Search

Geographical variation in pollinators visiting a plant can produce plant populations adapted to local pollinator environments. We documented two markedly different pollinator climates for the spring ephemeral wildflower Claytonia virginica: in more northern populations, the pollen-specialist bee Andrena erigeniae dominated, but in more southern populations, A. erigeniae visited rarely and the bee-fly Bombylius major dominated. Plants in the northern populations experienced faster pollen depletion than plants in southern populations. We also measured divergent pollen-related plant traits; plants in northern populations produced relatively more pollen per flower and anther dehiscence was more staggered than plants in southern populations. These plant traits might function to increase pollen dispersal via the different pollen vectors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pollinators that collect pollen - and specifically, pollen-specialist bees - are often considered to be the best pollinators of a (host) plant. Although pollen collectors and pollen specialists often benefit host plants, especially in the pollen that they deliver (their pollination 'effectiveness'), they can also exact substantial costs because they are motivated to collect as much pollen as possible, reducing the proportion of pollen removed that is subsequently delivered to stigmas (their pollination 'efficiency'). From the plant perspective, pollen grains that do not pollinate conspecific stigmas are 'wasted', and potentially costly. We measured costs and benefits of nectar-collecting, pollen-collecting, and pollen-specialist pollinator visitation to the spring ephemeral Claytonia virginica. Visits by the pollen-specialist bee Andrena erigeniae depleted pollen quickly and thoroughly. Although all pollinators delivered roughly the same number of grains, the pollen specialist contributed most to C. virginica pollen delivery because of high visitation rates. However, the pollen specialist also removed a large number of grains; this removal may be especially costly because it resulted in the depletion of pollen grains in C. virginica populations. While C. virginica appears to rely on pollen transfer by the pollen specialist in these populations, nectar-collecting visitors could provide the same benefit at a lower cost if their visitation rates increased. Pollen depletion affects a pollinator's value to plants, but is frequently overlooked. If they lower the effectiveness of future floral visitors, visits by A. erigeniae females to C. virginica may be more detrimental than beneficial compared to other pollinators and may, in some circumstances, reduce plant fitness rather than increase it. Therefore, A. erigeniae and C. virginica may vary in their degree of mutualism depending on the ecological context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]