zone. New Phytol. 11: 37–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1912.tb05611.x
Laverty T.M. (1992): Plant interactions for pollinator visits: a test of the magnet species effect. Oecologia 89: 502–508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317156
R Development Core Team (2005): R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
Sahli H.F., Conner J.K. (2006): Characterizing ecological generalization in plant-pollinator systems. Oecologia 148 (3): 365-372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-006-0396-1
Shykoff J.A., Bucheli E., Kaltz O. (1997): Anther smut disease in Dianthus silvester (Caryophyllaceae): natural selection on floral traits. Evolution 51: 383–392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb02425.x
Thomson J.D. (1978): Effects of stand composition on insect visitation in two-species mixtures of Hieracium. Am. Midl. Nat. 100: 431–440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2424843
Thomson J.D. (1981): Spatial and temporal components of resource assessment by flower-feeding insects. J. Anim Ecol 50: 49–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/4030
Utelli A.B., Roy B.A. (2001): Causes and consequences of floral damage in Aconitum lycoctonum at high and low elevations in Switzerland. Oecologia 127: 266-273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420000580
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2006 Zveza za tehnično kulturo Slovenije
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
