Costs of floral larceny: A meta-analytical evaluation of nectar robbing and nectar theft on animal-pollinated plants

IF 4.4 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Ecology Pub Date : 2025-03-03 DOI:10.1002/ecy.70036
Laura C. Leal, Matthew H. Koski, Rebecca E. Irwin, Judith L. Bronstein
{"title":"Costs of floral larceny: A meta-analytical evaluation of nectar robbing and nectar theft on animal-pollinated plants","authors":"Laura C. Leal,&nbsp;Matthew H. Koski,&nbsp;Rebecca E. Irwin,&nbsp;Judith L. Bronstein","doi":"10.1002/ecy.70036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Mutualistic interactions are biological markets in which different species exchange commodities to mutual benefit. Mutualisms are, however, susceptible to exploitation, with some individuals taking without reciprocating. While it is generally assumed that exploiters will inflict fitness costs, evidence for such costs is mixed and difficult to generalize due to their context-dependent nature. Animal-pollinated flowers are commonly exploited by larcenists, non-pollinating animals that consume floral rewards often without transferring pollen. The impacts of larcenists on plant reproduction vary widely, suggesting they inflict differing costs on plants, but which types of floral larceny are most and least costly, and why, has received little attention. We employed a meta-analytical approach to explore the effects of flower larceny on nectar traits, pollinator visitation, and plant reproduction. We focused on the effects of two contrasting forms of larceny: primary nectar robbing—nectar consumption through holes constructed in the corolla rather than entering flowers legitimately—and nectar theft—nectar consumption by entering flowers but with no pollen transfer. We found that both robbing and theft had negative impacts on nectar quantity and quality, but that only theft negatively affected pollinator visitation rates. Similarly, robbers had no impact on either female or male reproductive success, whereas thieves consistently reduced both male and female reproductive success. These effects were not associated with plant mating systems nor with the identities of robbers and effective pollinators, challenging previous generalizations. This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of larcenists' costs to animal-pollinated plants, revealing that nectar theft is more detrimental to plant reproduction than nectar robbing. These results enhance our understanding of the intricate dynamics of mutualism exploitation in ecological and evolutionary contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":11484,"journal":{"name":"Ecology","volume":"106 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecy.70036","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mutualistic interactions are biological markets in which different species exchange commodities to mutual benefit. Mutualisms are, however, susceptible to exploitation, with some individuals taking without reciprocating. While it is generally assumed that exploiters will inflict fitness costs, evidence for such costs is mixed and difficult to generalize due to their context-dependent nature. Animal-pollinated flowers are commonly exploited by larcenists, non-pollinating animals that consume floral rewards often without transferring pollen. The impacts of larcenists on plant reproduction vary widely, suggesting they inflict differing costs on plants, but which types of floral larceny are most and least costly, and why, has received little attention. We employed a meta-analytical approach to explore the effects of flower larceny on nectar traits, pollinator visitation, and plant reproduction. We focused on the effects of two contrasting forms of larceny: primary nectar robbing—nectar consumption through holes constructed in the corolla rather than entering flowers legitimately—and nectar theft—nectar consumption by entering flowers but with no pollen transfer. We found that both robbing and theft had negative impacts on nectar quantity and quality, but that only theft negatively affected pollinator visitation rates. Similarly, robbers had no impact on either female or male reproductive success, whereas thieves consistently reduced both male and female reproductive success. These effects were not associated with plant mating systems nor with the identities of robbers and effective pollinators, challenging previous generalizations. This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of larcenists' costs to animal-pollinated plants, revealing that nectar theft is more detrimental to plant reproduction than nectar robbing. These results enhance our understanding of the intricate dynamics of mutualism exploitation in ecological and evolutionary contexts.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ecology
Ecology 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
2.10%
发文量
332
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Ecology publishes articles that report on the basic elements of ecological research. Emphasis is placed on concise, clear articles documenting important ecological phenomena. The journal publishes a broad array of research that includes a rapidly expanding envelope of subject matter, techniques, approaches, and concepts: paleoecology through present-day phenomena; evolutionary, population, physiological, community, and ecosystem ecology, as well as biogeochemistry; inclusive of descriptive, comparative, experimental, mathematical, statistical, and interdisciplinary approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信