Contribution of traits, phenology, & phylogenetic history to plant-pollinator network structure

Talk given at the Entomological Society of Canada meeting

Transcript

1. Contribu)on  of  traits,  phenology,  &   phylogene)c  history  to  plant-­‐ pollinator  network  structure   Sco;  Chamberlain     Simon  Fraser  University  
2. Thanks  to!   •  Elizabeth  Elle   •  Jana  Vamosi   •  Ralph  Cartar   •  Sarah  Semmler   •  Anne  Worley   •  And  many  more  that  provided  data…  
3. Species  in  communi)es  form  networks  
4. Pa;erns  oLen  similar  among  networks   Plants   Pollinators  
5. Structure  ma;ers   Bascompte&Jordano2007AREES  
6. What  drives  network  structure?  
7. Traits   Body  size  
8. Phenology   Emergence  date     Or     Seasonal  ac)vity  
9. Phylogene)c   History  
10. Traits   Phenology   Phylogene)c   History  
11. Study  sites  
12. Phylogeny   Plants   Pollinators  
13. Species  level  metrics   •  Degree   •  Specializa)on  (accounts  for  interac)on  intensity)   •  Within  module  degree   •  Among  module  connec)vity  
14. Traits  -­‐  Pollinators   •  Nest  loca)on:  above/below  ground  -­‐  NS   •  Nest  type:  excavator/renter  -­‐  NS   •  Parasi)c:  yes/no  -­‐  NS  
15. Traits  -­‐  Pollinators   •  Nest  loca)on:  above/below  ground  -­‐  NS   •  Nest  type:  excavator/renter  -­‐  NS   •  Parasi)c:  yes/no  -­‐  NS   •  Social:  solitary/social  –     –  Within  module  degree:  social  (module  hubs),  solitary   (peripherals)   –  Among  module  connec)vity:  social  (connectors),   solitary  (peripherals)   –  Degree:  social  (higher),  solitary  (lower)   •  Body  size  –  larger  spp.  w/  larger  degree  
16. Traits  -­‐  Plants   •  Breeding  system     –  Gynomonoecious:  less  specialized,  higher  degree   –  Hermaphrodites:  more  specialized,  lower  degree  
17. Traits  -­‐  Plants   •  Breeding  system     –  Gynomonoecious:  less  specialized,  higher  degree   –  Hermaphrodites:  more  specialized,  lower  degree   •  Growth  form   –  Herbaceous:  lower  within  module  degree   –  Woody:  higher  within  module  degree  
18. Traits  -­‐  Plants   •  Breeding  system     –  Gynomonoecious:  less  specialized,  higher  degree   –  Hermaphrodites:  more  specialized,  lower  degree   •  Growth  form   –  Herbaceous:  lower  within  module  degree   –  Woody:  higher  within  module  degree   •  Flower  symmetry:     –  Bilateral:  lower  within  module  degree,  lower  degree   –  Radial:    higher  within  module  degree,  higher  degree   •  Flower  size:  smaller  flowers  higher  within  module   degree  
19. Network  level   network  structure  ~     FDisPO  +  FDisPL  +  MPDPO  +  MPDPL  
20. Network  level   network  structure  ~     FDisPO  +  FDisPL  +  MPDPO  +  MPDPL   0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.3 Modularity 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Connectance A B 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.3 Modularity 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 Pollinator FDis Connectance A B Pollinator  Func)onal  Trait  Dispersion  
21. Conclusion   •  Species  level   – Sociality  important  in  pollinators   – Ma)ng  systems,  flower  symmetry  &  growth  form   important  in  plants   •  Network  level   – At  network  level,  é pollinator  func)onal   diversity  w/  é modularity  &  ê  connectance   – Pollinator  traits  bigger  drivers  of  network   structure  rela)ve  to  plants  
22. Phenology   •  Species  vary  in  when  they  start  flowering   (plants)  and  start  flying  (pollinators)   •  Varia)on  among  species  can  lead  to  changes   in  network  structure  
23. HLG HLU OKG OKU SOG SOU WLG WLU cr1 cr2 fs1 fs2 go1 go2 mm1 mm2 mz1 mz2 sm1 sm2 AG BB−1 BB−2 BI CF−1 CF−2 CV DP LSCR OM PS−1 PS−2 TH 100 150 200 100 150 200 100 150 200 Julian day (days since 1 Jan)
24. Phenology  is  associated  with  structures  
25. Robustness  differs  among  groups   Plants Pollinators • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • •• • • • • • •• • • •• • • • • • •• • • • • •• • 0.4 0.6 0.8 • FJ FJr Plants Pollinators • • • • • • • • • •• •• • • •• • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • •• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 • D Dr Robustness
26. Phylogene)c  tree  shape   •  Shape  easily  measured   •  Metrics  represent  whether     – Branching  events  recent  or  old   – Branching  events  even  across  tree,  or  some   groups  speciate  more  than  others   •  Shape  could  influence  who  interacts  with  who  
27. Shape  correlated  with  network   structure  
28. Simula)ons  suggest  a  causal  link   0.68 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.72 0.76 Tree balance Distribu Brownian Motion −Burst Modularity  
29. Traits   Phenology   Phylogene)c   History  
30. Thanks  to   •  Elizabeth  Elle   •  Jana  Vamosi   •  Ralph  Cartar   •  Sarah  Semmler   •  Anne  Worley   Silhoue;es:  Phylopic.org          h;p://phylopic.org/image/070c78bc-­‐e075-­‐4098-­‐a66b-­‐fca2f02680ea/