Corina Maurer, Carlos Martínez-Núñez, Christophe Dominik, Jonna Heuschele, Yicong Liu, Peter Neumann, Robert J. Paxton, Loïc Pellissier, Willem Proesmans, Oliver Schweiger, Hajnalka Szentgyörgyi, Adam Vanbergen, Matthias Albrecht
{"title":"景观简化导致植物与授粉者互动多样性和花朵造访频率的损失,尽管有丰富的通类授粉者的缓冲作用","authors":"Corina Maurer, Carlos Martínez-Núñez, Christophe Dominik, Jonna Heuschele, Yicong Liu, Peter Neumann, Robert J. Paxton, Loïc Pellissier, Willem Proesmans, Oliver Schweiger, Hajnalka Szentgyörgyi, Adam Vanbergen, Matthias Albrecht","doi":"10.1111/ddi.13853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>Global change, especially landscape simplification, is a main driver of species loss that can alter ecological interaction networks, with potentially severe consequences to ecosystem functions. Therefore, understanding how landscape simplification affects the rate of loss of plant–pollinator interaction diversity (i.e., number of unique interactions) compared to species diversity alone, and the role of persisting abundant pollinators, is key to assess the consequences of landscape simplification on network stability and pollination services.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Location</h3>\n \n <p>France, Germany, and Switzerland.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We analysed 24 landscape-scale plant–pollinator networks from standardised transect walks along landscape simplification gradients in three countries. We compared the rates of species and interaction diversity loss along the landscape simplification gradient and then stepwise excluded the top 1%–20% most abundant pollinators from the data set to evaluate their effect on interaction diversity, network robustness to secondary loss of species, and flower visitation frequencies in simplified landscapes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Interaction diversity was not more vulnerable than species diversity to landscape simplification, with pollinator and interaction diversity showing similar rates of erosion with landscape simplification. We found that 20% of both species and interactions are lost with an increase of arable crop cover from 30% to 80% in a landscape. The decrease in interaction diversity was partially buffered by persistent abundant generalist pollinators in simplified landscapes, which were nested subsets of pollinator communities in complex landscapes, while plants showed a high turnover in interactions across landscapes. The top 5% most abundant pollinator species also contributed to network robustness against secondary species loss but could not prevent flowers from a loss of visits in simplified landscapes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Although persistent abundant pollinators buffered the decrease in interaction diversity in simplified landscapes and stabilised network robustness, flower visitation frequency was reduced, emphasising potentially severe consequences of further ongoing land-use change for pollination services.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51018,"journal":{"name":"Diversity and Distributions","volume":"30 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ddi.13853","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Landscape simplification leads to loss of plant–pollinator interaction diversity and flower visitation frequency despite buffering by abundant generalist pollinators\",\"authors\":\"Corina Maurer, Carlos Martínez-Núñez, Christophe Dominik, Jonna Heuschele, Yicong Liu, Peter Neumann, Robert J. Paxton, Loïc Pellissier, Willem Proesmans, Oliver Schweiger, Hajnalka Szentgyörgyi, Adam Vanbergen, Matthias Albrecht\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ddi.13853\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>Global change, especially landscape simplification, is a main driver of species loss that can alter ecological interaction networks, with potentially severe consequences to ecosystem functions. Therefore, understanding how landscape simplification affects the rate of loss of plant–pollinator interaction diversity (i.e., number of unique interactions) compared to species diversity alone, and the role of persisting abundant pollinators, is key to assess the consequences of landscape simplification on network stability and pollination services.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Location</h3>\\n \\n <p>France, Germany, and Switzerland.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We analysed 24 landscape-scale plant–pollinator networks from standardised transect walks along landscape simplification gradients in three countries. We compared the rates of species and interaction diversity loss along the landscape simplification gradient and then stepwise excluded the top 1%–20% most abundant pollinators from the data set to evaluate their effect on interaction diversity, network robustness to secondary loss of species, and flower visitation frequencies in simplified landscapes.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Interaction diversity was not more vulnerable than species diversity to landscape simplification, with pollinator and interaction diversity showing similar rates of erosion with landscape simplification. We found that 20% of both species and interactions are lost with an increase of arable crop cover from 30% to 80% in a landscape. The decrease in interaction diversity was partially buffered by persistent abundant generalist pollinators in simplified landscapes, which were nested subsets of pollinator communities in complex landscapes, while plants showed a high turnover in interactions across landscapes. The top 5% most abundant pollinator species also contributed to network robustness against secondary species loss but could not prevent flowers from a loss of visits in simplified landscapes.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Although persistent abundant pollinators buffered the decrease in interaction diversity in simplified landscapes and stabilised network robustness, flower visitation frequency was reduced, emphasising potentially severe consequences of further ongoing land-use change for pollination services.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diversity and Distributions\",\"volume\":\"30 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ddi.13853\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diversity and Distributions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ddi.13853\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diversity and Distributions","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ddi.13853","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Landscape simplification leads to loss of plant–pollinator interaction diversity and flower visitation frequency despite buffering by abundant generalist pollinators
Aim
Global change, especially landscape simplification, is a main driver of species loss that can alter ecological interaction networks, with potentially severe consequences to ecosystem functions. Therefore, understanding how landscape simplification affects the rate of loss of plant–pollinator interaction diversity (i.e., number of unique interactions) compared to species diversity alone, and the role of persisting abundant pollinators, is key to assess the consequences of landscape simplification on network stability and pollination services.
Location
France, Germany, and Switzerland.
Methods
We analysed 24 landscape-scale plant–pollinator networks from standardised transect walks along landscape simplification gradients in three countries. We compared the rates of species and interaction diversity loss along the landscape simplification gradient and then stepwise excluded the top 1%–20% most abundant pollinators from the data set to evaluate their effect on interaction diversity, network robustness to secondary loss of species, and flower visitation frequencies in simplified landscapes.
Results
Interaction diversity was not more vulnerable than species diversity to landscape simplification, with pollinator and interaction diversity showing similar rates of erosion with landscape simplification. We found that 20% of both species and interactions are lost with an increase of arable crop cover from 30% to 80% in a landscape. The decrease in interaction diversity was partially buffered by persistent abundant generalist pollinators in simplified landscapes, which were nested subsets of pollinator communities in complex landscapes, while plants showed a high turnover in interactions across landscapes. The top 5% most abundant pollinator species also contributed to network robustness against secondary species loss but could not prevent flowers from a loss of visits in simplified landscapes.
Main Conclusions
Although persistent abundant pollinators buffered the decrease in interaction diversity in simplified landscapes and stabilised network robustness, flower visitation frequency was reduced, emphasising potentially severe consequences of further ongoing land-use change for pollination services.
期刊介绍:
Diversity and Distributions is a journal of conservation biogeography. We publish papers that deal with the application of biogeographical principles, theories, and analyses (being those concerned with the distributional dynamics of taxa and assemblages) to problems concerning the conservation of biodiversity. We no longer consider papers the sole aim of which is to describe or analyze patterns of biodiversity or to elucidate processes that generate biodiversity.