Global patterns of interaction specialization in bird-flower networks

Thais B. Zanata, Bo Dalsgaard, Fernando C. Passos, Peter A. Cotton, James J. Roper, Pietro K. Maruyama, Erich Fischer, Matthias Schleuning, Ana M. Martín González, Jeferson Vizentin-Bugoni, Donald C. Franklin, Stefan Abrahamczyk, Ruben Alárcon, Andréa C. Araujo, Francielle P. Araújo, Severino M.de Azevedo-Junior, Andrea C. Baquero, Katrin Böhning-Gaese, Daniel W. Carstensen, Henrique Chupil & 32 others Aline G. Coelho, Rogério R. Faria, David Hořák, Tanja T. Ingversen, Štěpán Janeček, Glauco Kohler, Carlos Lara, Flor M.G. Las-Casas, Ariadna V. Lopes, Adriana O. Machado, Caio G. Machado, Isabel C. Machado, María A. Maglianesi, Tiago S. Malucelli, Jayasilan Mohd-Azlan, Alan C. Moura, Genilda M. Oliveira, Paulo E. Oliveira, Juan Francisco Ornelas, Jan Riegert, Licléia C. Rodrigues, Liliana Rosero-Lasprilla, Ana M. Rui, Marlies Sazima, Baptiste Schmid, Ondřej Sedláček, Allan Timmermann, Maximilian G.R. Vollstädt, Zhiheng Wang, Stella Watts, Carsten Rahbek, Isabela G. Varassin

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    Abstract

    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.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1891-1910
    Number of pages20
    JournalJournal of Biogeography
    Volume44
    Issue number8
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Aug 2017

    Fingerprint

    flower
    hummingbirds
    bird
    flowers
    birds
    resource
    nectar feeding
    nectarivory
    niche overlap
    Pacific Ocean Islands
    nectar
    topography
    asymmetry
    niches
    species richness
    species diversity

    Cite this

    Zanata, T. B., Dalsgaard, B., Passos, F. C., Cotton, P. A., Roper, J. J., Maruyama, P. K., ... Varassin, I. G. (2017). Global patterns of interaction specialization in bird-flower networks. Journal of Biogeography, 44(8), 1891-1910. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13045
    Zanata, Thais B. ; Dalsgaard, Bo ; Passos, Fernando C. ; Cotton, Peter A. ; Roper, James J. ; Maruyama, Pietro K. ; Fischer, Erich ; Schleuning, Matthias ; Martín González, Ana M. ; Vizentin-Bugoni, Jeferson ; Franklin, Donald C. ; Abrahamczyk, Stefan ; Alárcon, Ruben ; Araujo, Andréa C. ; Araújo, Francielle P. ; Azevedo-Junior, Severino M.de ; Baquero, Andrea C. ; Böhning-Gaese, Katrin ; Carstensen, Daniel W. ; Chupil, Henrique ; Coelho, Aline G. ; Faria, Rogério R. ; Hořák, David ; Ingversen, Tanja T. ; Janeček, Štěpán ; Kohler, Glauco ; Lara, Carlos ; Las-Casas, Flor M.G. ; Lopes, Ariadna V. ; Machado, Adriana O. ; Machado, Caio G. ; Machado, Isabel C. ; Maglianesi, María A. ; Malucelli, Tiago S. ; Mohd-Azlan, Jayasilan ; Moura, Alan C. ; Oliveira, Genilda M. ; Oliveira, Paulo E. ; Ornelas, Juan Francisco ; Riegert, Jan ; Rodrigues, Licléia C. ; Rosero-Lasprilla, Liliana ; Rui, Ana M. ; Sazima, Marlies ; Schmid, Baptiste ; Sedláček, Ondřej ; Timmermann, Allan ; Vollstädt, Maximilian G.R. ; Wang, Zhiheng ; Watts, Stella ; Rahbek, Carsten ; Varassin, Isabela G. / Global patterns of interaction specialization in bird-flower networks. In: Journal of Biogeography. 2017 ; Vol. 44, No. 8. pp. 1891-1910.
    @article{2afdc3b6d4194e0c9559c58c548f8a8e,
    title = "Global patterns of interaction specialization in bird-flower networks",
    abstract = "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.",
    keywords = "Honeyeaters, Hummingbirds, Modularity, Niche partitioning, Ornithophily, Plant-animal interactions, Specialization, Sunbirds",
    author = "Zanata, {Thais B.} and Bo Dalsgaard and Passos, {Fernando C.} and Cotton, {Peter A.} and Roper, {James J.} and Maruyama, {Pietro K.} and Erich Fischer and Matthias Schleuning and {Mart{\'i}n Gonz{\'a}lez}, {Ana M.} and Jeferson Vizentin-Bugoni and Franklin, {Donald C.} and Stefan Abrahamczyk and Ruben Al{\'a}rcon and Araujo, {Andr{\'e}a C.} and Ara{\'u}jo, {Francielle P.} and Azevedo-Junior, {Severino M.de} and Baquero, {Andrea C.} and Katrin B{\"o}hning-Gaese and Carstensen, {Daniel W.} and Henrique Chupil and Coelho, {Aline G.} and Faria, {Rog{\'e}rio R.} and David Hoř{\'a}k and Ingversen, {Tanja T.} and Štěp{\'a}n Janeček and Glauco Kohler and Carlos Lara and Las-Casas, {Flor M.G.} and Lopes, {Ariadna V.} and Machado, {Adriana O.} and Machado, {Caio G.} and Machado, {Isabel C.} and Maglianesi, {Mar{\'i}a A.} and Malucelli, {Tiago S.} and Jayasilan Mohd-Azlan and Moura, {Alan C.} and Oliveira, {Genilda M.} and Oliveira, {Paulo E.} and Ornelas, {Juan Francisco} and Jan Riegert and Rodrigues, {Licl{\'e}ia C.} and Liliana Rosero-Lasprilla and Rui, {Ana M.} and Marlies Sazima and Baptiste Schmid and Ondřej Sedl{\'a}ček and Allan Timmermann and Vollst{\"a}dt, {Maximilian G.R.} and Zhiheng Wang and Stella Watts and Carsten Rahbek and Varassin, {Isabela G.}",
    year = "2017",
    month = "8",
    doi = "10.1111/jbi.13045",
    language = "English",
    volume = "44",
    pages = "1891--1910",
    journal = "Journal of Biogeography",
    issn = "0305-0270",
    publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
    number = "8",

    }

    Zanata, TB, Dalsgaard, B, Passos, FC, Cotton, PA, Roper, JJ, Maruyama, PK, Fischer, E, Schleuning, M, Martín González, AM, Vizentin-Bugoni, J, Franklin, DC, Abrahamczyk, S, Alárcon, R, Araujo, AC, Araújo, FP, Azevedo-Junior, SMD, Baquero, AC, Böhning-Gaese, K, Carstensen, DW, Chupil, H, Coelho, AG, Faria, RR, Hořák, D, Ingversen, TT, Janeček, Š, Kohler, G, Lara, C, Las-Casas, FMG, Lopes, AV, Machado, AO, Machado, CG, Machado, IC, Maglianesi, MA, Malucelli, TS, Mohd-Azlan, J, Moura, AC, Oliveira, GM, Oliveira, PE, Ornelas, JF, Riegert, J, Rodrigues, LC, Rosero-Lasprilla, L, Rui, AM, Sazima, M, Schmid, B, Sedláček, O, Timmermann, A, Vollstädt, MGR, Wang, Z, Watts, S, Rahbek, C & Varassin, IG 2017, 'Global patterns of interaction specialization in bird-flower networks', Journal of Biogeography, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 1891-1910. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13045

    Global patterns of interaction specialization in bird-flower networks. / Zanata, Thais B.; Dalsgaard, Bo; Passos, Fernando C.; Cotton, Peter A.; Roper, James J.; Maruyama, Pietro K.; Fischer, Erich; Schleuning, Matthias; Martín González, Ana M.; Vizentin-Bugoni, Jeferson; Franklin, Donald C.; Abrahamczyk, Stefan; Alárcon, Ruben; Araujo, Andréa C.; Araújo, Francielle P.; Azevedo-Junior, Severino M.de; Baquero, Andrea C.; Böhning-Gaese, Katrin; Carstensen, Daniel W.; Chupil, Henrique; Coelho, Aline G.; Faria, Rogério R.; Hořák, David; Ingversen, Tanja T.; Janeček, Štěpán; Kohler, Glauco; Lara, Carlos; Las-Casas, Flor M.G.; Lopes, Ariadna V.; Machado, Adriana O.; Machado, Caio G.; Machado, Isabel C.; Maglianesi, María A.; Malucelli, Tiago S.; Mohd-Azlan, Jayasilan; Moura, Alan C.; Oliveira, Genilda M.; Oliveira, Paulo E.; Ornelas, Juan Francisco; Riegert, Jan; Rodrigues, Licléia C.; Rosero-Lasprilla, Liliana; Rui, Ana M.; Sazima, Marlies; Schmid, Baptiste; Sedláček, Ondřej; Timmermann, Allan; Vollstädt, Maximilian G.R.; Wang, Zhiheng; Watts, Stella; Rahbek, Carsten; Varassin, Isabela G.

    In: Journal of Biogeography, Vol. 44, No. 8, 08.2017, p. 1891-1910.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    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 - Martín González, Ana M.

    AU - Vizentin-Bugoni, Jeferson

    AU - Franklin, Donald C.

    AU - Abrahamczyk, Stefan

    AU - Alárcon, Ruben

    AU - Araujo, Andréa C.

    AU - Araújo, Francielle P.

    AU - Azevedo-Junior, Severino M.de

    AU - Baquero, Andrea C.

    AU - Böhning-Gaese, Katrin

    AU - Carstensen, Daniel W.

    AU - Chupil, Henrique

    AU - Coelho, Aline G.

    AU - Faria, Rogério R.

    AU - Hořák, David

    AU - Ingversen, Tanja T.

    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 - Article

    VL - 44

    SP - 1891

    EP - 1910

    JO - Journal of Biogeography

    JF - Journal of Biogeography

    SN - 0305-0270

    IS - 8

    ER -

    Zanata TB, Dalsgaard B, Passos FC, Cotton PA, Roper JJ, Maruyama PK et al. Global patterns of interaction specialization in bird-flower networks. Journal of Biogeography. 2017 Aug;44(8):1891-1910. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13045