Abstract
Competition for pollination is thought to be an important factor structuring flowering in many plant communities, particularly among plant taxa with morphologically similar and easily accessible flowers. We examined the potential for heterospecific pollen transfer (HPT) in a community of four Acacia species in a highly seasonal tropical habitat in Mexico. Partitioning of pollen flow among sympatric species appears to be achieved, in part, through segregation of flowering in seasonal time, and interspecific differences in pollinator guilds. However, two coflowering species (Acacia macracantha and Acacia angustissima) shared multiple flower visitors, raising the possibility of HPT. Each of these coflowering species showed high intraspecific daily synchrony in pollen release, but dehisce at different times of day. Pollinators rapidly harvested available pollen from one species before abandoning it to visit the flowers of the second later in the day. The activity of shared pollinators, predominantly bees, is thus structured throughout the day, and potential for HPT reduced. Suggestive evidence in favour of a resource partitioning explanation for this pattern is provided by the fact that A. macracantha showed significantly greater intraspecific synchrony when coflowering with a potential competitor (A. angustissima) than when flowering alone. We discuss our results in light of previous work on coflowering acacia assemblages in Tanzania and Australia.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Flowering plants compete for pollination in at least two ways. Where seed set is limited by pollen availability, plants can potentially compete for pollinator visits (Mosquin 1971; Bierzychudek 1981; Horvitz and Schemske 1990). In other cases, pollen quality (i.e., load purity) is the limiting factor (Rathcke 1983, 1988). If pollinators visit more than one flowering species in a short-time period, some pollen may be transferred between species (heterospecific pollen transfer, HPT). HPT can reduce fitness in two ways: through loss of pollen to heterospecific stigmas, and through physical blocking of limited stigmatic surface by heterospecific pollen (Waser 1978a, b; Waser and Fugate 1986; Fishbein and Venable 1996). Avoidance of HPT is thought to be more important than competition for pollinator visits in natural systems (Waser 1983; Rathcke 1983, 1988), and minimizing costs associated with both mechanisms of competition is thought to be an important force structuring plant communities (Pleasants 1983; Waser 1983; Armbruster and Herzig 1984; Feinsinger 1987; Stone et al. 1998).
An expected evolutionary consequence of competition is partitioning of shared resources leading to reduction of negative interaction between coexisting species (Brown and Wilson 1956; Pianka 1973; Schoener 1983). Sympatric plants competing for pollination services can potentially diverge along several resource axes. They can escape competition by recruiting ‘private’ pollinators (Heinrich 1976; Inouye 1978; Pleasants 1983; Rathcke 1988; Stone et al. 1999a; Cook and Rasplus 2003; Fenster et al. 2004), or deposit pollen on different parts of a shared pollinator’s body (Dressler 1968; Armbruster et al. 1994). Plants can also share pollinators through divergence of their flowering seasons (Mosquin 1971; Heithaus 1974; Poole and Rathcke 1979; Pleasants 1980; Kephart 1983; Rathcke 1983; Ashton et al. 1988; Stone et al. 1998). Sympatric plants are sometimes constrained to flower at the same point in seasonal time (coflower) through constraints resulting from seasonal availability of water or warmth (Janzen 1967; Hocking 1968; Reich and Borchert 1984; Rathcke 1988; Johnson 1992; Ollerton et al. 2003), or through limited divergence of contemporary species from ancestral flowering patterns (Kochmer and Handel 1986; Wright and Calderon 1995). Under such circumstances, plants can either evolve tolerance of competition (e.g., through increased floral longevity: Levin 1978; Motten 1986; Rathcke 1988; Ashman and Schoen 1994; Ashman 2000), or partition the activity of shared pollinators on finer, daily, timescales (Levin and Anderson 1970; Ollerton and Lack 1992). Because pollinators commonly track pollen resource availability in daily time (Frankie et al. 1983; Stone 1994, 1995; Stone et al. 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999a; Herrera 1997; Willmer and Stone 2004), and regularly remove pollen from their bodies (Gilbert 1981; Roubik 1989), the evolution of species-specific times of pollen release (dehiscence) has the potential to reduce competition for both pollinator visits and pollen purity (Armbruster and Herzig 1984; Armbruster 1985; Stone et al. 1996, 1998).
The importance of daily structuring in competition for pollination is unclear, and most analyses to date lack the necessary resolution to examine daily patterns. This is surprising, because whether plants whose flowering seasons overlap actually compete for pollination may depend crucially on whether such daily partitioning exists.
Daily partitioning of shared pollinators is expected to leave a characteristic signature of (1) intraspecific synchrony and (2) interspecific divergence in the timing of both pollen dehiscence and activity patterns of shared pollinators (Brown and Wilson 1956; Slatkin 1980; Stone et al. 1996, 1998). Furthermore, resource partitioning by competitive displacement predicts daily peaks of pollen release to be significantly regularly spaced (overdispersed) across species (Poole and Rathcke 1979; Pleasants 1980; Cole 1981; Gleeson 1981; Waser 1983; Kochmer and Handel 1986; Minckley et al. 1994; Williams 1995). Tanzanian acacias provide an example of such daily patterning (Stone et al. 1996, 1998). However, although this pattern is consistent with ongoing competition for pollination, it could also represent the “ghost of competition past” (Connell 1980), or the ecological sorting of species (Grant 1972; Slatkin 1980) which differ in their timing of pollen release for other reasons (Armbruster 1985, 1986). The long evolutionary history of East African savannahs and the geographically stable structure of acacia communities (Ross 1981) both suggest that long-term evolutionary responses, rather than ecological sorting, are responsible for the patterns seen in Tanzania (Stone et al. 1998).
Resource partitioning through competitive displacement can potentially be demonstrated using manipulation experiments, in which one or more competing species are removed from an assemblage and observed responses are compared with predictions based on competitive release (Van Valen 1965; Rothstein 1973). However, many generations may be required before responses become detectable, rendering this powerful approach unsuitable for plants with long generation times. A second approach is to exploit natural variation in communities to approximate removal experiments (Huey and Pianka 1974; Fenchel 1975). Comparing conspecific patterns of resource exploitation in locations with and without putative competitors represents a longer-term equivalent to removal experiments. Hence, if coflowering acacia species do compete for shared pollinators we would expect competitor species to show greater intraspecific synchrony in pollen release when coflowering than when flowering alone (Stone et al. 1998). This is the approach we adopt here.
Three factors potentially predispose acacia species to daily partitioning of shared pollinators. First, multispecies acacia assemblages commonly coflower in highly seasonal tropical habitats (Ross 1981; Stone et al. 1998, 2003). Second, their scented and showy flowers are visited by a wide diversity of flower visitors, some of which are shared (Bernhardt 1987; Tybirk 1993; Stone et al. 1998, 2003). Third, the common, open ‘pom–pom’ structure of acacia flowers allows pollen transfer between coflowering species. Here we examine seasonal and daily patterns of flowering, and the composition and daily activity patterns of pollinator assemblages in a Mexican Acacia community at Chamela. We address the following specific questions:
-
1.
When do the Chamela acacias flower in seasonal time, and when during the day do they release their pollen? Are temporal patterns consistent among sites and among years?
-
2.
Do coflowering acacias show patterns of daily pollen release consistent with character displacement?
-
3.
Do species show higher-intraspecific synchrony in daily timing of pollen release when flowering together than when flowering alone?
-
4.
Do coflowering acacia species share flower visitors likely to be significant pollen vectors, and hence possible agents of selection for divergence in the timing of daily pollen release?
-
5.
Does the daily activity of shared pollinators track patterns of pollen release among coflowering acacias?
Materials and methods
Study area and species
This study was carried out between 1998 and 2000 near the Estación de Biologia de Chamela, IBUNAM, on the Pacific coast of Jalisco, México (19°29.91′ N, 105°02.67′ W). Rainfall (mean ± 1 SE = 798 ± 54 mm: Chamela biological station records 1977–2000) is strongly seasonal and concentrated between June and October. Most of the region’s ca. 1,200 plant species flower during the rains (Bullock and Solis-Magallanes 1990). Our study focussed on a region of ca. 40 km2 within which four acacia species (Acacia (Vachellia) farnesiana (L.) Willdenow, Acacia (Vachellia) hindsii (Bentham) and Acacia (Vachellia) macracantha (Humboldt & Bonpland ex. Willdenow), and Acacia (Acaciella) angustissima (Miller) KuntzeFootnote 1) regularly form dominant multi-specific assemblages.
We established six study sites, each of which included at least two of the three most locally widespread species: A. farnesiana, A. hindsii, and A. macracantha (Table 1). Sites for A. macracantha were selected to allow comparison of pollen release and visitation patterns alone, and with, a putative competitor species A. angustissima (Table 1). Because A. angustissima was only found at one location (site 4) lack of replication necessarily renders our results of the with/without comparison for A. macracantha preliminary. Study sites were distributed along a 20 km stretch of coast, within 2 km of the shore (Fig. 1).
Seasonal flowering patterns
Leaves, flower buds, open flower heads, and pods were censussed on an 8-point ordinal scale (absent, very sparse, sparse, sparse/medium, medium, medium/abundant, abundant, and very abundant) for 1–25 tagged individual trees of all acacia species growing at each study site at 3-week intervals during the study period.
Flower head abundance, development and longevity
Acacia flowers are presented in spherical (capitate) or elongated (spicate) compound flower headsFootnote 2. A. macracantha (capitate), A. angustissima (capitate) and A. hindsii (spicate) mass-flower on distinct reproductive branchlets (racemes), while A. farnesiana (capitate) flower heads arise singly (non-racemose) and at much lower density from bud cushions at the base of stipular spines. A. macracantha, A. angustissima and A. hindsii flowers are protandrous and complete both male and female reproductive phases within a single day (Raine 2001; Raine et al. 2002; Stone et al. 2003), persisting in a tattered post-reproductive state for one or more further days, after which unfertilised flower heads fall and fertilised ones develop seed pods. A. macracantha and A. hindsii flower heads open during the night and are fully open by dawn (0630–0700h), whereas A. angustissima flower heads begin opening around dawn and are not fully open until 1000–1200h. A. farnesiana flower heads are protogynous and last for several days, and male and female reproductive phases probably occur on different days (Raine 2001; Stone et al. 2003).
Daily patterns of pollen availability
Acacias present pollen as a compound polyad with eight polyads per anther (Knox and Kenrick 1982; Chappill and Maslin 1995; Kenrick 2003). Pollen release (dehiscence) in each species was evaluated by examining the relative abundance of pollen available on the surface of flower heads sampled at intervals through the day using methods described in full by Stone et al. (1998) and Raine et al. (2002). We sampled four flower heads at random from each acacia tree at each sample time. Each flower head was rolled lightly across (the adhesive side of) a piece of clear adhesive tape and the progress of dehiscence scored using the ratio of polyads to anthers (P:A) collected on the tape. For each flower head, the P:A was recorded for six randomly chosen microscope fields and the mean calculated. For each acacia and time interval, the mean P:A ratio was calculated across the sampled flower heads. So that each tree contributed equally to calculated means, P:A ratios were constrained to vary between 0 and 1 for each tree and day by dividing them by the maximum value for that tree and day. When availability of flower heads allowed, data for A. farnesiana were collected using this standard protocol. However, due to low abundance of flower heads per tree we generated a site-specific population estimate for the mean P:A ratio by sampling a single flower head from 6 to 8 A. farnesiana trees at each time interval. Dehiscence was followed from dawn (0600–0700h) until dusk (1700–1900h) at intervals of 60–90 min. In total we collected 150 tree-days of dehiscence data, with totals for each species in parentheses: A. macracantha (79), A. angustissima (29), A. hindsii (26), and A. farnesiana (16: Supplementary material–Appendix A).
Daily patterns of microclimate
The timing of anther dehiscence is highly sensitive to temperature and relative humidity (Buchmann 1983; Corbet et al. 1988; Stone et al. 1998). Because intraspecific variation in the timing of pollen release could potentially result from microclimatic differences across study sites, we recorded shade temperature and relative humidity using a Vaisala HM34 humidity and temperature meter for every tree studied at each sampling interval.
Patterns of flower visitation and visitor assemblages
Flower visitor behaviour was quantified in all three field seasons (Supplementary material-Appendix A) in the same way for each acacia species following Stone et al. (1996, 1998). A consistent set of selected flower heads was watched for a fixed observation period at regular intervals throughout the day, from before the onset of foraging until after it ceased (usually approximately 0730–1700h). In 1998 and 1999, focal flower heads were watched for a 10-min period every 80–120 min, allowing data collection from several individual trees per day. In 2000, focal flower heads on a single tree were watched for a 30-min period at hourly intervals from 0700 to 1700h, providing more detailed data for each observation day.
Visitation was quantified as the number of flower head visits made by each taxon (Horvitz and Schemske 1990; Stone et al. 1998), weighted equally regardless of visitor taxon, visit duration, or the number of flowers visited per flower head. Differences in forager activity patterns were analyzed using Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests (Sokal and Rohlf 1981; Stone et al. 1988). Similarities in floral visitation attributable to particular visitor taxa were quantified using proportional similarity (Schoener 1970; Kephart 1983; Horvitz and Schemske 1990; Stone et al. 1998) (PS), which ranges from 1 (maximum similarity) to 0 (no overlap).
Results
Seasonal flowering patterns
The Chamela acacias can be divided into two seasonal flowering groups: late dry season (A. hindsii and A. farnesiana) and wet season (A. angustissima and A. macracantha: Fig. 2). Despite this general distinction, sympatric Acacia species frequently coflowered for extended periods. Acacia macracantha regularly coflowered with A. hindsii and A. farnesiana (Fig. 2a–c) and the longest coflowering (5 months) was between A. macracantha and A. angustissima (site 4; Fig. 2c, d). Seasonal flowering patterns were consistent across years at all study sites.
Daily timing of pollen release
Acacia hindsii and A. angustissima dehisce in the early morning (around 0800h) and early afternoon (around 1200h), respectively, and show high-intraspecific synchrony among individuals (Fig. 3a, b). A. macracantha populations varied in their timing of pollen release: individuals coflowering with A. angustissima dehisced consistently earlier (around 0900h: Fig. 3c) and showed greater intraspecific synchrony than conspecifics flowering alone (Fig. 3d). The contrast in A. macracantha dehiscence synchrony between sites with (site 4) and without A. angustissima was significant for site 3 versus site 4 (F-test: F4, 4 = 7.92, p = 0.035), and near significant for site 1 versus site 4 (F3, 4 = 5.98, p = 0.058), with no significant difference in synchrony between sites without A. angustissima (Site 1 vs. 3: F4, 3 = 1.33, p = 0.424). The similarity in dehiscence behaviour does not correlate simply with the spatial separation of sites, which would predict most similar behaviour at sites 1 and 3 (Fig. 1). Daily dehiscence patterns for individual trees were highly consistent across days and years for A. hindsii, A. angustissima and A. macracantha (Fig. 4), implying consistent temporal relationships among these species.
Daily peaks of pollen availability shown by A. farnesiana populations (six trees sampled per day) were less distinct than in the other three species and varied appreciably across consecutive days under similar microclimatic conditions (Fig. 5). Due to low flower head abundance per tree, it was impossible to assess intraspecific dehiscence synchrony in this species.
The impact of relative humidity on daily dehiscence patterns
Variation in daily dehiscence profiles closely tracked between-day variation in relative humidity. Peak pollen availability at a given site occurred later on days when relative humidity was higher at the onset of dehiscence in A. angustissima (Fig. 6), A. hindsii (Fig. 7) and A. macracantha (Fig. 8). Coflowering A. macracantha and A. angustissima showed parallel responses to changes in ambient relative humidity, maintaining a constant separation of 3–4 h between their pollen availability peaks (Fig. 8). Lower intraspecific synchrony of dehiscence in A. macracantha flowering alone relative to the population coflowering with A. angustissima did not correlate with any measured microclimatic difference between sites.
Flower visitor assemblages of Chamela acacias
Bees dominated (68–93%) visitation to the mass-flowering species A. macracantha, A. hindsii and A. angustissima (Table 2), and all three shared many pollinator taxa (see Table 3 and Supplementary material—Appendices B–F for visitors recorded across sites and Acacia species). The major bee taxa were honeybees (Apis mellifera L.), native social bees (Scaptotrigona hellwegeri (Roubik) and Trigona spp.; Apidae), and solitary bees in the genera Hylaeus (Colletidae), Augochloropsis and Lasioglossum (Halictidae), Ceratina and Xylocopa (Anthophoridae) and Megachile (Megachilidae). Other solitary bee genera, including Eulonchopria (Colletidae), Pseudoaugochloropsis and Halictus (Halictidae), Exomalopsis (Anthophoridae), and Anthodioctes (Megachilidae) frequently visited at least two Acacia species. Bees (primarily Lasioglossum spp. and Apis mellifera) made a smaller proportion of visits to A. farnesiana (39%). Acacia farnesiana was visited predominantly by flies (41.2%: Table 2a), primarily pollen-feeding hoverflies (Syrphidae: 20%) in the genera Allograpta and Eristalis and bee flies (Bombyliidae: Table 2b). Beetles (primarily cantharids, chrysomelids, scarabids and bruchids) visited flower heads of all four Acacia species.
Flower visitor assemblages for each Acacia species varied among sites (Tables 4b, 5 and Supplementary material—Appendix F), and among days (Table 4a, 6a and Supplementary material—Appendices D, E), months (Table 6b and Supplementary material—Appendix D) and flowering seasons (Table 6c and Supplementary material—Appendices D, F) at a given site. Variation in flower visitor assemblages for each Acacia species was generally greater between sites than over time within sites (e.g., compare Table 4a and b for A. hindsii), implying patchiness in available visitor assemblages. For A. angustissima, A. hindsii and A. macracantha variation in visitation patterns within and across study sites was associated primarily with variation in the proportion of flower visits made by different bee taxa. Social bees, notably S. hellwegeri, dominated flower visitation (especially to A. hindsii and A. angustissima) on particular days at some sites, and in their absence solitary bees became proportionately more abundant (Supplementary material—Appendices D–F). There were no consistent differences in flower visitor assemblages associated with A. macracantha when flowering alone when compared to the conspecific population coflowering with A. angustissima (Mann–Whitney U = 10.5, p = 0.748: Table 5).
Pollinator behaviour and the potential for heterospecific pollen transfer
Bees are probably the dominant pollen vectors for Chamela acacias. Medium-sized and large solitary bees, including Megachile, Augochloropsis, Ceratina, Eulonchopria, Exomalopsis and Xylocopa species, visited each individual flower head for a short-time and ranged over the entire surface. Megachile species showed characteristic somersaulting movements over each flower head for 1–2 s. These bees visited relatively few flower heads per tree, and probably visited several trees during each foraging bout. In contrast, honeybees (A. mellifera) and other medium-sized social bees (particularly S. hellwegeri) foraged extensively within a single canopy, generally moving between flower heads that were close together.
These larger bees have the potential to mediate considerable HPT through shared pollinators in this community. Analysis of pollen loads showed that individual bees also moved between acacia species in a single foraging bout. Solitary bees from three genera (Augochloropsis, Lasioglossum and Anthodioctes) visiting A. angustissima flower heads (producing pale lemon yellow pollen) were observed to be carrying orange pollen loads shown by microscopic examination to comprise 16-grain polyads characteristic of A. macracantha. Honeybee and Ceratina individuals visiting A. hindsii flower heads at the end of the dry season were observed with yellow pollen loads originating from another coflowering mimosoid legume, Mimosa quadrivalis (Rose).
Smaller solitary bees (Lasioglossum, Halictus and Hylaeus) and social bees (e.g., Trigona nigra (Cresson)) spent long periods foraging on a single flower head (ca. 30–90 s), often leaving to hover alongside and comb pollen from their body before returning to forage on the same flower head. Thus, these chains of visits to a single flower head frequently lasted several minutes. Hoverflies (Syrphids) typically fed on a single flower head for more than 10 min, accumulating pollen on the underside of their bodies, and were seen to depart focal trees. Beetles often remained in a single flower head for several hours, or even the whole day, and most fed destructively on the flowers.
Daily activity patterns of flower visitors
Daily patterns of flower visitation to each Acacia species were consistent across days and sites within a flowering season (Fig. 9). Flower visitation patterns closely tracked daily pollen release for all species at all sites (compare Fig. 9 with Fig. 3), peaking with or shortly after peak daily pollen availability. Social bees arrived in large numbers as pollen availability peaked and left as soon as the pollen standing crop began to fall (Fig. 10). In contrast, solitary bees often foraged from Acacia flower heads until later in the day (Fig. 10a).
Daily visitation patterns at A. macracantha differed consistently between sites, tracking patterns of pollen release. Visitation to A. macracantha (particularly by bees) began considerably earlier at site 4 (coflowering with A. angustissima) than at all other sites. Flower visitation to A. macracantha at site 4 also declined abruptly around noon (Fig. 9c) while at other sites it declined gradually during the afternoon (Fig. 9d). Visitation to coflowering A. macracantha and A. angustissima overlapped only briefly, with the abrupt changeover in pollinator activity between species most obvious in 1998 and 2000 (Fig. 11). This consistent difference in visitation patterns to coflowering A. macracantha and A. angustissima was statistically significant in all three flowering seasons 1998–2000 (Kolmogorov–Smirnov two sample test, all p-values <0.01: Table 7).
Discussion
Do Chamela acacias show a signature of competition for pollination?
Structuring of daily activity in response to resource availability has long been known for a wide range of pollinators, particularly for social and solitary bees whose resources are provided in discrete time windows (Butler and Finney 1942; Bennett and Bread 1985; Buchmann and Cane 1989; Stone 1994; Stone et al. 1999a; Raine et al. 2002, 2004; Willmer and Stone 2004). This sensitivity of foragers to resources makes possible the community-wide structuring of plant–pollinator interactions through selection on plant floral behaviour. Daily partitioning of shared pollinators is just one possible outcome of such ‘bottom-up’ influences. Stone et al. (1996, 1998) proposed that flowering patterns in a Tanzanian acacia community supported a hypothesis of daily temporal partitioning of pollinators. The key findings of the Tanzania study were (i) seasonal coflowering and pollinator sharing (creating the potential for competition for pollination), (ii) daily intraspecific synchrony in dehiscence, and regular interspecific spacing of pollen dehiscence through the day (creating the potential for bottom-up structuring of pollinator behaviour), and (iii) pollinator tracking of pollen release (the predicted result). To what extent do patterns at Chamela mirror those found in Tanzania?
Although there is partial seasonal separation of flowering between dry (A. hindsii and A. farnesiana) and wet (A. macracantha and A. angustissima) season species pairs, Chamela acacias frequently coflower, as in Tanzania. The three mass-flowering Acacia species in this assemblage also often showed high intraspecific synchrony in daily pollen release. As in Tanzania, pollinators tracked pollen release very closely, showing the potential for bottom-up regulation of pollinator behaviour by selection on dehiscence times, and many flower visitor taxa (especially bees) are shared. Is there any evidence that pollinator sharing has influenced the floral behaviour of Chamela acacias?
A major difference between this study and the Tanzanian community is the lower species richness of coflowering acacias at Chamela. We thus cannot hope to detect signatures of resource partitioning by analysing the cross-species distribution of daily pollen release peaks, as applied by Stone et al. (1996, 1998). An intriguing result is the contrast in dehiscence behaviour between A. macracantha populations flowering alone, and the single population coflowering with A. angustissima. While intraspecific synchrony was universal for A. hindsii and A. angustissima, A. macracantha varied in its pollen release behaviour between populations: intraspecific synchrony was appreciably higher when this species coflowered with A. angustissima than when they flowered apart. Timing of peak pollen availability in A. macracantha also varied with the presence/absence of coflowering A. angustissima. The pattern observed in A. macracantha is compatible with the predictions of resource partitioning and competitive release: high intraspecific synchrony could reflect stabilising selection in the presence of coflowering competitors, while low synchrony (in A. macracantha flowering alone) could represent competitive release. Our observation of movement by individual insect foragers between acacia trees within a single foraging bout shows the potential for HPT in this system. A similar contrast between coflowering (high intraspecific synchrony) and solitary flowering (low intraspecific variation) was observed in the Tanzanian acacia community studied by Stone et al. (1998).
However, in both studies, there is no replication and these results can only be considered preliminary. As the difference in dehiscence behaviour is confounded with differences in site, this pattern could also have resulted from past competition, ecological sorting, or chance effects (Grant 1972; Slatkin 1980; Armbruster 1985, 1986; Murray et al. 1987). Validation of the competitive hypothesis for differences in dehiscence behaviour requires replication of the observed contrast in other A. macracantha populations flowering with and without other acacias.
Contrasting floral behaviour in Acacia farnesiana
Acacia farnesiana shows much lower intraspecific synchrony of pollen release than the mass-flowering species, and its long-lived protogynous flower heads are more similar to Australian acacias in the phylogenetically distinct subgenus Heterophyllum (Stone et al. 2003). This could potentially reflect contrasting breeding strategies between species with long-lasting and short-lived flower heads (Stone et al. 2003). Increasing floral longevity may confer tolerance of competition for pollination (Levin 1978; Motten 1986; Rathcke 1988; Ashman and Schoen 1994). Increased floral longevity could also facilitate the pollinating role of visitors (such as the smallest bees and many flies) whose very low rates of between-flower movement (Stone et al. 1999b) make them unsuitable as pollinators of short-lived flowers. The predominance of flies rather than bees in the visitor assemblages recorded for A. farnesiana is compatible with this hypothesis. Acacia farnesiana also showed consistently lower densities of flower heads than the other Chamela acacias. The paucity of bee visits to A. farnesiana might reflect the lower attractiveness of this acacia relative to others producing more showy floral displays (Proctor et al. 1996; Chittka and Raine 2006).
The potential role of relative humidity structuring multispecies plant–pollinator interactions
Our results show the significance of daily microclimate for patterns of pollen release in acacias, a further replication of patterns observed in the Tanzanian system. Drier days were predictably associated with earlier dehiscence peaks, particularly in A. angustissima and A. hindsii. Changes of relative humidity have been suggested as a causal mechanism triggering anther dehiscence in a wide variety of plant species through differential rates of tissue drying within the anther wall (Keijzer 1987; Bonner and Dickinson 1990). Parallel anther dehiscence responses with different threshold relative humidities shown by coflowering populations of A. macracantha and A. angustissima maintained a regular spacing between their respective peak times of pollen release over a wide range of humidity conditions (Fig. 8). If selection favoured the evolution of divergent dehiscence threshold humidities among coflowering species, the patterns we observe indicate that separation of pollen release in daily time (and hence pollinator activity) would be preserved over a wide range of ambient conditions. Heritable variation for other humidity-sensitive dehiscence mechanisms in plants is well established (Grant 1996; Bailey et al. 1997).
Flower visitor assemblages of Chamela acacias
Social bees played a dominant role in visiting the flowers of all three mass-flowering Chamela acacias, though their dominance varies spatially and temporally. The patterns of flower visitation by social bees (here predominantly A. mellifera and S. hellwegeri) suggest that these species visit mass-flowering Acacia trees when they are the most locally abundant pollen source, and that they are quickly abandoned if more profitable alternatives are discovered by the colony. Honeybees showed a similar pattern in visitation to Tanzanian acacias (Stone et al. 1998). They are highly abundant in tropical ecosystems and information transfer amongst nest mates allows them to exploit multiple plant species in response to local variation in resource availability in space or time (Michener 1974; Roubik 1989; Dornhaus and Chittka 1999, 2004).
In contrast, solitary bees continued to visit mass-flowering acacias even when pollen availability was well below seasonal and daily maxima. This could reflect the reluctance of solitary bees to abandon waning resources due to uncertainty about locating better alternatives (Frankie et al. 1976; Strickler 1979; Ginsberg 1984), or their lower absolute pollen requirements in comparison to social colonies (Willmer and Stone 2004). Solitary bees may represent more reliable pollen vectors for mass-flowering Acacia species because they are predictably recruited if provided with minimal levels of floral reward. Some solitary species could be specialist pollen collectors from Acacia (or more generally mimosoid, including Mimosa and Prosopis at Chamela) species because of their predictable and relatively long flowering seasons. Strickler (1979) suggested such ‘specialisation’ might be characterised by fast flight between flower heads and specialist foraging behaviour (associated with reduced flower handling time), both shown by Megachile species visiting mass-flowering acacias in Mexico (this study) and Tanzania (Stone et al. 1998).
The continuation of visits by solitary bees after social bees have left may also enhance their contribution to seed set. In any protandrous species (including A. angustissima, A. hindsii and A. macracantha), the delay between anther dehiscence and stigma receptivity must balance the conflicting demands of avoiding self-pollination, whilst maximising the chances of receiving sufficient cross-pollen. In self-incompatible species, such as the three mass-flowering Chamela Acacia species, we expect stigma receptivity to occur long enough after dehiscence for stigmatic clogging by self-pollen to be rare. Most social bees arrived so soon after dehiscence that stigmas are unlikely to be receptive, meaning their visits probably dispersed pollen between flower heads within an individual canopy, rather than contributing to inter-tree dispersal and seed set. Later flower visits by large solitary bees, more coincident with female function, may well have contributed more to pollination than the frequency of their visits suggests (Strickler 1979; Motten et al. 1981; Minckley et al. 1994). Megachilid bees could be particularly effective vectors as they carry dry, unmodified pollen in a ventral abdominal scopa further enhancing potential pollen transfer (Thorp 1979, 2000).
Solitary bees showed considerable spatial variation in their patterns of visitation (see Supplementary material—Appendices C–F), which may reflect their dependence on suitable nest sites and the limited foraging ranges of the smallest species (e.g., Lasioglossum). This observed spatial and temporal variation suggests that there are unlikely to be any tightly coevolved species-specific acacia–pollinator relationships, but that pollination is conducted by a diffuse, somewhat interchangeable, species guild. This observation is supported by the relative rarity of truly specialist pollinators in tropical environments (Roubik 1989, 1992). For the mass-flowering species, this guild is dominated by solitary bees, while A. farnesiana relies heavily on syrphid flies. The fact that syrphids are relatively specialised pollen feeders, show high levels of floral constancy (Goulson and Wright 1998) and innately prefer yellow flowers (Parmenter 1958; Kay 1976; Lunau and Maier 1995) makes them potentially good Acacia pollinators. They might be especially suited to pollinating sparsely flowering A. farnesiana, whose rewards may not meet the metabolic requirements of many bees. The beetles observed visiting acacia flowers are unlikely to be useful pollen vectors. They move between flowers too rarely, and most were destructive florivores or pollen feeders (Jolivet 1995, Proctor et al. 1996).
Potential impacts of shared pollinators
Many visitor taxa were shared across the three mass-flowering species, although their relative abundance varied across days and sites. Such variation suggests that the intensity of any acacia interactions mediated by shared pollinators probably also fluctuates between sites and seasons. The effectiveness of shared bee species as pollen vectors depends on multiple factors, including size, metabolic requirements (Strickler 1979), and floral constancy (Waser 1986; Raine and Chittka 2005, 2007a). The smallest bees are expected to be relatively poor pollinators because they fly relatively short distances from their nest and make extended visits to individual flower heads, often spending an entire foraging bout within a single Acacia canopy (Bernhardt et al. 1984). Larger solitary bees range over the entire surface of flower heads, contact large numbers of individual florets during short flower visits, visit fewer flower heads per canopy than smaller species, and probably fly further between visited trees. The fidelity (constancy) of shared pollinators is clearly linked to the potential for HPT (Waser 1986; Chittka et al. 1999, 2004; Raine et al. 2006). The morphological uniformity of acacia flowers means that although appropriate handling methods may need to be learned, these can then be applied to all acacias (Laverty 1980, 1994; Raine and Chittka 2007b). We might thus expect pollinators to move between coflowering Acacia species, with associated risk of HPT, unless other factors promote fidelity. Daily partitioning of pollen availability amongst coflowering species could potentially reduce such movement because available pollen is concentrated on a single species at a given time, promoting temporary floral constancy.
Notes
Flower heads have often been termed ‘inflorescences’, although as defined by the Flora of Australia (vol. 11A, Mimosaceae, Acacia), the term ‘inflorescence’ more properly applies to groups of flower heads on a floral shoot. For clarity we use the term flower head throughout.
References
Armbruster WS (1985) Patterns of character divergence and the evolution of reproductive ecotypes of Dalechampia scandens (Euphorbiaceae). Evolution 39:733–752
Armbruster WS (1986) Reproductive interactions between sympatric Dalechampia species: are natural assemblages “random” or organised? Ecology 67:522–533
Armbruster WS, Herzig AL (1984) Partitioning and sharing of pollinators by four sympatric species of Dalechampia (Euphorbiaceae) in Panama. Ann Mo Bot Gard 71:1–16
Armbruster WS, Edwards ME, Debevec EM (1994) Floral character displacement generates assemblage structure of western Australian triggerplants (Stylidium). Ecology 75:315–329
Ashman TL (2000) Pollinator selectivity and its implications for the evolution of dioecy and sexual dimorphism. Ecology 81:2577–2591
Ashman TL, Schoen DJ (1994) How long should flowers live? Nature 371:788–791
Ashton PS, Givnish TJ, Appanah S (1988) Staggered flowering of the Dipterocarpaceae: new insights into floral induction and the evolution of mast flowering in the aseasonal tropics. Am Nat 132:44–66
Bailey MA, Mian MAR, Carter TE, Ashley DA, Boerma HR (1997) Pod dehiscence of soybean: identification of quantitative trait loci. J Hered 88:152–154
Bennett B, Bread MD (1985) The nesting biology, mating behaviour and foraging ecology of Perdita opuntiae (Andrenidae). J Kansas Entomol Soc 58:185–194
Bernhardt P (1987) A comparison of the diversity, density and foraging behaviour of bees and wasps on Australian Acacia. Ann Mo Bot Gard 74:42–50
Bernhardt P, Kenrick J, Knox RB (1984) Pollination biology and the breeding system of Acacia retinodes (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae). Ann Mo Bot Gard 71:17–29
Bierzychudek P (1981) Asclepias, Lantana and Epidendrum: a floral mimicry complex? Biotropica 13:54–58
Bonner LJ, Dickinson HG (1990) Anther dehiscence in Lycopersicon esculentum II. water relations. New Phytol 115:367–375
Brown JH, Wilson EO (1956) Character displacement. Syst Zool 5:49–64
Buchmann SL (1983) Buzz-pollination in Angiosperms. In: Jones CE, Little RJ (eds) Handbook of experimental pollination biology. Scientific and Academic Editions, New York, pp 73–113
Buchmann SL, Cane JH (1989) Bees assess pollen returns while sonicating Solanum flowers. Oecologia 81:289–294
Bullock SH, Solis-Magallanes JA (1990) Phenology of canopy trees of a tropical deciduous forest in Mexico. Biotropica 22:22–35
Butler CG, Finney DJ (1942) The influence of various physical and biological aspects of the environment on honeybee activity: an examination of the relationship between activity and solar radiation. J Exp Biol 18:206–212
Chappill JA, Maslin BR (eds) (1995) A phylogenetic assessment of the tribe Acacieae. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, UK
Chittka L, Raine NE (2006) Recognition of flowers by pollinators. Curr Opin Plant Biol 9:428–435
Chittka L, Ings TC, Raine NE (2004) Chance and adaptation in the evolution of island bumblebee behaviour. Popul Ecol 46:243–251
Chittka L, Thomson JD, Waser NM (1999) Flower constancy, insect psychology, and plant evolution. Naturwissenschaften 86:361–377
Cole CB (1981) Overlap, regularity and flowering phenologies. Am Nat 117:993–997
Connell JH (1980) Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past. Oikos 35:131–138
Cook JM, Rasplus JY (2003) Mutualists with attitude: coevolving fig wasps and figs. Trends Ecol Evol 18:241–248
Corbet SA, Chapman H, Saville N (1988) Vibratory pollen collection and flower form: bumble bees on Actinidia, Symphytum, Borago and Polygonatum. Funct Ecol 2:147–155
Dornhaus A, Chittka L (1999) Evolutionary origins of bee dances. Nature 401:38
Dornhaus A, Chittka L (2004) Why do honey bees dance? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:395–401
Dressler RL (1968) Pollination by euglossine bees. Evolution 22:202–210
Feinsinger P (1987) Effects of plants species on each others’ pollination—is community structure influenced? Trends Ecol Evol 2:123–126
Fenchel T (1975) Character displacement and coexistence in mud snails (Hydrobiidae). Oecologia 20:19–32
Fenster CB, Armbruster WS, Wilson P, Dudash MR, Thomson JD (2004) Pollination syndromes and floral specialization. Ann Rev Ecol Evol S 35:375–403
Fishbein M, Venable DL (1996) Diversity and temporal change in the effective pollinators of Asclepias tuberosa. Ecology 77:1061–1073
Frankie GW, Opler PA, Bawa KS (1976) Foraging behaviour of solitary bees: implications for outcrossing of a neotropical forest tree species. J Ecol 64:1049–1057
Frankie GW, Haber WA, Opler PA, Bawa KS (1983) Characteristics and organization of the large bee pollination system in the Costa Rican dry forest. In: Jones CE, Little RJ (eds) Handbook of experimental pollination biology. Scientific and Academic Editions, pp 411–447
Gilbert FS (1981) Foraging ecology of hoverflies: morphology of the mouthparts in relation to feeding on nectar and pollen in some common urban species. Ecol Entomol 6:245–262
Ginsberg HS (1984) Foraging behavior of the bees Halictus ligatus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) and Ceratina calcarata (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae). J NY Entomol Soc 92:162–168
Gleeson SK (1981) Character displacement in flowering phenologies. Oecologia 51:294–295
Goulson D, Wright N (1998) Flower constancy in the hoverflies Episyrphus balteatus (Degeer) and Syrphus ribesii (L.) (Syrphidae). Behav Ecol 9:213–219
Grant PR (1972) Convergent and divergent character displacement. Biol J Linn Soc 4:39–68
Grant WF (1996) Seed pod shattering in the genus Lotus (Fabaceae)—a synthesis of diverse evidence. Can J Plant Sci 76:447–456
Heinrich B (1976) Resource partitioning among some eusocial insects: bumblebees. Ecology 57:874–889
Heithaus ER (1974) The role of plant–pollinator interactions in determining community structure. Ann Mo Bot Gard 61:676–691
Herrera CM (1997) Thermal biology and foraging responses of insect pollinators to the forest floor irradiance mosaic. Oikos 78:601–611
Hocking B (1968) Insect-flower associations of the high arctic with special reference to nectar. Oikos 19:359–387
Horvitz CC, Schemske DW (1990) Spatiotemporal variation in insect mutualists of a neotropical herb. Ecology 71:1085–1097
Huey RB, Pianka ER (1974) Ecological character displacement in a lizard. Am Zool 14:1127–1136
Inouye DW (1978) Resource partitioning in bumblebees: experimental studies of foraging behavior. Ecology 59:672–678
Janzen DH (1967) Synchronization of sexual reproduction of trees within the dry season in Central America. Evolution 21:620–637
Johnson SD (1992) Climatic and phylogenetic determinants of flowering seasonality in the cape flora. J Ecol 81:567–572
Jolivet P (1995) Observations on the host-plants of Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera). Entomologiste 51:77–93
Kay QON (1976) Preferential pollination of yellow-flowered morphs of Raphanus raphinistrum by Pieris and Eristalis spp. Nature 261:230–232
Keijzer CJ (1987) The process of anther dehiscence and pollen dispersal: 1. the opening mechanism of longitudinally dehiscing anthers. New Phytol 105:487–498
Kenrick J (2003) Review of pollen–pistil interactions and their relevance to the reproductive biology of Acacia. Aust Syst Bot 16:119–130
Kephart SR (1983) The partitioning of pollinators among three species of Asclepias. Ecology 64:120–133
Knox RB, Kenrick J (1982) Polyad function in relation to the breeding system of Acacia. In: Mulcahy D, Ottavianopp E (eds) Pollen biology. North Holland Press, Amsterdam, Holland, pp 411–418
Kochmer JP, Handel SN (1986) Constraints and competition in the evolution of flowering phenology. Ecol Monogr 56:303–325
Laverty TM (1980) The flower-visiting behaviour of bumble bees: floral complexity and learning. Can J Zool 58:1324–1335
Laverty TM (1994) Bumble bee learning and flower morphology. Anim Behav 47:531–545
Levin DA (1978) The origins of isolating mechanisms in flowering plants. Evol Biol 11:185–317
Levin DA, Anderson WW (1970) Competition for pollinators between simultaneously flowering species. Am Nat 104:455–467
Lunau K, Maier EJ (1995) Innate color preferences of flower visitors. J Comp Physiol A 177:1–19
Maslin BR (2006) Generic and infrageneric names in Acacia following retypification of the genus. http://www.worldwidewattle.com/infogallery/taxonomy/names-for-acacia-following-ibc.pdf. Cited July 2006
Maslin BR, Miller JT, Seigler DS (2003) Overview of the generic status of Acacia (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae). Aust Syst Bot 16:1–18
Michener CD (1974) The social behavior of the bees: a comparative study. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Minckley RL, Wcislo WT, Yanega D, Buchmann SL (1994) Behavior and phenology of a specialist bee (Dieunomia) and sunflower (Helianthus) pollen availability. Ecology 75:1406–1419
Mosquin T (1971) Competition for pollinators as a stimulus for the evolution of flowering time. Oikos 22:398–402
Motten AF (1986) Pollination ecology of the spring wildflower community of a temperate deciduous forest. Ecol Monogr 56:21–42
Motten AF, Campbell DR, Alexander DR, Miller HL (1981) Pollination effectiveness of specialist and generalist visitors to a North Carolina population of Claytonia virginica. Ecology 62:1278–1287
Murray KG, Feinsinger P, Busby WH, Linhart YB, Beach JH, Kinsman S (1987) Evaluation of character displacement in two tropical pollination guilds. Ecology 68:1283–1293
Ollerton J, Lack AJ (1992) Flowering phenology: an example of relaxation of natural selection? Trends Ecol Evol 7:274–276
Ollerton J, Johnson SD, Cranmer L, Kellie S (2003) The pollination ecology of an assemblage of grassland asclepiads in South Africa. Ann Bot Lond 92:807–834
Parmenter L (1958) Flies (Diptera) and their relations with plants. Lond Nat 37:115–125
Pianka ER (1973) The structure of lizard communities. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 4:53–74
Pleasants JM (1980) Competition for bumblebee pollinators in rocky mountain plant communities. Ecology 61:1446–1459
Pleasants JM (1983) Structure of plant and pollinator communities. In: Jones CE, Little RJ (eds) Handbook of experimental pollination biology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 375–393
Poole RW, Rathcke B (1979) Regularity, randomness and aggregation in flowering phenologies. Science 203:470–471
Proctor M, Yeo P, Lack A (1996) The natural history of pollination. Harper Collins, London
Raine NE (2001) The pollination ecology of a Mexican Acacia community. D. Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, Oxford
Raine NE, Chittka L (2005) Comparison of flower constancy and foraging performance in three bumblebee species (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus). Entomol Gen 28:81–89
Raine NE, Chittka L (2007a) Flower constancy and memory dynamics in bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus). Entomol Gen 29:179–199
Raine NE, Chittka L (2007b) Pollen foraging: learning a complex motor skill by bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). Naturwissenschaften 94:459–464
Raine NE, Willmer P, Stone GN (2002) Spatial structuring and floral avoidance behavior prevent ant-pollinator conflict in a Mexican ant-acacia. Ecology 83:3086–3096
Raine NE, Gammans N, MacFadyen IJ, Scrivner GK, Stone GN (2004) Guards and thieves: antagonistic interactions between two ant species coexisting on the same ant-plant. Ecol Entomol 29:345–352
Raine NE, Ings TC, Dornhaus A, Saleh N, Chittka L (2006) Adaptation, genetic drift, pleiotropy, and history in the evolution of bee foraging behavior. Adv Stud Behav 36:305–354
Rathcke B (1983) Competition and facilitation among plants for pollination. In: Real L (ed) Pollination biology. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp 305–329
Rathcke B (1988) Flowering phenologies in a shrub community: competition and constraints. J Ecol 76:975–994
Reich PB, Borchert R (1984) Water stress and tree phenology in a tropical dry forest in the lowlands of Costa Rica. J Ecol 72:61–74
Ross JH (1981) An analysis of the African Acacia species: their distribution, possible origins and relationships. Bothalia 13:389–413
Rothstein SI (1973) The niche variation model—is it valid? Am Nat 107:598–620
Roubik DW (1989) Ecology and natural history of tropical bees. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Roubik DW (1992) Loose niches in tropical communities: why are there so few bees and so many trees? In: Hunter MD, Ohgushi T, Price PW (eds) Effects of resource distribution on animal–plant interactions. Academic Press, New York, pp 327–354
Schoener TW (1970) Non-synchronous spatial overlap of lizards in patchy habitats. Ecology 51:408–418
Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285
Slatkin M (1980) Ecological character displacement. Ecology 61:163–177
Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. W.H. Freeman, New York, USA
Stone GN (1994) Activity patterns of females of the solitary bee Anthophora plumipes in relation to temperature, nectar supplies and body size. Ecol Entomol 19:177–189
Stone GN (1995) Female foraging responses to sexual harassment in the solitary bee Anthophora plumipes. Anim Behav 50:405–412
Stone GN, Loder PMJ, Blackburn TM (1995) Foraging and courtship behaviour in males of the solitary bee Anthophora plumipes (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae): thermal physiology and the roles of body size. Ecol Entomol 20:169–183
Stone G, Willmer P, Nee S (1996) Daily partitioning of pollinators in an African Acacia community. Proc Roy Soc B 263:1389–1393
Stone GN, Amos JN, Stone TF, Knight RJ, Gay H, Parrott F (1988) Thermal effects on activity patterns and behavioural switching in a concourse of foragers on Stachytarpheta mutabilis (Verbenaceae) in Papua New Guinea. Oecologia 77:56–63
Stone GN, Willmer PG, Rowe JA (1998) Partitioning of pollinators during flowering in an African Acacia community. Ecology 79:2808–2827
Stone GN, Gilbert F, Willmer P, Potts S, Fayez S, Samy Z (1999a) Windows of opportunity and the temporal structuring of foraging activity in a desert solitary bee. Ecol Entomol 24:208–221
Stone GN, Willmer PG, Rowe JA, Nyundo B, Abdallah A (1999b) The pollination ecology of Mkomazi Acacia species. In: Coe MJ, McWilliam NC, Stone GN, Packer MJ (eds) Mkomazi: the ecology, biodiversity and conservation of a Tanzanian Savanna. Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers), London, pp 337–360
Stone GN, Raine NE, Prescott M, Willmer PG (2003) The pollination ecology of Acacias (Fabaceae, Mimosoideae). Aust Syst Bot 16:103–118
Strickler K (1979) Specialization and foraging efficiency of solitary bees. Ecology 60:998–1009
Thorp RW (1979) Structural, behavioral and physiological adaptations of bees for collecting pollen. Ann Mo Bot Gard 66:788–812
Thorp RW (2000) The collection of pollen by bees. Plant Syst Evol 222:211–223
Tybirk K (1993) Pollination, breeding systems and seed abortion in some African acacias. Bot J Linn Soc 112:107–137
Van Valen L (1965) Morphological variation and width of ecological niche. Am Nat 99:377–390
Waser NM (1978a) Competition for hummingbird pollination and sequential flowering in two Colorado wildflowers. Ecology 59:934–944
Waser NM (1978b) Interspecific pollen transfer and competition between co-occurring plant species. Oecologia 36:223–236
Waser NM (1983) Competition for pollination and floral character differences among sympatric plant species: a review of evidence. In: Jones CE, Little RJ (eds) Handbook of experimental pollination biology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 277–293
Waser NM (1986) Flower constancy: definition, cause, and measurement. Am Nat 127:593–603
Waser NM, Fugate ML (1986) Pollen precedence and stigma closure: a mechanism of competition for pollination between Delphinium nelsonii and Ipomopsis aggregata. Oecologia 70:573–577
Williams MR (1995) Critical values of a statistic to detect competitive displacement. Ecology 76:646–647
Willmer PG, Stone GN (2004) Behavioral, ecological, and physiological determinants of the activity patterns of bees. Adv Stud Behav 34:347–466
Wright SJ, Calderon O (1995) Phylogenetic patterns among tropical flowering phenologies. J Ecol 83:937–948
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Miguel Franco, Graham Floater, Tim Jones, Rubén Pérez, and Juan Ramón Zárate for their considerable help in México, Paul Johnson, George McGavin, David Raubenheimer, David Roberts and Steve Simpson for their assistance in Oxford, and the Estación de Biologia de Chamela IBUNAM for permission to conduct research. Thanks to Ricardo Ayala-Barajas, Felipe Noguera-Martínez, Alicia Rodriguez-Palafox and Arturo Solís-Magallanes for their invaluable taxonomic expertise, and to Mike Raine and two anonymous referees for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. We are particularly grateful to Rosario ‘Chayo’ Velasco-Aceuedo and everyone at El Tejaban for sustaining the project. NER was supported by a postgraduate studentship from the William Edward’s Educational Charity, Kenilworth, a Varley-Gradwell fellowship from the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, and Magdalen College, Oxford. GNS was supported by grants from the NERC (GR9/03553) and the Royal Society. This work was supported by the E.P.A. Cephalosporin Fund, the Percy Sladen Memorial Fund c/o Linnean Society of London and Acacia Bank California.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Handling editor: Gimme Walter.
Alice Sharp Pierson is no longer working as research biologist.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Raine, N.E., Pierson, A.S. & Stone, G.N. Plant–pollinator interactions in a Mexican Acacia community. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 1, 101–117 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-007-9010-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-007-9010-7