Dynamics of plant–pollinator–robber systems

Plant–pollinator–robber systems are considered, where the plants and pollinators are mutualists, the plants and nectar robbers are in a parasitic relation, and the pollinators and nectar robbers consume a common limiting resource without interfering competition. My aim is to show a mechanism by which pollination–mutualism could persist when there exist nectar robbers. Through the dynamics of a plant–pollinator–robber model, it is shown that (i) when the plants alone (i.e., without pollination–mutualism) cannot provide sufficient resources for the robbers’ survival but pollination–mutualism can persist in the plant–pollinator system, the pollination–mutualism may lead to invasion of the robbers, while the pollinators will not be driven into extinction by the robbers’ invasion. (ii) When the plants alone cannot support the robbers’ survival but persistence of pollination–mutualism in the plant–pollinator system is density-dependent, the pollinators and robbers could coexist if the robbers’ efficiency in translating the plant–robber interactions into fitness is intermediate and the initial densities of the three species are in an appropriate region. (iii) When the plants alone can support the robbers’ survival, the pollinators will not be driven into extinction by the robbers if their efficiency in translating the plant–pollinator interactions into fitness is relatively larger than that of the robbers. The analysis leads to an explanation for the persistence of pollination–mutualism in the presence of nectar robbers in real situations.     

盗蜜行为在植物繁殖生态学中的意义

在动植物的相互关系中,盗蜜行为被认为是一种不同于普通传粉者的非正常访花行为。动物之所以要采取这种特殊的觅食策略,有假说认为是由访花者的口器和植物的花部形态不匹配造成的,也有认为是盗蜜行为提高了觅食效率从而使盗蜜者受益。在盗蜜现象中,盗蜜者和宿主植物之间的关系是复杂的。盗蜜对宿主植物的影响尤其是对其繁殖适合度的影响归纳起来有正面、负面以及中性3类。与此同时,盗蜜者的种类, 性别及其掠食行为差异不仅与生境因素密切相关,而且会对宿主植物的繁殖成功产生直接或间接的影响。另外,盗蜜者的存在无疑对其它正常传粉者的访花行为也产生一定的影响,从而间接地影响宿主植物的繁殖成功, 而植物在花部形态上也出现了对盗蜜现象的适应性进化。作者认为, 盗蜜是短嘴蜂对长管型花最有效的一种掠食策略, 它不仅增加了盗蜜者对资源的利用能力, 而且由于盗蜜对宿主植物繁殖成功的不同的影响使其具有调节盗蜜者和宿主之间种群动态的作用, 两者的彼此适应是一种协同进化的结果。     

Effects of nectar-robbing on plant reproduction and evolution

The relationship between plant and pollinator is considered as the mutualism because plant benefits from the pollinator's transport of male gametes and pollinator benefits from plant's reward.Nectar robbers are frequently described as cheaters in the plant-pollinator mutualism,because it is assumed that they obtain a reward (nectar) without providing a service (pollination).Nectar robbers are birds,insects,or other flower visitors that remove nectar from flowers through a hole pierced or bitten in the corolla.Nectar robbing represents a complex relationship between animals and plants.Whether plants benefit from the relationship is always a controversial issue in earlier studies.This paper is a review of the recent literatures on nectar robbing and attempts to acquire an expanded understanding of the ecological and evolutionary roles that robbers play.Understanding the effects of nectar robbers on the plants that they visited and other flower visitors is especially important when one considers the high rates of robbing that a plant population may experience and the high percentage of all flower visitors that nectar robbers make to some species.There are two standpoints in explaining why animals forage on flowers and steal nectar in an illegitimate behavior.One is that animals can only get food in illegitimate way because of the mismatch of the morphologies of animals'mouthparts and floral structure.The other point of view argues that nectar robbing is a relatively more efficient,thus more energy-saving way for animals to get nectar from flowers.This is probably associated with the difficulty of changing attitudes that have been held for a long time.In the case of positive effect,the bodies of nectar robbers frequently touch the sex organs of plants during their visiting to the flowers and causing pollination.The neutral effect,nectar robbers' behavior may destruct the corollas of flowers,but they neither touch the sex organs nor destroy the ovules.Their behavior does not affect the fruit sets or seed sets of the hosting plant.Besides the direct impacts on plants,nectar robbers may also have an indirect effect on the behavior of the legitimate pollinators.Under some circumstances,the change in pollinator behavior could result in improved reproductive fitness of plants through increased pollen flow and out-crossing.     

Effects of nectar-robbing on plant reproduction and evolution

The relationship between plant and pollinator is considered as the mutualism because plant benefits from the pollinator’s transport of male gametes and pollinator benefits from plant’s reward. Nectar robbers are frequently described as cheaters in the plant-pollinator mutualism, because it is assumed that they obtain a reward (nectar) without providing a service (pollination). Nectar robbers are birds, insects, or other flower visitors that remove nectar from flowers through a hole pierced or bitten in the corolla. Nectar robbing represents a complex relationship between animals and plants. Whether plants benefit from the relationship is always a controversial issue in earlier studies. This paper is a review of the recent literatures on nectar robbing and attempts to acquire an expanded understanding of the ecological and evolutionary roles that robbers play. Understanding the effects of nectar robbers on the plants that they visited and other flower visitors is especially important when one considers the high rates of robbing that a plant population may experience and the high percentage of all flower visitors that nectar robbers make to some species. There are two standpoints in explaining why animals forage on flowers and steal nectar in an illegitimate behavior. One is that animals can only get food in illegitimate way because of the mismatch of the morphologies of animals’ mouthparts and floral structure. The other point of view argues that nectar robbing is a relatively more efficient, thus more energy-saving way for animals to get nectar from flowers. This is probably associated with the difficulty of changing attitudes that have been held for a long time. In the case of positive effect, the bodies of nectar robbers frequently touch the sex organs of plants during their visiting to the flowers and causing pollination. The neutral effect, nectar robbers’ behavior may destruct the corollas of flowers, but they neither touch the sex organs nor destroy the ovules. Their behavior does not affect the fruit sets or seed sets of the hosting plant. Besides the direct impacts on plants, nectar robbers may also have an indirect effect on the behavior of the legitimate pollinators. Under some circumstances, the change in pollinator behavior could result in improved reproductive fitness of plants through increased pollen flow and out-crossing. __________ Translated from Acta phytoecologiaca Sinica, 2006, 30(4): 695–702 [译自: 植物生态学报]     

Nectar robbing: a common phenomenon mainly determined by accessibility constraints,nectar volume and density of energy rewards

Nectar robbers use a hole made in the perianth to extract nectar. Since robbers may modify plant fitness, they play an important role by driving evolution on floral traits, shaping population structure and influencing community dynamics. Although nectar robbing is widespread in angiosperms, the causes and ecological implications of this behaviour on large ecological scales are still unexplored. Our aim is to study the frequency of nectar robbing in plants of temperate and tropical regions and examine its association with plant traits. We characterised the levels of nectar robbing in 88 species of Mediterranean, Alpine, Antillean and Andean plant communities and identified the most important nectar robbers. We analysed associations between the levels of robbing and floral morphology, production and density of energy rewards, mechanisms of protection against nectar robbers, plant life form and geographic origin. Nectar robbing was present at all sampling sites. Within communities two patterns of robbing levels related to the diversity and specialization of robbers were detected. In most communities one plant species presented very high levels of robbing while other species had intermediate to low robbing levels. There, nectar robbers are opportunists, robbing highly rewarding plants. In the Andean community the high specialization of several co‐existing flowerpiercers produced an even pattern of robbing levels in the plant community. Plants with long flowers, abundant nectar and a high energy density are more likely to be robbed by both insects and birds. A high aggregation of the flowers within the plants and the presence of long calyxes and bracts are associated to low robbing rates by insects and to a lesser extent by birds. Besides the morphological constraints that operate on a single flower basis, nectar robbing is a phenomenon dependent upon the density of energy rewards reflecting the presence of mechanisms on higher ecological scales.     

盗蜜对角蒿传粉者行为和生殖成功的影响

一些研究显示盗蜜对自交植物的结实和结籽没有显著影响。然而, 对于既有传粉者为其传粉实现异交又能通过自交实现生殖保障的兼性自交植物来说, 盗蜜对其生殖的影响还知之甚少。由于兼性自交植物可以自交, 盗蜜对其总体结实可能不会有显著影响, 但可能会通过影响传粉者行为而影响传粉者介导的结实。为了验证这一假说, 本研究以兼性自交的一年生角蒿(Invarvillea sinensis var. sinensis)为研究材料, 通过野外调查和控制实验, 探讨了盗蜜对传粉者介导的结实(传粉者行为)和总体结实率的影响。结果表明: 角蒿的盗蜜者和主要传粉者相同, 均为密林熊蜂(Bombus patagiatus)。熊蜂盗蜜频率平均为20.24% (范围为0-51.43%)。盗蜜对角蒿总体结实率、每果结籽数和每果种子重量没有显著影响。然而, 被盗蜜花的柱头闭合比率显著高于未被盗蜜花, 说明盗蜜影响传粉者的访花行为和传粉者介导的结实率。另外, 被盗蜜花的高度显著高于未被盗蜜花, 说明盗蜜者倾向于从较大较高的花上盗蜜。这些结果为全面认识盗蜜对植物生殖的影响提供了新的信息。     

The relative strength of different floral visitors driving floral evolution within a <Emphasis Type="Italic">Primula secundiflora</Emphasis> population

Floral visitor assemblages within plant populations are usually composed of different visitors, and the relative abundance of these visitors also varies. Therefore, identifying the relative strength of these floral visitors driving floral evolution within the population is an important step in predicting the evolutionary trajectory of floral traits. Using supplemental hand pollination and nectar-robbing exclusion treatments, we experimentally identified the relative strengths of legitimate pollinators (that visit flowers through the corolla tube entrance) and nectar robbers (that visit flowers by biting a hole in the corolla tube or using an existing hole) driving floral evolution within the Primula secundiflora population. We also estimated legitimate pollinator- and nectar robber-mediated selection separately for pin and thrum flowers. Both legitimate pollinators and nectar robbers mediated selection on pollination efficiency traits in P. secundiflora population. Legitimate pollinators mediated selection for wider corolla tubes, whereas nectar robbers mediated selection for longer corolla tubes. In addition, nectar robber-mediated selection on corolla tube length marginally varied between the pin and thrum flowers. Nectar robber mediated selection for longer corolla tube length in the pin flowers not in the thrum flowers. These results indicate that legitimate pollinators and nectar robbers within a population can drive differential evolutionary trajectories of floral traits.     

Causes and consequences of floral damage in Aconitum lycoctonum at high and low elevations in Switzerland

The outcomes of interactions among plants and the insects that use their flowers are likely to vary among the physical environments and the communities in which they grow. In this study we quantified floral damage of Aconitum lycoctonum in high (>2000 m) and low (c. 500 m) elevation populations in Switzerland. At high elevation, floral damage was frequent and was caused by nectar-robbing short-tongued bumblebees. Nectar robbers make a hole in the flower when they collect nectar. A nectar robber exclusion experiment showed that nectar robbery by short-tongued bumblebees had no effect on the female reproductive success of plants; robbing bees rarely damaged the nectaries, and damage to the petals probably does not decrease flower longevity. In addition, nectar robbers tended to collect pollen during about 10% of their visits. Thus, these bees may act as low-efficiency pollinators and may, at times, be mutualistic associates. At low elevation, the holes in the flowers were caused by beetles (Meligethes viridescens) and not by short-tongued bumblebees. The beetles eat pollen and might also consume nectar. Since the beetles gain access to pollen and nectar by entering the flower through its opening, and later chew holes while foraging on floral tissue, the beetles are pollen eaters rather than nectar robbers. Overall, our results show that not all floral damage is caused by nectar robbers and that there can be strong altitudinal variation in the causes and consequences of floral damage.     

Specialized pollination in the African milkweed Xysmalobium orbiculare: a key role for floral scent in the attraction of spider-hunting wasps

Specialized pollination by prey-hunting wasps is poorly documented in rewarding plants. Furthermore, the mechanisms of achieving specialization are not clear since flowers typically produce exposed nectar and have no morphological adaptations (such as long spurs) to exclude non-pollinating visitors. We investigated the pollination of Xysmalobium orbiculare and explored the functional roles of floral scent and nectar in attracting pollinators and deterring nectar robbers. Floral visitor observations showed that this milkweed is visited almost exclusively by pompilid wasps in the genus Hemipepsis. These wasps were the only insects to carry pollinia, and a cage experiment confirmed their effectiveness in removing and inserting pollinia on flowers. Hand-pollinations showed that plants are genetically self-incompatible and thus reliant on pollinators for seed set. Palatability experiments with honeybees showed that nectar is distasteful to non-pollinating insects and is therefore likely to play a functional role in deterring nectar thieves. Choice experiments in the field showed that the wasp pollinators are attracted primarily by floral scent rather than visual cues. Analysis of spectral reflectance of flowers revealed that flowers are dull colored and are unlikely to stand out from the background vegetation. We conclude that X. orbiculare is specialized for pollination by spider-hunting wasps in the genus Hemipepsis and utilizes floral scent to selectively attract its pollinators and unpalatable nectar to deter non-pollinating visitors.     

Pollinators and nectar robbers cause directional selection for large spur circle in Impatiens oxyanthera (Balsaminaceae)

Nectar spurs have an important role in floral evolution and plant–pollinator coadaptation. The flowers of some species possess spurs curving into a circle. However, it is unclear whether spur circle diameter is under direct selection pressure from different sources, such as pollinators and nectar robbers. In this study, we quantified selection on some floral traits, such as spur circle diameter in Impatiens oxyanthera (Balsaminaceae) using phenotypic selection analysis and compared the relative importance of pollinators and nectar robbers as selective agents using mediation analysis. The study showed that pollinators caused significant selection on corolla length, spur curvature and spur circle diameter while nectar robbers only imposed strong selection on spur circle diameter. Pollinators favored flowers with large corolla, curly spurs and large spur circle while nectar robbers preferred flowers with small spur circle. More pollinator visits resulted in higher female reproductive success, while robbery reduced female fitness. Conflicting selection on spur traits from pollinators and nectar robbers was not found. Mediation analysis showed that selection on floral traits through nectar robbing was stronger than selection through pollination. The results suggested that pollinators and nectar robbers jointly mediated the directional selection for large spur circle, and nectar robbers caused stronger selection than pollinators on floral traits.     

Invasibility of Nectarless Flowers in Plant–Pollinator Systems

This paper considers plant–pollinator systems in which plants are divided into two categories: The plants that secret a substantial volume of nectar in their flowers are called secretors, while those without secreting nectar are called nonsecretors (cheaters). The interaction between pollinators and secretors is mutualistic, while the interaction between pollinators and nonsecretors is parasitic. Both interactions can be described by Beddington–DeAngelis functional responses. Using dynamical systems theory, we show global dynamics of a pollinator–secretor–cheater model and demonstrate mechanisms by which nectarless flowers/nonsecretors can invade the pollinator–secretor system and by which the three species could coexist. We define a threshold in the nonsecretors’ efficiency in translating pollinator–cheater interaction into fitness, which is determined by parameters (factors) in the systems. When their efficiency is above the threshold, non-secretors can invade the pollinator–secretor system. While the nonsecretors’ invasion often leads to their persistence in pollinator–secretor systems, the model demonstrates situations in which the non-secretors’ invasion can drive secretors into extinction, which consequently leads to extinction of the nonsecretors themselves.     

Effects of nectar robbing on nectar dynamics and bumblebee foraging strategies in Linaria vulgaris (Scrophulariaceae)

Differences in morphology among bumblebee species sharing a nectar resource may lead to variation in foraging behaviour and efficiency. Less efficient bumblebees might opportunistically switch foraging strategies from legitimate visitation to secondary robbing when hole-biting primary robbers are present. We observed various aspects of pollination and nectar robbing ecology of Linaria vulgaris in the Colorado Rocky Mountains, with emphasis on the role of bumblebee proboscis length. Bees can extract nectar from a nectar spur legitimately, by entering the front of the flower, or illegitimately, by biting or reusing holes in the spur. Although L. vulgaris flowers are apparently adapted for pollination by long-tongued bees, short-tongued bees visited them legitimately for trace amounts of nectar but switched to secondary robbing in the presence of primary robbers. Longer-tongued bees removed more nectar in less time than did shorter-tongued bees, and were less likely to switch to secondary robbing even when ∼100% of flowers had been pierced. As the proportion of robbed flowers in the population increased, the relative number of legitimate visits decreased while the relative number of robbing visits increased. Robbing decreased nectar standing crop and increased the proportion of empty flowers per inflorescence. Despite these potentially detrimental effects of robbers, differences in inflorescence use among robbers and pollinators, and the placement of holes made by primary robbers, may mitigate negative effects of nectar robbing in L. vulgaris . We discuss some of the reasons that L. vulgaris pollination ecology and growth form might temper the potentially negative effect of nectar robbing.     

Roles of nectar robbers in reproduction of the tropical treelet Quassia amara (Simaroubaceae)

Summary Different subsets of mainland nectarivores visited Quassia amara (Simaroubaceae), a self-compatible, predominately bird-pollinated treelet, at three islands and the mainland in Panamá. Factors correlated with reproductive success, defined as seed to ovule ratio, included the species pollinating and robbing flowers, visitor activity, pollinator response to nectar robbing, and internal regulation of fruit production. The absence of robbers and former pollinators on an island separated from the mainland during the holocene was associated with shifts in flower size, nectar production, and 3–4fold increases in population reproductive success and pollinator efficiency (=seeds produced per visit). Exclusion of robbers at three sites resulted in seed production 4–12 times greater than control flowers, at which robbers accounted for 52–98% of all visits. Although 36% of buds and over 83% of all flowers were robbed, this had no direct influence on the recorded 36–61% respective abortion rates of buds and flowers. Opportunistic avian robbers appeared where normal robbers were absent; three avian robbers extensively used floral perforations made by Trigona bees, and all ancillary pollinators also robbed. Selection pressures from nectar robbers are discussed that may relate to plant reproductive fitness.     

Nectar: generation, regulation and ecological functions

Nectar contains water, sugars and amino acids to attract pollinators and defenders and is protected from nectar robbers and microorganisms by secondary compounds and antimicrobial proteins. Floral and extrafloral nectar secretion can be induced by jasmonic acid, it is often adjusted to consumer identity and consumption rate and depends on invertase activity. Invertases are likely to play at least three roles: the uploading of sucrose from the phloem, carbohydrate mobilization during active secretion and the postsecretory adjustment of the sucrose:hexose ratio of nectar. However, it remains to be studied how plants produce and secrete non-carbohydrate components. More research is needed to understand how plants produce nectar, the most important mediator of their interactions with mutualistic animals.     

Floral Phytochemistry: Impact of Volatile Organic Compounds and Nectar Secondary Metabolites on Pollinator Behavior and Health

Plants produce a plethora of phytochemicals including sugars, amino acids (AAs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and secondary metabolites (SMs) with different ecological functions. To attract pollinators and defenders and ensure reproductive success, plants mainly rely on VOCs, while to reward insects, plants synthesize nectar rich in sugars and AAs. Furthermore, plant SMs can play various roles. Some components are able to interact with the nervous system of insects by binding to neuron receptor proteins and thus manipulate pollinator behavior. Others, like alkaloids and phenolics, protect from nectar robbers and enhance memory and foraging efficiency, or, as in the case of flavonoids, exhibit high antioxidant activities supporting pollinator well-being. This review discusses the impact of VOCs and nectar SMs on insect behavior and pollinator health.     

Relationship between floral tube length and nectar robbing in Duranta erecta L. (Verbenaceae)

Although nectar robbing is a common phenomenon in plant species with tubular flowers or flowers with nectar spurs, the potential effect of this illegitimate interaction on plant reproductive success has not received the deserved attention. In the present study, we analysed the functional relationship between flower morphology and nectar robbing, and examined the reproductive consequences of the interaction in a population of Duranta erecta (Verbenaceae) on the island of Cuba. The results show that nectar robbing is conducted by the carpenter bees Xylocopa cubaecola and affects up to 44% of flowers in the studied population. However, not all the flowers have the same probability of being robbed. The chance of flowers being robbed increases with flower length and flower diameter. Moreover, nectar robbing significantly decreases the chance that flowers will set fruit. Also, the impact of nectar robbing on the probability of flowers to set fruits is dependent on the plant. We suggest that nectar robbing may represent an opposite selective force that balances the selection for longer corollas often imposed by pollinators specializing in visiting tubular flowers. Such a relationship with nectar robbers would have obvious implications for the evolution of tubular or closed flowers. This preliminary finding deserves further research in light of the ecological and evolutionary consequences of nectar robbing in tubular flowers.  © 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society , 2009, 96 , 392–398.     

Foraging strategy predicts foraging economy in a facultative secondary nectar robber

In mutualistic interactions, the decision whether to cooperate or cheat depends on the relative costs and benefits of each strategy. In pollination mutualisms, secondary nectar robbing is a facultative behavior employed by a diverse array of nectar‐feeding organisms, and is thought to be a form of cheating. Primary robbers create holes in floral tissue through which they feed on nectar, whereas secondary robbers, which often lack chewing mouthparts, feed on nectar through existing holes. Because primary robbers make nectar more readily available to secondary robbers, primary robbers facilitate the behaviors of secondary robbers. However, the net effect of facilitation on secondary robber fitness has not been empirically tested: it is unknown whether the benefit secondary robbers receive is strong enough to overcome the cost of competing with primary robbers for a shared resource. We conducted foraging experiments using the bumble bee Bombus bifarius, which can alternatively forage ‘legitimately’ (from the floral opening) or secondary‐rob. We measured the relative foraging efficiencies (handling time per flower, flowers visited per minute, proportion of foraging bout spent consuming nectar) of these alternative behaviors, and tested whether the frequency of primary robbing and nectar standing crop in primary‐robbed flowers of Linaria vulgaris (Plantaginaceae) affected foraging efficiency. Surprisingly, there was no effect of primary robbing frequency on the foraging efficiency of secondary‐robbing B. bifarius. Instead, foraging strategy was a major predictor of foraging efficiency, with legitimate foraging being significantly more efficient than secondary robbing. Legitimate foraging was the more common strategy used by B. bifarius in our study; however, it is rarely used by B. bifarius foraging on L. vulgaris in nature, despite indications that it is more efficient. Our results suggest the need for deeper investigations into why bees adopt secondary robbing as a foraging strategy, specifically, the environmental contexts that promote the behavior.     

The pollination efficiency of a pollinator depends on its foraging strategy,flowering phenology,and the flower characteristics of a plant species

Honey bees and stingless bees are generalist visitors of several wild and cultivated plants. They forage with a high degree of floral fidelity and thereby help in the pollination services of those plants. We hypothesized that pollination efficiency might be influenced by flowering phenology, floral characteristics, and resource collection modes of the worker bees. In this paper, we surveyed the foraging strategies of honey bees (Apis cerana, Apis dorsata, and Apis florea) and stingless bees (Tetragonula iridipennis) concerning their pollination efficiencies. Bees showed different resource gathering strategies, including legitimate (helping in pollination as mixed foragers and specialized foragers) and illegitimate (serving as nectar robbers and pollen thieves) types of flower visitation patterns. Foraging strategies are influenced by the shape of flowers, the timing of the visitation, floral richness, and bee species. Honey bees and stingless bees mainly acted as legitimate visitors in most plants studied. Sometimes honey bees served as nectar robbers in tubular flowers and stingless bees as pollen thieves in large-sized flowers. Among the legitimate categories, mixed foragers have a comparatively lower flower visitation rate than the specialized nectar and pollen foragers. However, mixed foragers have greater abundance and higher values of the single-visit pollination efficiency index (PEi) than nectar and pollen foragers. The value of the combined parameter ‘importance in pollination (PI)’ was thus higher in mixed foragers than in nectar and pollen foragers.     

The ecological significance of toxic nectar

Although plant-herbivore and plant-pollinator interactions have traditionally been studied separately, many traits are simultaneously under selection by both herbivores and pollinators. For example, secondary compounds commonly associated with herbivore defense have been found in the nectar of many plant species, and many plants produce nectar that is toxic or repellent to some floral visitors. Although secondary compounds in nectar and toxic nectar are geographically and phylogenetically widespread, their ecological significance is poorly understood. Several hypotheses have been proposed for the possible functions of toxic nectar, including encouraging specialist pollinators, deterring nectar robbers, preventing microbial degradation of nectar, and altering pollinator behavior. All of these hypotheses rest on the assumption that the benefits of toxic nectar must outweigh possible costs; however, to date no study has demonstrated that toxic nectar provides fitness benefits for any plant. Therefore, in addition to these adaptive hypotheses, we should also consider the hypothesis that toxic nectar provides no benefits or is tolerably detrimental to plants, and occurs due to previous selection pressures or pleiotropic constraints. For example, secondary compounds may be transported into nectar as a consequence of their presence in phloem, rather than due to direct selection for toxic nectar. Experimental approaches are necessary to understand the role of toxic nectar in plant-animal interactions.     

Effects of nectar robbing on pollinator behavior and plant reproductive success of Pitcairnia angustifolia (Bromeliaceae)

Nectar robbers may have direct and indirect effects on plant reproductive success but the presence of nectar robbing is not proof of negative fitness effects. We combined census data and field experiments to disentangle the complex effects of nectar robbing on nectar production rates, pollinator behavior, pollen export, and female reproductive success of Pitcairnia angustifolia. Under natural conditions flowers were visited by four different animal species including a robber‐like pollinator and a secondary robber. Natural levels of nectar robbing ranged from 40 to 100%. Natural variation in nectar robbing was not associated with fruit set in any year whereas seed set was weakly positively associated for 1 year only. Artificial nectar robbing did not increase nectar production or concentration, did not affect the behavior of long‐billed hummingbirds, and when faced with artificially robbed flowers, these visitors behaved as secondary nectar robbers. The number of stigmas within a patch that received pollen dye analogs and the average distance traveled by these analogs were not significantly different between robbing treatments (robbed flowers versus unrobbed flowers), but the maximum distance traveled by these pollen analogs was higher when nectar robbing was not prevented. Overall, the proportion of robbed flowers on an inflorescence had a neutral effect to a weak positive effect on the reproduction of individual plants (i.e. positive association between nectar robbing and fruit set in 2002) even when it clearly changed the behavior of its most efficient pollinator potentially increasing the frequency of nectar robbing within a plant.