Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-l4t7p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T22:02:59.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flower mites decrease nectar availability in the rain-forest bromeliad Neoregelia johannis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2010

Tadeu J. Guerra ,
Gustavo Q. Romero  and
Woodruff W. Benson
Tadeu J. Guerra*
Affiliation:
Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), C.P. 6109, 13083970, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
Gustavo Q. Romero
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zoologia e Botânica, Instituto de Biociências, Letras e Ciências Exatas (IBILCE), Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), CEP 15054–000, São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), C.P. 6109, 13083970, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
Woodruff W. Benson
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), C.P. 6109, 13083970, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
*
1Corresponding author. Email: guerra.tj@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Nectarivorous flower mites can reduce the volume of nectar available to pollinators. The effects of the flower mite Proctolaelaps sp. on nectar availability in flowers of a melittophilous bromeliad Neoregelia johannis (Bromeliaceae) was evaluated in a coastal rain forest in south-eastern Brazil. In a randomized block experiment utilizing 18 flower pairs, one per bromeliad ramet, pollinators (Bombus morio) and mites were excluded, and then nectar volume, sugar concentration and sugar mass were quantified over the anthesis period. Mites significantly reduced nectar volume early in the morning (6h00–8h00), but not later (10h00–12h00). Mites decreased total volume of nectar available up to 22%. Sugar concentration in nectar was higher earlier in the morning, and decreased between 10h00–12h00. The pronounced consumption of nectar by mites during the period of higher sugar concentration reduced the total amount of sugar available to pollinators by 31%. This is the first study showing that flower mites decrease nectar rewards in a melittophilous plant. Because nectar volume by itself incompletely describes nectar production rates and the effects of nectar removal by flower mites on the availability of sugar, our study highlights the inclusion of sugar content in future studies assessing the effects of thieves on nectar production rates.

Keywords

Atlantic rain forestBrazilBromeliaceaeMelicharidaenectar thieverysugar reward

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , July 2010 , pp. 373 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

LITERATURE CITED

BENZING, D. H. 2000. Bromeliaceae: a profile of an adaptive radiation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 690 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BERNADELLO, L. M., GALETTO, L. & JULIANI, H. R. 1991. Floral nectar, nectary structure and pollinators of some Argentinean Bromeliaceae. Annals of Botany 67:401–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BOGGS, C. L. & GILBERT, L. E. 1987. Spatial and temporal distribution of Lantana mites phoretic on butterflies. Biotropica 19:301–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CANELA, M. B. F. & SAZIMA, M. 2005. The pollination of Bromelia antiacantha (Bromeliaceae) in southeastern Brazil: ornithophilous versus melittophilous features. Plant Biology 7:411–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
COGLIATTI-CARVALHO, L. & ROCHA, C. F. D. 2001. Spatial distribution and preferential substrate of Neoregelia johannis (Carriére) L. B. Smith (Bromeliaceae) in a disturbed area of Atlantic Rainforest at Ilha Grande, RJ, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Botânica 24:389–394.Google Scholar
COLWELL, R. K. 1973. Competition and coexistence in a simple tropical community. American Naturalist 107:737–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COLWELL, R. K. 1979. The geographical ecology of hummingbird flower mites in relation to their host plants and carriers. Pp. 461–468 in Rodríguez, J. G. (ed.). Recent advances in acarology. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COLWELL, R. K. 1995. Effects of nectar consumption by the hummingbird flower mite Proctolaelaps kirmsei on nectar availability in Hamelia patens. Biotropica 27:206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COLWELL, R. K. & NAEEM, S. 1994. Life-history patterns of hummingbird flower mites in relation to host phenology and morphology. Pp. 23–44 in Houck, M. A. (ed.). Mites: ecological and evolutionary analyses of life-history patterns. Chapman & Hall, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CRUZ, D. D., ABREU, V. H. R. & VAN SLUYS, M. 2007. The effects of hummingbird flower mites on nectar availability of two Heliconia species in a Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Annals of Botany 100:581–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DOBKIN, D. S. 1984. Flowering patterns of long-lived Heliconia inflorescences: implications for visiting and resident nectarivores. Oecologia 64:245–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GALETTO, L. & BERNADELLO, L. 1992. Nectar secretion pattern and removal effects in six Argentinean Pitcairnioideae (Bromeliaceae). Botanica Acta 105:292–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GALETTO, L. & BERNADELLO, L. 2005. Rewards in flowers: nectar. Pp. 27–72 in Dafni, A., Kevan, P. G. & Husband, B. C. (eds). Practical pollination biology. Enviroquest Ltd., Cambridge.Google Scholar
GUERRA, T. J., ROMERO, G. Q., COSTA, J. C., LOFEGO, A. C. & BENSON, W. W. Phoretic dispersal on bumblebees by bromeliad flower mites (Mesostigmata, Melicharidae). Insectes Sociaux in press.Google Scholar
HEYNEMAN, A. J., COLWELL, R. K., NAEEM, S., DOBKIN, D. S. & HALLET, B. 1991. Host plant discrimination: experiments with hummingbird flower mites. Pp. 455–485 in Price, P. W., Lewinsohn, T. M., Fernandes, G. W. & Benson, W. W. (eds.). Plant–animal interactions: evolutionary ecology in tropical and temperate regions. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
HURLBERT, S. H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs 54:187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INOUYE, D. W. 1980. The terminology of floral larceny. Ecology 61:1251–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KRANTZ, G. W. & WALTER, D. E. 2009. A manual of acarology. (Third edition). Texas Tech University Press, Texas. 807 pp.Google Scholar
LARA, C. & ORNELAS, J. F. 2001. Nectar “theft” by hummingbird flower mites and its consequences for seed set in Moussonia deppeana. Functional Ecology 15:78–84.Google Scholar
LARA, C. & ORNELAS, J. F. 2002a. Flower mites and nectar production on six hummingbird-pollinated plants with contrasting flower longevities. Canadian Journal of Botany 80:1216–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LARA, C. & ORNELAS, J. F. 2002b. Effects of nectar theft by flower mites on hummingbird behavior and the reproductive success of their host plant, Moussonia deppeana (Gesneriaceae). Oikos 96:470–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MALOOF, J. E. & INOUYE, D. W. 2000. Are nectar robbers cheaters or mutualists? Ecology 81:2651–2661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MCDADE, L. A. & KINSMAN, S. 1980. The impact of floral parasitism in two neotropical hummingbird-pollinated plant species. Evolution 34:944–958.Google ScholarPubMed
MORRIS, W. F. 1996. Mutualism denied? Nectar-robbing bumblebees do not reduce female or male success of bluebells. Ecology 77:1451–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NASKRECKI, P. & COLWELL, R. K. 1998. Systematics and host plant affiliations of hummingbird flower mites of the genera Tropicoseius Baker and Yunker and Rhinoseius Baker and Yunker (Acari: Mesostigmata: Ascidae). Thomas Say Publications in Entomology: Monographs. Entomological Society of America, Lanham. 185 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ORDANO, M. & ORNELAS, J. F. 2004. Generous-like flowers: nectar production in two epiphytic bromeliads and a meta-analysis of removal effects. Oecologia 140:495–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PACIOREK, C. J., MOYER, B. R., LEVIN, R. A. & HALPERN, S. L. 1995. Pollen consumption by the hummingbird flower mite Proctolaelaps kirmsei and possible fitness effects on Hamelia patens. Biotropica 27:258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROUBIK, D. W. 1982. The ecological impact of nectar-robbing bees and pollinating hummingbirds on a tropical shrub. Ecology 63:354–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROUBIK, D. W., HOLBROOK, N. M. & PARRA, V. G. 1985. Roles of nectar robbers in reproduction of the tropical treelet Quassia amara (Simaroubaceae). Oecologia 66:161–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SIQUEIRA-FILHO, J. A. & MACHADO, I. C. S. 2001. Biologia reprodutiva de Canistrum aurantiacum E. Morren (Bromeliaceae) em remanescente da Floresta Atlântica, Nordeste do Brasil. Acta Botanica Brasilica 15:427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TSCHAPKA, M. & CUNNINGHAM, S. A. 2004. Flower mites of Calyptrogyne ghiesbreghtiana (Arecaceae): evidence for dispersal using pollinating bats. Biotropica 36:377–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZAR, J. H. 1996. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. 662 pp.Google Scholar