TY - JOUR
T1 - Global patterns of interaction specialization in bird–flower networks
AU - Zanata, Thais B.
AU - Dalsgaard, Bo
AU - Passos, Fernando C.
AU - Cotton, Peter A.
AU - Roper, James J.
AU - Maruyama, Pietro K.
AU - Fischer, Erich
AU - Schleuning, Matthias
AU - Martin Gonzalez, Ana Maria
AU - Vizentin-Bugoni, Jeferson
AU - Franklin, Donald C.
AU - Abrahamczyk, Stefan
AU - Alarcón, Ruben
AU - Cardoso Araujo, Andrea
AU - Araújo, Francielle P.
AU - de Azevedo-Junior, Severino M.
AU - Baquero, Andrea C.
AU - Böhning-Gaese, Katrin
AU - Carstensen, Daniel Wisbech
AU - Chupil, Henrique
AU - Coelho, Aline G.
AU - Faria, Rogério R.
AU - Hořák, David
AU - Ingversen, Tanja Toftemark
AU - Janeček, Štěpán
AU - Kohler, Glauco
AU - Lara, Carlos
AU - Las-Casas, Flor M. G.
AU - Lopes, Ariadna V.
AU - Machado, Adriana O.
AU - Machado, Caio G.
AU - Machado, Isabel C.
AU - Maglianesi, María A.
AU - Malucelli, Tiago S.
AU - Mohd-Azlan, Jayasilan
AU - Moura, Alan C.
AU - Oliveira, Genilda M.
AU - Oliveira, Paulo E.
AU - Ornelas, Juan Francisco
AU - Riegert, Jan
AU - Rodrigues, Licléia C.
AU - Rosero-Lasprilla, Liliana
AU - Rui, Ana M.
AU - Sazima, Marlies
AU - Schmid, Baptiste
AU - Sedláček, Ondřej
AU - Timmermann, Allan
AU - Vollstädt, Maximilian G.R.
AU - Wang, Zhiheng
AU - Watts, Stella
AU - Rahbek, Carsten
AU - Varassin, Isabela G.
PY - 2017/8
Y1 - 2017/8
N2 - 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 (H2′), 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′) and greater modularity (greater QB). However, we found no significant differences between hummingbird– and sunbird–flower networks, nor between sunbird– and honeyeater–flower networks. Main conclusions: As expected, hummingbirds and their floral resources have greater interaction specialization than honeyeaters, possibly because of greater phenotypic specialization and greater floral resource richness in the New World. Interaction specialization in sunbird–flower communities was similar to both hummingbird–flower and honeyeater–flower communities. This may either be due to the relatively small number of sunbird–flower networks available, or because sunbird–flower communities share features of both hummingbird–flower communities (specialized floral shapes) and honeyeater–flower communities (fewer floral resources). These results suggest a link between interaction specialization and both phenotypic specialization and floral resource richness within bird–flower communities at a global scale.
AB - 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 (H2′), 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′) and greater modularity (greater QB). However, we found no significant differences between hummingbird– and sunbird–flower networks, nor between sunbird– and honeyeater–flower networks. Main conclusions: As expected, hummingbirds and their floral resources have greater interaction specialization than honeyeaters, possibly because of greater phenotypic specialization and greater floral resource richness in the New World. Interaction specialization in sunbird–flower communities was similar to both hummingbird–flower and honeyeater–flower communities. This may either be due to the relatively small number of sunbird–flower networks available, or because sunbird–flower communities share features of both hummingbird–flower communities (specialized floral shapes) and honeyeater–flower communities (fewer floral resources). These results suggest a link between interaction specialization and both phenotypic specialization and floral resource richness within bird–flower communities at a global scale.
KW - honeyeaters
KW - hummingbirds
KW - modularity
KW - niche partitioning
KW - ornithophily
KW - plant–animal interactions
KW - specialization
KW - sunbirds
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021231126&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/jbi.13045
DO - 10.1111/jbi.13045
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:85021231126
VL - 44
SP - 1891
EP - 1910
JO - Journal of Biogeography
JF - Journal of Biogeography
SN - 0305-0270
IS - 8
ER -