 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
In The Floral Network What Determines Who Pollinates Whom
Washington DC (SPX) Jan 26, 2007 A field of spring wildflowers, abuzz with busy insects seeking nectar and spreading pollen, may look like a perfect model of random interaction. But ecologists have discovered order within this anarchy. For instance, as the number of species grows, the number of interactions does too, while the connectivity (the fraction of possible interactions that actually occur) and the nestedness (the relative importance of generalist species as mutualistic partners of specialist species) shrinks. Study of such networks of species is still in its youth, and the rules that generate these patterns of interaction are still being worked out. In a new study, Luis Santamaria and Miguel Rodriguez-Girones propose that two key mechanisms, trait complementarity and barriers to exploitation, go a long way in explaining the structure of actual networks of plants and their many pollinators. The two mechanisms each arise from fundamental aspects of the interaction between species. An insect will be unable to reach nectar in floral tubes longer than its proboscis; the tube length sets up a barrier to some species, but not to others. Each plant species also has a given flowering period. The specific activity period of each insect species will complement the flowering of some plant species more than others. Other barriers and other complementary traits have been described for a variety of plant-pollinator pairs. To explore the significance of these mechanisms, the authors modeled plant-pollinator interaction networks using a few simple rules, and compared their results to data from real networks in real plant communities. The models incorporated from one to four barrier or complementary traits, or a combination of two of each. They also tested two variations of a "neutral" interaction model, in which species interact randomly, based simply on their relative abundance. Different models did better at mimicking different aspects of real networks, but the two that performed best overall were the combination model and one of the neutral models. The authors argue that the neutral model, despite its appealing simplicity, can be discounted because it requires key assumptions regarding species abundances and random interaction that conflict with empirical observations of real communities. In contrast, the model combining barriers and complementary traits matches well with observed plant-pollinator interactions. Barriers alone would mean that pollinators with the longest proboscis would be supreme generalists, able to feed on any flower, causing perfect network nestedness; while complementarity alone would mean that specialist pollinators do not interact primarily with generalist plants, causing unrealistically low network nestedness. Instead, the authors suggest, a combination of barriers and complementary traits accounts for the pattern of specialists and generalists seen in real pollination networks. The superiority of the combination model also has implications for understanding floral evolution. A common principle has been that plants coevolve with their most-efficient pollinator to strengthen the complementarity of their matching adaptations. Barriers, however, while reducing exploitation by inefficient pollinators, may also interfere with pollination by efficient ones. Nonetheless, the results of the present study indicate that barriers are likely to play an important role in pollinator networks, suggesting that coevolution with the most-efficient pollinator is not the sole factor governing floral evolution. Citation: Santamaria L, Rodriguez-Girones MA (2007) Linkage rules for plant-pollinator networks: Trait complementarity or exploitation barriers? PLoS Biol 5(2): e31. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050031. Related Links Public Library of Science Darwin Today At TerraDaily.com Darwin Today At TerraDaily.com
Scientists Discover New Species Of Distinctive Cloud-Forest Rodent
Chicago IL (SPX) Jan 26, 2007A strikingly unusual animal was recently discovered in the cloud-forests of Peru. The large rodent is about the size of a squirrel and looks a bit like one, except its closest relatives are spiny rats. The nocturnal, climbing rodent is beautiful yet strange looking, with long dense fur, a broad blocky head, and thickly furred tail. A blackish crest of fur on the crown, nape and shoulders add to its distinctive appearance. |
|
|
| The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright Space.TV Corporation. AFP and UPI Wire Stories are copyright Agence France-Presse and United Press International. ESA Portal Reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement, agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by Space.TV Corp on any Web page published or hosted by Space.TV Corp. Privacy Statement |
