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.

窃花的代价:对动物传粉植物的花蜜掠夺和窃花蜜的元分析评价
互惠互动是指不同物种以互惠互利的方式交换商品的生物市场。然而,互惠关系容易受到剥削,有些人只索取而不回报。虽然通常假设剥削者会造成适合度成本,但这种成本的证据是混合的,并且由于其上下文依赖的性质而难以概括。动物授粉的花朵通常被窃盗利用,不授粉的动物通常在不传递花粉的情况下消耗花的回报。盗窃者对植物繁殖的影响差异很大,这表明他们对植物造成了不同的代价,但哪种类型的植物盗窃案代价最高,代价最低,以及为什么,却很少受到关注。本文采用元分析方法探讨了盗花对花蜜性状、传粉者访花和植物繁殖的影响。我们着重研究了两种截然不同的盗窃形式的影响:初级花蜜盗窃——通过花冠上的孔洞吸食花蜜,而不是合法地进入花朵;花蜜盗窃——通过进入花朵吸食花蜜,但没有花粉转移。我们发现抢劫和盗窃对花蜜的数量和质量都有负面影响,但只有盗窃对传粉者的访花率有负面影响。同样,抢劫者对男性和女性的繁殖成功率都没有影响,而小偷则持续降低男性和女性的繁殖成功率。这些影响与植物交配系统无关,也与强盗和有效传粉者的身份无关,挑战了以前的概括。本研究提供了一个全面的评估窃花者对动物传粉植物的成本,揭示了花蜜盗窃比花蜜抢劫对植物繁殖的危害更大。这些结果增强了我们对生态和进化背景下互利共生开发的复杂动态的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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