Approaches to the study of sexual plant reproduction in altered habitats: limitations and perspectives

Authors

  • Marcelo A. Aizen Laboratorio Ecotono-CRUB, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Bariloche, Río Negro, Argentina.

Keywords:

anthropogenic disturbance, landscape ecology, plant-animal interactions, plant reproductive success, conceptual models, pollination

Abstract

Plant-pollinator interactions are susceptible to different types of anthropogenic disturbances. Although it is assumed that different human activities can disrupt these interactions, the direction and magnitude of their consequences are mediated by a series of environmental and biological variables that may have opposite effects on different aspects of these mutualisms. Therefore, the impact of human-driven habitat alteration on pollination and plant reproductive success can not be predicted a priori. The sign and magnitude of this impact will also depend on disturbance intensity, spatial scale and frequency. The current approach to study disturbance effects on plant reproduction is mostly comparative and highly reductionist (e.g., seed production is compared between disturbed vs. undisturbed sites). This approach leads to a lack of understanding on the proximal factors involved in the reproductive response of plants to habitat alteration, or even to incomplete or erroneous interpretations when responses are curvilinear or there is a low level of true replication. Here I review and comment on the different types of limitations arising from this comparative approach, and propose an alternative one. The proposed approach is exemplified in a simple conceptual model that can accommodate different aspects of the disturbance itself, including scale considerations, as well as aspects of plants, pollinators, and of the pollination process. This approach, even though of a correlative nature, allows a more mechanistic understanding of the effects of habitat disturbance on plant pollination and reproductive success by testing different proximal variables and causal models using path analysis and structural equation modeling. Also, the proposed approach can incorporate easily the disturbance patterns found in the field, better reflected in gradients than discrete classes. Finally, I advocate a greater integration between the mostly disconnected areas of plant reproductive ecology and landscape ecology.

References

ÅGREN, J. 1996. Population size, pollinator limitation, and seed set in the self- incompatible herb Lythrum salicaria. Ecology, 77: 1779-1790.

AGUILAR, R.; L ASHWORTH; L GALETTO & MA AIZEN. 2006. Plant reproductive susceptibility to habitat fragmentation: review and synthesis through a meta-analysis. Ecology Letters, 9: 968–980.

AIZEN, MA; L ASHWORTH & L GALETTO. 2002. Reproductive success in fragmented habitats: do compatibility systems and pollination specialization matter? Journal of Vegetation Science, 13: 885-892.

AIZEN, MA & P FEINSINGER. 1994a. Forest fragmentation, pollination, and plant reproduction in a Chaco dry forest, Argentina. Ecology, 75: 330-351.

AIZEN, MA & P FEINSINGER. 1994b. Habitat fragmentation, native insect pollinators, and feral honeybees in Argentine “Chaco Serrano”. Ecological Applications, 4: 378-392.

AIZEN, MA & P FEINSINGER. 2003. Bees not to be? Responses of insect pollinator faunas and flower pollination to habitat fragmentation. Pp. 111-129 en: GA Bradshaw & PA Marquet (eds.). How landscapes change: human disturbance and ecosystem fragmentation in the Americas. Springer-Verlag. Berlin, Alemania.

AIZEN, MA & LD HARDER. 2007. Expanding the limits of the pollen-limitation concept: effects of pollen quantity and quality. Ecology, 88: 271-281.

AIZEN, MA & DP VÁZQUEZ. 2006. Flower performance in human-altered habitats. Pp. 159- 179 en: LD Harder & SCH Barrett (eds.). Ecology and evolution of flowers. Oxford University Press. Oxford, RU.

ASHMAN, TL; TM KNIGHT; JA STEETS; P AMARASEKARE; M BURD ET AL. 2004. Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: ecological and evolutionary causes and consequences. Ecology, 85: 2408-2421.

ASHWORTH, L; R AGUILAR; L GALETTO & MA AIZEN. 2004. Why do pollination generalist and specialist plant species show similar reproductive susceptibility to habitat fragmentation? Journal of Ecology, 92: 717-719.

BIESMEIJER, C; S P M ROBERTS; M REEME; R OHLEMÜLLER; M EDWARDS ET AL. 2006. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 21: 351 – 354.

BOND WJ. 1994. Do mutualisms matter? Assessing the impact of pollinator and disperser disruption on plant extinction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 344: 83-90.

BUREL, F & J BAUDRY. 2003. Landscape Ecology: concepts, methods and applications. Science Publishers. Enfield, EEUU.

CANALES, J; MC TREVISAN; JF SILVA & HA CASWELl. 1994. A demographic study of an annual grass (Andropogon brevifolius Schwarz) in burnt and unburnt savanna. Acta Oecologica, 15: 261-273.

COTTINGHAM, KL; JT LENNON; & BL BROWN. 2005. Knowing when to draw the line: designing more informative ecological experiments. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3: 145-152.

FEINSINGER, P. 1997. Effects of plant species on each other’s pollination: is community structure influenced? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2: 123-126.

FEINSINGER, P. 2004. El diseño de estudios de campo para la conservacion de la biodiversidad. Editorial Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza. Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia.

GHAZOUL, J & M MCLEISH. 2001. Reproductive ecology of tropical forest trees in logged and fragmented habitats in Thailand and Costa Rica. Plant Ecology, 153: 335-345.

HARDER, LD & SCH BARRETT. 1995. Mating cost of large floral displays in hermaphrodite plants. Nature, 373: 512-515.

HARDER, LD & BARRETT, SCH (eds.). 2006. Ecology and evolution of flowers. Oxford University Press. Oxford, RU.

HARGROVE, WW & J PICKERING. 1992. Pseudore- plication: a sine qua non for regional ecology. Landscape Ecology, 6: 251-258.

HURBERLT, SH. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological experiments. Ecological Monographs, 54: 187-211.

HUSBAND, BC & DW SCHEMSKE. 1996. Evolution of the magnitude and timing of inbreeding depression in plants. Evolution, 50: 54-70.

HUSTON, M. 1979. A general hypothesis of species diversity. American Naturalist, 113: 81-101.

HUSTON, MA. 1997. Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia, 110: 449-460.

JENNERSTEN, O. 1988. Pollination in Dianthus deltoides (Caryophyllaceae): effects of habitat fragmentation on visitation and seed set. Conservation Biology, 2: 359-366.

KEARNS, CA; DW INOUYE & NM WASER. 1998. Endangered mutualisms: the conservation of plant-pollinator interactions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29: 83–112.

KNIGHT, TM; JA STEETS; J C VAMOSI; S J MAZER; M BURD ET AL. 2005. Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: pattern and process. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 36: 467–497.

KREMEN, C; NM WILLIAMS; RL BUGG; JP FAY & RW THORP. 2004. The area requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee communities in California. Ecology Letters, 7: 1109-1119.

KREMEN, C; NM WILLIAMS; MA AIZEN; B GEMMILL- HERREN; G LEBUHN ET AL. 2007. Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile orgaisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land use change. Ecology Letters, 10: 299-314.

LAMONT, BB & HV RUNCIMAN. 1993. Fire may stimulate flowering, branching, seed production and seedling establishment in two kangaroo paws (Haemodoraceae). Journal of Applied Ecology, 30: 256-264

MAYER C. 2004. Pollination services under different grazing intensities. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 24: 95-103.

MENGES, ES. 1995. Factors limiting fecundity and germination in small populations of Silene regia (Caryophyllaceae), a rare hummingbird- pollinated prairie forb. American Midland Naturalist, 133: 242-255.

MITCHELL, RJ. 2001. Path analysis: pollination. Pp. 217–234 en: SM Scheiner & J Gurevitch, (eds.). Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press. Oxford, RU.

NASON, JD & JL HAMRICK. 1997. Reproductive and genetic consequences of forest fragmentation: two case studies of Neotropical canopy trees. The Journal of Heredity, 88: 264-276.

NE’EMAN, G; A DAFNI & SG POTSS. 2000. The effect of fire on flower visitation rate and fruit set in four core-species in east Mediterranean scrubland. Plant Ecology, 146: 97-104.

OKSANEN, L. 2001. Logic of experiments in ecology: is pseudoreplication a pseudoissue? Oikos, 94: 27-38.

RENNER SS. 1998. Effects of habitat fragmentation of plant pollinator interactions in the tropics. Pp. 339-360 en: DM Newbery; HHT Prins & ND Brown (eds.). Dynamics of tropical communities. Blackwell Science. London, RU.

SHIPLEY, B. 2000. Cause and correlation in biology. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, RU.

SHORT, FT & S WYLLIE-ECHEVERRIA. 1996. Natural and human-induced disturbance of seagrasses. Environmental Conservation, 23: 17-27.

SOUSA, WP. 1984. The role of disturbance in natural communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 15: 353-391.

STEFFAN-DEWENTER,I; U MÜNZENBERG; C BÜRGER; C THIES & T TSCHARNTKE. 2002. Scale-dependent effects of landscape structure on three pollinator guilds. Ecology, 83: 1421–1432.

STACHOWICZ, JJ. 2001. Mutualism, facilitation, and the structure of ecological communities. Bioscience, 51: 235-246.

TOWNSEND, PA & DJ LEVEY. 2005. An experimental test of whether habitat corridors affect pollen transfer. Ecology, 86: 466–475.

TRAVESET, A & DM RICHARDSON. 2006. Biological invasions as disruptors of plant reproductive mutualisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21: 208-216.

VÁZQUEZ, DP & D SIMBERLOFF. 2004. Indirect effects of an introduced ungulate on pollination and reproduction. Ecological Monographs, 74: 281-308.

VÁZQUEZ, DP; WF MORRIS & P JORDANO. 2005. Interaction frequency as a surrogate for the total effect of animal mutualists on plants. Ecology Letters, 8: 1088-1094.

WALTERS, BB & EW STILES. 1996. Effect of canopy gaps and flower patch size on pllinator vsitation of Impatiens capensis. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 123: 184-188.

WESTPHAL, C; I STEFFAN-DEWENTER & T TSCHARNTKE. 2003. Mass flowering crops enhance pollinator densities at landscape scale. Ecology Letters, 6: 961-965.

WILCOCK, C & R NEILAND. 2002. Pollination failure in plants: why it happens and when it matters. Trends in Plant Science, 7: 270-277.

Published

2007-06-01

How to Cite

Aizen, M. A. (2007). Approaches to the study of sexual plant reproduction in altered habitats: limitations and perspectives. Ecología Austral, 17(1), 007–020. Retrieved from https://ojs.ecologiaaustral.com.ar/index.php/Ecologia_Austral/article/view/1419

Issue

Section

Special Section