Insect-flower interaction networks vary among endemic pollinator taxa over an elevation gradient

被引:36
作者
Adedoja, Opeyemi A. [1 ,2 ]
Kehinde, Temitope [2 ]
Samways, Michael J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Stellenbosch Univ, Dept Conservat Ecol & Entomol, Stellenbosch, South Africa
[2] Obafemi Awolowo Univ, Dept Zool, Ife, Nigeria
来源
PLOS ONE | 2018年 / 13卷 / 11期
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
FOREST ECOTONE RESPONSE; CLIMATE-CHANGE IMPACTS; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; GEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS; SPECIES TURNOVER; SUCCULENT KAROO; RANGE SHIFTS; DIVERSITY; PLANTS; BEES;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0207453
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Interaction networks are sensitive to elevation gradients through changes in local distribution of interacting partners. Here, we use plant-pollinator interaction network metrics to assess the effect of elevation on flowers and flower-visiting insect assemblages on a sentinel mountain used for monitoring climate change in the flower-and insect-rich Cape Floristic Region. We also use these interaction metrics to explain the effect of environmental factors on the interaction networks. We did this over four vegetation zones <1640m asl, as determined by former botanical studies. Overall, bees were the dominant flower visitors, followed by monkey beetles, and far behind were wasps and flies. The middle elevation zone (650-744 m a.s.l), which is also an ecotone between two distinct botanical zones, had the highest species richness and abundance of interacting plants and insects. Interaction frequency and size of network were also greatest in the middle zone, as were network diversity, generality, and linkage density, while lowest in the peak zone. In sum, there was distinct elevation zoning of flower-visiting insects. The greatest zonal change was between species at the middle compared with peak zone. Large-sized monkey beetles, bees and flies characterized the unique assemblage in the peak zone (1576-1640 m a.s.l.). The insect zonation tracked that of plant assemblages, with air temperature (lapse rate) being the primary driver of bee distribution, with lowest levels in the peak zone. In contrast, beetle distribution was driven mostly by flower assemblages as well as air temperature. In turn, wasp and fly interaction networks were not affected by any of the measured environmental variables. We conclude that increased elevation stress from reduced temperatures, changing abiotic weather conditions (e.g. strong winds at high elevations), and decline in flowering plant composition causes breakdown of interaction networks involving bees and beetles but not that of flies and wasps.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 91 条
  • [1] Diversity and species turnover on an altitudinal gradient in Western Cape, South Africa: baseline data for monitoring range shifts in response to climate change
    Agenbag, L.
    Esler, K. J.
    Midgley, G. F.
    Boucher, C.
    [J]. BOTHALIA, 2008, 38 (02) : 161 - 191
  • [2] Arft AM, 1999, ECOL MONOGR, V69, P491, DOI 10.1890/0012-9615(1999)069[0491:ROTPTE]2.0.CO
  • [3] 2
  • [4] The nested assembly of plant-animal mutualistic networks
    Bascompte, J
    Jordano, P
    Melián, CJ
    Olesen, JM
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2003, 100 (16) : 9383 - 9387
  • [5] Seasonality in the altitude-diversity pattern of Alpine moths
    Beck, Jan
    Altermatt, Florian
    Hagmann, Reto
    Lang, Sylvia
    [J]. BASIC AND APPLIED ECOLOGY, 2010, 11 (08) : 714 - 722
  • [6] Specialization and phenological synchrony of plant-pollinator interactions along an altitudinal gradient
    Benadi, Gita
    Hovestadt, Thomas
    Poethke, Hans-Joachim
    Bluethgen, Nico
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY, 2014, 83 (03) : 639 - 650
  • [7] Bersier LF, 2002, ECOLOGY, V83, P2394, DOI 10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2394:QDOFWM]2.0.CO
  • [8] 2
  • [9] Thermoregulatory abilities of Alaskan bees: effects of size, phylogeny and ecology
    Bishop, JA
    Armbruster, WS
    [J]. FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY, 1999, 13 (05) : 711 - 724
  • [10] Bluethgen Nico, 2006, BMC Ecology, V6, P9, DOI 10.1186/1472-6785-6-9