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 -