Global patterns of interaction specialization in bird– flower networks

Zanata, Thais B. and Dalsgaard, Bo and Passos, Fernando C. and Cotton, Peter A. and Roper, James J. and Maruyama, Pietro K. and Fischer, Erich and Schleuning, Matthias and González, Ana M. Martín and Vizentin-Bugoni, Jeferson and Franklin, Donald C. and Abrahamczyk, Stefan and Alárcon, Ruben and Araujo, Andréa C. and Araújo, Francielle P. and Azevedo-Junior, Severino Mendes de and Baquero, Andrea C. and Carstensen, Daniel W. and Chupil, Henrique and Coelho, Aline G. and Hořák, David and Ingversen, Tanja T. and Janeček, Štěpán and Kohler, Glauco and Lara, Carlos and Las-Casas, Flor M. G. and Lopes, Ariadna V. and Machado, Adriana O. and Machado, Caio G. and Machado, Isabel C. and Maglianesi, María A. and Malucelli, Tiago S. and Mohd-Azlan, Jayasilan and Moura, Alan C. and Oliveira, Genilda M. and Oliveira, Paulo E. and Ornelas, Juan Francisco and Riegert, Jan and Rodrigues, Licléia C. and Rosero-Lasprilla, Liliana and Sazima, Ana M. Rui, Marlies and Sedláček, Ondřej and Timmermann, Allan and Zhiheng, Wang and Watts, Stella and Rahbek, Carsten and Varassin, Isabela G. (2017) Global patterns of interaction specialization in bird– flower networks. Journal of Biogeography. ISSN 1365-2699

Preview

PDF 9. Zanata et al 2017 Network_Biogeography (abstrak).pdf Download (189kB) | Preview

Abstract

Aim: Among the world’s three major nectar-feeding bird taxa, hummingbirds are the most phenotypically specialized for nectarivory, followed by sunbirds, while the honeyeaters are the least phenotypically specialized taxa. We tested whether this phenotypic specialization gradient is also found in the interaction patterns with their floral resources. Location: Americas, Africa, Asia and Oceania/Australia. Methods: We compiled interaction networks between birds and floral resources for 79 hummingbird, nine sunbird and 33 honeyeater communities. Interaction specialization was quantified through connectance (C), complementary specialization (H20), binary (QB) and weighted modularity (Q), with both observed and null-model corrected values. We compared interaction specialization among the three types of bird–flower communities, both independently and while controlling for potential confounding variables, such as plant species richness, asymmetry, latitude, insularity, topography, sampling methods and intensity. Results: Hummingbird–flower networks were more specialized than honeyeater– flower networks. Specifically, hummingbird–flower networks had a lower proportion of realized interactions (lower C), decreased niche overlap (greater H2 0) and greater modularity (greater QB). However, we found no significant differences between hummingbird– and sunbird–flower networks, nor between sunbird– and honeyeater– flower networks.

Actions (For repository members only: login required)

View Item