16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Floral resource partitioning by individuals within generalised hoverfly pollination networks revealed by DNA metabarcoding

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Pollination is a key ecosystem service for agriculture and wider ecosystem function. However, most pollination studies focus on Hymenoptera, with hoverflies (Syrphidae) frequently treated as a single functional group. We tested this assumption by investigating pollen carried by eleven species of hoverfly in five genera, Cheilosia, Eristalis, Rhingia, Sericomyia and Volucella, using DNA metabarcoding. Hoverflies carried pollen from 59 plant taxa, suggesting they visit a wider number of plant species than previously appreciated. Most pollen recorded came from plant taxa frequently found at our study sites, predominantly Apiaceae, Cardueae, Calluna vulgaris, Rubus fruticosus agg., and Succisa pratensis, with hoverflies transporting pollen from 40% of entomophilous plant species present. Overall pollen transport network structures were generalised, similar to other pollination networks elsewhere. All hoverfly species were also generalised with few exclusive plant/hoverfly interactions. However, using the Jaccard Index, we found significant differences in the relative composition of pollen loads between hoverfly genera, except for Volucella, demonstrating some degree of functional complementarity. Eristalis and Sericomyia species had significant differences in relative pollen load composition compared to congeners. Our results demonstrate the range of pollens transported by hoverflies and the potential pollination function undertaken within this ecologically and morphologically diverse guild.

          Related collections

          Most cited references58

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A DNA barcode for land plants.

          DNA barcoding involves sequencing a standard region of DNA as a tool for species identification. However, there has been no agreement on which region(s) should be used for barcoding land plants. To provide a community recommendation on a standard plant barcode, we have compared the performance of 7 leading candidate plastid DNA regions (atpF-atpH spacer, matK gene, rbcL gene, rpoB gene, rpoC1 gene, psbK-psbI spacer, and trnH-psbA spacer). Based on assessments of recoverability, sequence quality, and levels of species discrimination, we recommend the 2-locus combination of rbcL+matK as the plant barcode. This core 2-locus barcode will provide a universal framework for the routine use of DNA sequence data to identify specimens and contribute toward the discovery of overlooked species of land plants.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services.

            Biodiversity is rapidly declining worldwide, and there is consensus that this can decrease ecosystem functioning and services. It remains unclear, though, whether few or many of the species in an ecosystem are needed to sustain the provisioning of ecosystem services. It has been hypothesized that most species would promote ecosystem services if many times, places, functions and environmental changes were considered; however, no previous study has considered all of these factors together. Here we show that 84% of the 147 grassland plant species studied in 17 biodiversity experiments promoted ecosystem functioning at least once. Different species promoted ecosystem functioning during different years, at different places, for different functions and under different environmental change scenarios. Furthermore, the species needed to provide one function during multiple years were not the same as those needed to provide multiple functions within one year. Our results indicate that even more species will be needed to maintain ecosystem functioning and services than previously suggested by studies that have either (1) considered only the number of species needed to promote one function under one set of environmental conditions, or (2) separately considered the importance of biodiversity for providing ecosystem functioning across multiple years, places, functions or environmental change scenarios. Therefore, although species may appear functionally redundant when one function is considered under one set of environmental conditions, many species are needed to maintain multiple functions at multiple times and places in a changing world.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

              Wild and managed bees are well documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25-50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                599841@swansea.ac.uk
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                23 March 2018
                23 March 2018
                2018
                : 8
                : 5133
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0658 8800, GRID grid.4827.9, Department of Biosciences, , College of Science, Swansea University, Singleton Park, ; Swansea, SA2 8PP Wales UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0658 8800, GRID grid.4827.9, Institute of Life Science, School of Medicine, Swansea University, Singleton Park, ; Swansea, SA2 8PP Wales UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0941 6502, GRID grid.189967.8, Department of Environmental Sciences, , Emory University, 400 Dowman Drive NE, ; Atlanta, Georgia 30322 USA
                [4 ]National Botanic Garden of Wales, Llanarthne, Carmarthenshire, Wales SA32 8HG UK
                [5 ]ISNI 0000000121682483, GRID grid.8186.7, Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth University, ; Aberystwyth, SY23 3EE Wales UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4022-9964
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9233-1151
                Article
                23103
                10.1038/s41598-018-23103-0
                5865107
                29572453
                d7768045-be6b-41d9-b1b8-2183a6f7f6df
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 22 August 2017
                : 2 March 2018
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article