Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:47:10.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Density dependence in flower visitation rates of cockroach-pollinated Clusia blattophila on the Nouragues inselberg, French Guiana

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2014

Blanka Vlasáková
Blanka Vlasáková*
Affiliation:
Department of Population Ecology, Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Zámek 1, 25243 Průhonice, Czech Republic
*
1Corresponding author. Email: vlasakb@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The effective floral neighbourhood is the radius around a plant where the density of flowering plants and other factors affect visitation rates and pollination success of plants. This study aims to determine this radius and focuses on the effects of conspecific plant density, plant sex and the amount of shrub vegetation on visitation rates of Clusia blattophila, a dioecious bush pollinated by Amazonina platystylata cockroaches. The number of visits did not differ between flower sexes but cockroaches spent less time on the rewardless female flowers. The density effect was scale dependent. The distribution of flowering individuals within the 15-m radius had a significant positive effect on flower visitation rates. At a larger scale (35–45-m radius), an increase in density of male plants led to a decrease in visitation rates, indicating competition for pollinators. Within the smaller radius, the facilitative effect was probably induced by elevated floral advertisement and high mobility of cockroaches at this scale. Within the larger radii, the results indicated that cockroach mobility was restricted and population density was stable at this scale. Density of male plants affected visitation rates because only male plants reward pollinators. Hence, male plants were the true competitors.

Keywords

Clusiacockroachdensity dependencefloral neighbourhoodforaging rangeinselbergplant-pollinator relationshippollinationvisitation rate
Type
Short Communication
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 95 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

BENJAMINI, Y. & YEKUTIELI, D. 2001. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Annals of Statistics 29:1165–1188.Google Scholar
BRYS, R., JACQUEMYN, H. & HERMY, M. 2008. Pollination efficiency and reproductive patterns in relation to local plant density, population size, and floral display in the rewarding Listera ovata (Orchidaceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 157:713–721.Google Scholar
CANT, E. T., SMITH, A. D., REYNOLDS, D. R. & OSBORNE, J. L. 2005. Tracking butterfly flight paths across the landscape with harmonic radar. Proceedings of the Royal Society B – Biological Sciences 272:785–790.Google Scholar
GOULSON, D. 2000. Why do pollinators visit proportionally fewer flowers in large patches? Oikos 91:485–492.Google Scholar
HARDER, L. D. 1990. Behavioral responses by bumble bees to variation in pollen availability. Oecologia 85:41–47.Google Scholar
HEBARD, M. 1926. The Blattidae of French Guiana. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 78:135–244.Google Scholar
HEBARD, M. 1929. Previously unreported tropical American Blattidae (Orthoptera) in the British Museum. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 55:345–388.Google Scholar
JAKOBSSON, A., LÁZARO, A. & TOTLAND, O. 2009. Relationships between the floral neighborhood and individual pollen limitation in two self-incompatible herbs. Oecologia 160:707–719.Google Scholar
KADMON, R. & SHMIDA, A. 1992. Departure rules used by bees foraging for nectar – a field test. Evolutionary Ecology 6:142–151.Google Scholar
KREWENKA, K. M., HOLZSCHUH, A., TSCHARNTKE, T. & DORMANN, C. F. 2011. Landscape elements as potential barriers and corridors for bees, wasps and parasitoids. Biological Conservation 144:1816–1825.Google Scholar
MAUREMOOTO, J. R., WRATTEN, S. D., WORNER, S. P. & FRY, G. L. A. 1995. Permeability of hedgerows to predatory carabid beetles. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 52:141–148.Google Scholar
PRINCIS, K. 1969. Blattariae: Subordo Epilamproidea. Fam.: Blattellidae. Pp. 788 in Beier, M. (ed.). Orthopterorum catalogus (13). Dr. W. Junk, the Hague.Google Scholar
PYKE, G. H., PULLIAM, H. R. & CHARNOV, E. L. 1977. Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Quarterly Review of Biology 52:137–154.Google Scholar
RATHCKE, B. 1983. Competition and facilitation among plants for pollination. Pp. 305–329 in Real, L. (ed.). Pollination biology. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RENNER, S. S. 2006. Rewardless flowers in the angiosperms and the role of insect cognition in their evolution. Pp. 123–144 in Waser, N. M. (ed.). Plant–pollinator interactions: from specialization to generalization. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
SARTHOU, C. 2001. Plant communities on a granitic outcrop. Pp. 65–78 in Bongers, F., Charles-Dominique, P., Forget, P.-M. & Théry, M. (eds.). Nouragues. Dynamics and plant-animal interactions in a neotropical rainforest. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
SARTHOU, C. & VILLIERS, J. F. 1998. Epilithic plant communities on inselbergs in French Guiana. Journal of Vegetation Science 9:847–860.Google Scholar
STEVEN, J. C., ROONEY, T. P., BOYLE, O. D. & WALLER, D. M. 2003. Density-dependent pollinator visitation and self-incompatibility in upper Great Lakes populations of Trillium grandiflorum. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 130:23–29.Google Scholar
VLASÁKOVÁ, B. & GUSTAFSSON, M. H. G. 2011. Clusia blattophila sp. nov. (Clusiaceae) from an inselberg in French Guiana. Nordic Journal of Botany 29:178–181.Google Scholar
VLASÁKOVÁ, B., KALINOVÁ, B., GUSTAFSSON, M. H. G. & TEICHERT, H. 2008. Cockroaches as pollinators of Clusia aff. sellowiana (Clusiaceae) on inselbergs in French Guiana. Annals of Botany 102:295–304.Google Scholar
WAGENIUS, S. 2006. Scale dependence of reproductive failure in fragmented Echinacea populations. Ecology 87:931–941.Google Scholar