The effect of the interactions among co-flowering plants for pollination has always been explained by changes in pollinator visiting frequency and/or foraging behavior. For most flowering plants with generalized pollination system, little is known about the influence of co-flowering neighbor on pollinator composition and its ecological consequences. Mazus miquelii, a plant with sensitively bilobed stigma, and its two naturally common co-flowering plants, Glechoma longituba and Ajuga decumbens were used to set the study system. We investigated pollinators’ visiting frequency and behavior, visiting frequency and relative composition of each pollinator type as well as seed production. Our results indicated that plant reproductive success significantly differed with co-flowering plants. However, neither pollinators’ visiting frequency nor foraging behavior could be attributed to the influence of co-flowering neighbor on reproductive success of M. miquelii. Flowers of M. miquelii were pollinated by more individuals of Osmia sp. when co-occurring with A. decumbens, while Halictus sp. was the main pollinator of M. miquelii when it was co-flowering with G. longituba. Comparatively, insects of Osmia sp. had higher effectiveness of pollen transfer than those of Halictus sp. The stigmatic pollen load of M. miquelii was higher co-flowering with A. decumbens than with G. longituba. The co-flowering neighbor significantly altered the pollinator composition and influenced pollen transfer efficiency, which might definitely be responsible for the changes in the focal plant reproductive success. This study improved our understanding on pollinator-mediated plant–plant interactions, particularly the uncertain effects of co-flowering plants on a focal plant from different communities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Arceo-Gómez G, Ashman TL (2011) Heterospecific pollen deposition: does diversity alter the consequences? New Phytol 192:738–746
Arceo-Gómez G, Ashman TL (2014) Co-flowering community context influences female fitness and alters the adaptive value of flower longevity in Mimulus guttatus. Am Nat 183(2):E50–E63
Armbruster WS, McGuire AD (1991) Experimental assessment of reproductive interactions between Sympatric Aster and Erigeron (Asteraceae) in Interior Alaska. Am J Bot 78:1449–1457
Bascompte J, Jordano P, Mellián CJ, Olesen JM (2003) The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(16):9383–9387
Bruckman D, Campbell DR (2014) Floral neighborhood influences pollinator assemblages and effective pollination in a native plant. Oecologia 176(2):465–476
Fernández JD, Lorite J, Bosch J, Gómez JM (2015) Variation in the reproductive success of a narrow endemic plant: Effects of geographical distribution, abiotic conditions and pollinator community composition. Basic Appl Ecol 16(5):375–385
Ghazoul J (2006) Floral diversity and the facilitation of pollination. J Ecol 94:295–304
Gómez JM, Bosch J, Perfectti F, Fernández J, Abdelaziz M (2007) Pollinator diversity affects plant reproduction and recruitment: the tradeoffs of generalization. Oecologia 153(3):597–605
Gómez JM, Perfectti F, Lorite J (2015) The role of pollinators in floral diversification in a clade of generalist flowers. Evolution 69:863–878
Herrera CM (1987) Components of pollinator “quality”: comparative analysis of a diverse insect assemblage. Oikos 50(1):79–90
Jin XF, Ye ZM, Wang QF, Yang CF (2015) Relationship of stigma behaviors and breeding system in three Mazus (Phrymaceae) species with bilobed stigma. J Syst Evol 53(3):259–265
Jin XF, Ye ZM, Amboka GM, Wang QF, Yang CF (2017) Stigma sensitivity and the duration of temporary closure are affected by pollinator identity in Mazus miquelii (Phrymaceae), a species with bilobed stigma. Front Plant Sci 8:783
Kimata M (1978) Comparative studies on the reproductive systems of Mazus japonicus and M. miquelii (Scrophulariaceae). Plant Syst Evol 129(4):243–253
Lazaro A, Lundgren R, Totland O (2009) Co-flowering neighbors influence the diversity and identity of pollinator groups visiting plant species. Oikos 118(5):691–702
Li XW, Hedge IC (1994) Lamiaceae. Flora of China 17:50–299
Mitchell RJ, Flanagan RJ, Brown BJ, Waser NM, Karron JD (2009) New frontiers in competition for pollination. Ann Bot 103:1403–1413
Moeller DA (2004) Facilitative interactions among plants via shared pollinators. Ecology 85:3289–3301
Morales CL, Traveset A (2008) Interspecific pollen transfer: magnitude, prevalence and consequences for plant fitness. Crit Rev Plant Sci 27(4):221–238
Morales CL, Traveset A (2009) A meta-analysis of impacts of alien vs. native plants on pollinator visitation and reproductive success of co-flowering native plants. Ecol Lett 12:716–728
Olesen JM, Jordano P (2002) Geographic patterns in plant–pollinator mutualistic networks. Ecology 83(9):2416–2424
Petanidou T, Kallimanis AS, Tzanopoulos J, Sgardelis SP, Pantis JD (2008) Long-term observation of a pollination network: fluctuation in species and interactions, relative invariance of network structure and implications for estimates of specialization. Ecol Lett 11(6):564–575
Rathcke B (1988) Interactions for pollination among coflowering shrubs. Ecology 69:446–457
Sargent RD, Ackerly DD (2008) Plant-pollinator interactions and the assembly of plant communities. Trends Ecol Evol 23(3):123–130
Takakura KI, Nishida T, Matsumoto T, Nishida S (2009) Alien dandelion reduces the seed-set of a native congener through frequency-dependent and one-sided effects. Biol Invasions 11:973–981
Thomson JD (1981) Spatial and temporal components of resource assessment by flower-feeding insects. J Anim Ecol 50(1):49–59
Tur C, Saez A, Traveset A, Aizen MA (2016) Evaluating the effects of pollinator-mediated interactions using pollen transfer networks: evidence of widespread facilitation in south Andean plant communities. Ecol Lett 19:576–586
Waser NM, Chittka L, Price MV, Williams NM, Ollerton J (1996) Generalization in pollination systems, and why it matters. Ecology 77(4):1043–1060
Wirth LR, Waser NM, Graf R, Gugerli F, Landergott U, Erhardt A, Linder HP, Holderegger R (2011) Effects of floral neighborhood on seed set and degree of outbreeding in a high-alpine cushion plant. Oecologia 167:427–434
Yang CF, Wang QF, Guo YH (2013) Pollination in a patchily distributed lousewort is facilitated by presence of a co-flowering plant due to enhancement of quantity and quality of pollinator visits. Ann Bot 112:1751–1758
Ye ZM, Dai WK, Jin XF, Gituru RW, Wang QF, Yang CF (2014) Competition and facilitation among plants for pollination: can pollinator abundance shift the plant–plant interactions? Plant Ecol 215(1):3–13
We thank two anonymous reviewers for the helpful and critical comments on an earlier manuscript, Wen-Kui Dai and Jian Yang for assistance in field investigations, Chao-Dong Zhu, Ze-Qing Niu and Yan-Ru Wu for Hymenoptera insect identification, Anne Christine for improving the language. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 31800193 to JXF and 31770255, 31970253 to CFY).
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Communicated by E. T. F. Witkowski.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Ye, Z., Jin, X., Wang, Q. et al. Co-flowering neighbor alters pollinator composition and influences reproductive success in a plant pollinated by multiple insects. Plant Ecol (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-020-01000-9
- Mazus miquelii
- Pollinator composition
- Plant–plant interaction
- Reproductive success
- Sensitive stigma