Sunday, 25 November 2018

Flower-visitor communities of an arcto-alpine plant- global patterns in species richness, phylogenetic diversity and ecological functioning.

Mol Ecol. 2018 Nov 12. doi: 10.1111/mec.14932. [Epub ahead of print] Tiusanen M1, Huotari T1, Hebert PDN2, Andersson T3, Asmus A4,5, Bêty J6, Davis E7, Gale J8, Hardwick B9, Hik D10, Körner C11, Lanctot RB12, Loonen MJJE13, Partanen R14, Reischke K15, Saalfeld ST12, Senez-Gagnon F16, Smith PA17, Šulavík J18,19, Syvänperä I20, Urbanowicz C21, Williams S22, Woodard P23, Zaika Y24, Roslin T1,25. Author information 1 Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Helsinki, , PO Box 27, (Latokartanonkaari 5) FI-00014, Finland. 2 Centre for Biodiversity Genomics, Biodiversity institute of Ontario, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. 3 Kevo Subarctic Research Station, Biodiversity Unit, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 4 Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, USA. 5 Department of Biology, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA. 6 Département de biologie and Centre d'études nordiques, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, Canada. 7 Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. 8 East Bay Southampton Island Shorebird Crew, National Wildlife Research Center, Environment Canada, Canada. 9 Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. 10 Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. 11 Department of Environmental Sciences, Institute of Botany, University of Basel, Basel, Germany. 12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska, USA. 13 University of Groningen, Arctic Centre, The Netherlands, Groningen, The Netherlands. 14 Kilpisjärvi Biological Station, University of Helsinki, Kilpisjärvi, Finland. 15 Conservation Ontario, Newmarket, Ontario, Canada. 16 Département des sciences du bois et de la forêt, Université Laval, Québec, Canada. 17 Wildlife Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 18 Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, Norway. 19 Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 20 Subarctic Research Station, Biodiversity Unit, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 21 Department of Biology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA. 22 Kluane Lake Research Station, Yukon, Canada. 23 Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada / Government of Canada. 24 Khibiny Academic Research Station, Department of Geography, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia. 25 Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. Abstract Pollination is an ecosystem function of global importance. Yet, who visits the flower of specific plants, how the composition of these visitors varies in space and time, and how such variation translates into pollination services is hard to establish. The use of DNA barcodes allows us to address ecological patterns involving thousands of taxa that are difficult to identify. To clarify the regional variation in the visitor community of a wide-spread flower resource, we compared the composition of the arthropod community visiting species in the genus Dryas (mountain avens, family Rosaceae), throughout Arctic and high-alpine areas. At each of 15 sites, we sampled Dryas visitors with 100 sticky flower mimics, and identified specimens to Barcode Index Numbers (BINs) using a partial sequence of the mitochondrial COI-gene. As a measure of ecosystem functioning, we quantified variation in the seed set of Dryas. To test for an association between phylogenetic and functional diversity, we characterized the structure of local visitor communities with both taxonomic and phylogenetic descriptors. In total, we detected 1,360 different BINs, dominated by Diptera and Hymenoptera. The richness of visitors at each site appeared to be driven by local temperature and precipitation. Phylogeographic structure seemed reflective of geological history, and mirrored trans-Arctic patterns detected in plants. Seed set success varied widely among sites, with little variation attributable to pollinator species richness. This pattern suggests idiosyncratic associations, with function dominated by few and potentially different taxa at each site. Taken together, our findings illustrate the role of post-glacial history in the assembly of flower-visitor communities in the Arctic, and offer insights for understanding how diversity translates into ecosystem functioning. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. KEYWORDS: Dryas ; Arctic ecology; DNA barcoding; ecosystem functioning; flower-visitor; pollination PMID: 30418699 DOI: 10.1111/mec.14932 Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Google+