Pollinator restoration in Brazilian ecosystems relies on a small but phylogenetically-diverse set of plant families

Scientific Reports

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2019, Pages

  Campbell, Alistair John ^a,b   Gigante Carvalheiro, Luísa ^c,e   Gastauer, Markus ^a,d   Almeida Neto, Mário ^c   Giannini, Tereza Cristina ^a,d  

^a INSTITUTO TECNOLÓGICO VALE   (Brazil)

^b EMBRAPA AMAZÔNIA ORIENTAL   (Brazil)

^c Laboratório de Controle de Qualidade   (Brazil)

^d FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF PARÁ   (Brazil)

^e UNIVERSITY OF LISBON   (Portugal)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEE; FLOWER; HABITAT; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; PHYLOGENY; POLLINATOR; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SPECIES RICHNESS; ANIMAL; BRAZIL; CLASSIFICATION; ECOSYSTEM; ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION; GENETIC VARIATION; GENETICS; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; PLANT; POLLINATION; POPULATION DENSITY; PROCEDURES;

ANIMALS; BEES; BRAZIL; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND REMEDIATION; FLOWERS; GENETIC VARIATION; PHENOTYPE; PHYLOGENY; PLANTS; POLLINATION; POPULATION DENSITY;

EID: 85075538848     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-53829-4     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Montoya, D., Rogers, L. & Memmott, J. Emerging perspectives in the restoration of biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 666–672 (2012).
2. Thorpe, A. S. & Stanley, A. G. Determining appropriate goals for restoration of imperilled communities and species. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 275–279 (2011).
3. Tonietto, R. K. & Larkin, D. J. Habitat restoration benefits wild bees: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 582–590 (2018).
4. Kaiser-Bunbury, C. N. et al. Ecosystem restoration strengthens pollination network resilience and function. Nature 542, 223–227 (2017).
5. Sobral, M. et al. Author Correction: Mammal diversity influences the carbon cycle through trophic interactions in the Amazon. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1782 (2017).
6. McCann, K. Protecting biostructure. Nature 446, 29 (2007).
7. Harvey, E., Gounand, I., Ward, C. L. & Altermatt, F. Bridging ecology and conservation: from ecological networks to ecosystem function. Journal of Applied Ecology 54, 371–379 (2017).
8. Ollerton, J., Winfree, R. & Tarrant, S. How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos 120, 321–326 (2011).
9. Ballantyne, G., Baldock, K. C. R., Rendell, L. & Willmer, P. G. Pollinator importance networks illustrate the crucial value of bees in a highly speciose plant community. Sci. Rep. 7, 8389 (2017).
10. Ollerton, J. Pollinator Diversity: Distribution, Ecological Function, and Conservation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. (2016).
11. Potts, S. G. et al. Global pollinator declines: Trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 345–353 (2010).
12. Morandin, L. A. & Kremen, C. Hedgerow restoration promotes pollinator populations and exports native bees to adjacent fields. Ecol. Appl. 23, 829–839 (2013).
13. Scheper, J. et al. Environmental factors driving the effectiveness of European agri-environmental measures in mitigating pollinator loss–a meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 16, (2013).
14. Wood, T. J., Holland, J. M., Hughes, W. O. H. & Goulson, D. Targeted agri-environment schemes significantly improve the population size of common farmland bumblebee species. Mol. Ecol. 24, 1668–1680 (2015).
15. Menz, M. H. M. et al. Reconnecting plants and pollinators: challenges in the restoration of pollination mutualisms. Trends Plant Sci. 16, 4–12 (2011).
16. Kaiser-Bunbury, C. N. & Blüthgen, N. Integrating network ecology with applied conservation: A synthesis and guide to implementation. AoB Plants 7, (2015).
17. Memmott, J., Waser, N. M. & Price, M. V. Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions. Proc. R. Soc. London B Biol. Sci. 271, 2605–2611 (2004).
18. Martín González, A. M., Dalsgaard, B. & Olesen, J. M. Centrality measures and the importance of generalist species in pollination networks. Ecol. Complex. 7, 36–43 (2010).
19. Russo, L., Debarros, N., Yang, S., Shea, K. & Mortensen, D. Supporting crop pollinators with floral resources: Network-based phenological matching. Ecol. Evol. 3, 3125–3140 (2013).
20. Isaacs, R., Tuell, J., Fiedler, A., Gardiner, M. & Landis, D. Maximizing arthropod-mediated ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes: The role of native plants. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 196–203 (2009).
21. Forup, M. L., Henson, K. S. E., Craze, P. G. & Memmott, J. The restoration of ecological interactions: plant–pollinator networks on ancient and restored heathlands. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 742–752 (2008).
22. Devoto, M., Bailey, S., Craze, P. & Memmott, J. Understanding and planning ecological restoration of plant-pollinator networks. Ecol. Lett. 15, 319–328 (2012).
23. Olesen, J. M., Bascompte, J., Dupont, Y. L. & Jordano, P. The modularity of pollination networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 19891–19896 (2007).
24. M’Gonigle, L. K., Williams, N. M., Lonsdorf, E. & Kremen, C. A Tool for Selecting Plants When Restoring Habitat for Pollinators. Conservation Letters 10, 105–111 (2017).
25. Archer, C. R., Pirk, C. W. W., Carvalheiro, L. G. & Nicolson, S. W. Economic and ecological implications of geographic bias in pollinator ecology in the light of pollinator declines. Oikos 123, 401–407 (2014).
26. Vizentin-Bugoni, J. et al. Plant-Pollinator Networks in the Tropics: A Review. In Ecological Networks in the Tropics (eds Dátillo, W., & Rico-Gray, V.) 73–92 (Springer, 2018).
27. Sloan, S. & Sayer, J. A. Forest Resources Assessment of 2015 shows positive global trends but forest loss and degradation persist in poor tropical countries. For. Ecol. Manage. 352, 134–145 (2015).
28. Barlow, J. et al. The future of hyperdiverse tropical ecosystems. Nature 559, 517–526 (2018).
29. Flynn, D. F. B., Mirotchnick, N., Jain, M., Palmer, M. I. & Naeem, S. Functional and phylogenetic diversity as predictors of biodiversity–ecosystem-function relationships. Ecology 92, 1573–1581 (2011).
30. Garibaldi, L. A. et al. Trait matching of flower visitors and crops predicts fruit set better than trait diversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 1436–1444 (2015).
31. Junker, R. R. et al. Specialization on traits as basis for the niche-breadth of flower visitors and as structuring mechanism of ecological networks. Funct. Ecol. 27, 329–341 (2013).
32. Rezende, E. L., Jordano, P. & Bascompte, J. Effects of phenotypic complementarity and phylogeny on the nested structure of mutualistic networks. Oikos 116, 1919–1929 (2007).
33. Aizen, M. A. et al. The phylogenetic structure of plant-pollinator networks increases with habitat size and isolation. Ecol. Lett. 19, 29–36 (2016).
34. Rezende, E., Lavabre, J., R Guimarães, P., Jordano, P. & Bascompte, J. Non-random extinctions in phylogenetically structured mutualistic networks. Nature 448, (2007).
35. Gastauer, M. et al. Mine land rehabilitation: Modern ecological approaches for more sustainable mining. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1409–1422 (2018).
36. Chamberlain, S. A. et al. Traits and phylogenetic history contribute to network structure across Canadian plant–pollinator communities. Oecologia 176, 545–556 (2014).
37. Verdú, M., Gómez-Aparicio, L. & Valiente-Banuet, A. Phylogenetic relatedness as a tool in restoration ecology: a meta-analysis. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279, 1761 LP–1767 (2012).
38. Raimundo, R. L. G., Guimarães, P. R. & Evans, D. M. Adaptive Networks for Restoration Ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10.1016/j.tree.2018.06.002 (2018).
39. Kaiser-Bunbury, C. N., Muff, S., Memmott, J., Müller, C. B. & Caflisch, A. The robustness of pollination networks to the loss of species and interactions: a quantitative approach incorporating pollinator behaviour. Ecol. Lett. 13, 442–452 (2010).
40. Thompson, J. D. How do visitation patterns vary among pollinators in relation to floral display and floral design in a generalist pollination system? Oecologia 126, 386–394 (2001).
41. Chacoff, N. P. et al. Evaluating sampling completeness in a desert plant–pollinator network. J. Anim. Ecol. 81, 190–200 (2012).
42. Castro-Urgal, R., Tur, C., Albrecht, M. & Traveset, A. How different link weights affect the structure of quantitative flower-visitation networks. Basic Appl. Ecol. 13, 500–508 (2012).
43. Vamosi, S. M., Heard, S. B., Vamosi, J. C. & Webb, C. O. Emerging patterns in the comparative analysis of phylogenetic community structure. Mol. Ecol. 18, 572–592 (2009).
44. Blüthgen, N. & Klein, A.-M. Functional complementarity and specialisation: The role of biodiversity in plant–pollinator interactions. Basic Appl. Ecol. 12, 282–291 (2011).
45. Cavender-Bares, J., Kozak, K. H., Fine, P. V. A. & Kembel, S. W. The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology. Ecol. Lett. 12, 693–715 (2009).
46. Rasmussen, C., Rasmussen, C., Olesen, J. M. & Olesen, J. M. Oil flowers and oil-collecting bees. Scand. Assoc. Pollinat. Ecol. honours Knut Faegri (2000).
47. Ramalho, M., Kleinert-Giovannini, A. & Imperatriz-Fonseca, V. L. Important bee plants for stingless bees (Melipona and Trigonini) and Africanized honeybees (Apis mellifera) in neotropical habitats: a review. Apidologie 21, 469–488 (1990).
48. Rech, A. R. & Lúcia Absy, M. Pollen sources used by species of Meliponini (Hymenoptera: Apidae) along the Rio Negro channel in Amazonas, Brazil. Grana 50, 150–161 (2011).
49. Aleixo, K. P., Menezes, C., Imperatriz Fonseca, V. L. & da Silva, C. I. Seasonal availability of floral resources and ambient temperature shape stingless bee foraging behavior (Scaptotrigona aff. depilis). Apidologie 48, 117–127 (2016).
50. Garibaldi, L. A. et al. Mutually beneficial pollinator diversity and crop yield outcomes in small and large farms. Science 351, 388–391 (2016).
51. Giannini, T. C. et al. Native and Non-Native Supergeneralist Bee Species Have Different Effects on Plant-Bee Networks. PLoS One 10, e0137198 (2015).
52. Solar, R. R. & de, C. et al. How pervasive is biotic homogenization in human-modified tropical forest landscapes? Ecol. Lett. 18, 1108–1118 (2015).
53. Ballantyne, G., Baldock, K. C. R. & Willmer, P. G. Constructing more informative plant–pollinator networks: visitation and pollen deposition networks in a heathland plant community. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282, (2015).
54. Sakagami, S. F., Laroca, S. & Moure, J. S. Wild Bee Biocoenotics in Sao Jose dos Pinhais (PR), South Brazil. J. Fac. Sci. Hokkaido Univ. (1967).
55. Vázquez, D. P., Morris, W. F. & Jordano, P. Interaction frequency as a surrogate for the total effect of animal mutualists on plants. Ecol. Lett. 8, 1088–1094 (2005).
56. Dormann, C. F., Frund, J., Bluthgen, N. & Gruber, B. Indices, Graphs and Null Models: Analyzing Bipartite Ecological. Networks. Open Ecol. J. 2, 7–24 (2009).
57. Oksanen, J. et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R Project 1, (2008).
58. Winfree, R., Fox, W., Williams, J., Reilly, N. M. & Cariveau, J. R. D. P. Abundance of common species, not species richness, drives delivery of a real-world ecosystem service. Ecol. Lett. 18, 626–635 (2015).
59. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M. & Walker, S. C. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
60. Barton, K. MuMIn: Multi-model inference. R package version 1.9.13. Version 1, 18 (2015).
61. Anderson, D. R. & Burnham, K. P. Avoiding Pitfalls When Using Information-Theoretic Methods. J. Wildl. Manage. 66, 912–918 (2002).
62. Kembel, S. W. et al. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26, 1463–1464 (2010).
63. Muller, C. B., Adriaanse, I. C. T., Belshaw, R. & Godfray, H. C. J. The Structure of an Aphid-Parasitoid Community. J. Anim. Ecol. 68, 346–370 (1999).
64. Carvalheiro, L. G. et al. The potential for indirect effects between co-flowering plants via shared pollinators depends on resource abundance, accessibility and relatedness. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1389–1399 (2014).