Nectar plant preferences of Hemaris (Sphingidae) on co-occurring native Cirsium and non-native Centaurea (Asteraceae) inflorescences

Elena S. Tartaglia; Steven N. Handel

doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2014)16

Authors

Elena S. Tartaglia Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Steven N. Handel Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26786/1920-7603(2014)16

Abstract

Preferences for certain nectar plants by moth pollinators have not been extensively studied, particularly seasonal switches in nectar diet. The genus Hemaris, found throughout North America and parts of other continents, is a useful new system to address questions of flower-insect interactions as the moths are relatively common and day-flying. In this study we address the following questions with a group of three Hemaris species. (1) Does Hemaris display a preference for foraging on the native swamp thistle, Cirsium discolor, over the non-native invasive knapweeds, Centaurea spp.? (2) What factors might be driving Hemaris’ preferences? The bloom periods of C. discolor and Centaurea overlap in the northeastern United States, with Centaurea blooming from approximately June through September and C. discolor blooming for approximately the first three weeks of August. Hemaris typically ecloses in the first week of July and fed on Centaurea until C. discolor bloomed. We tracked and recorded Hemaris visits to both plant species. During the co-blooming period of C. discolor and Centaurea, Hemaris visits significantly more C. discolor inflorescences, demonstrating a possible preference for the native species. Hemaris reverts to nectaring at the non-native Centaurea after native C. discolor’s bloom period ends. The nectar of C. discolor has a significantly higher sugar concentration than does the nectar of Centaurea; this difference may account for part of the moths’ preference for C. discolor.

Author Biographies

Elena S. Tartaglia, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Elena Tartaglia, Ph.D.

Program in Ecology and Evolution

Department of Ecology, Evolution and Natural Resources

Steven N. Handel, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Professor of Ecology

Program in Ecology and Evolution

Department of Ecology, Evolution and Natural Resources

References

Alm J, Ohnmeiss TE, Varza J, Vriesenga L (1990) The preference for cabbage white butterflies and honeybees for nectar that contains amino acids. Oecologia 84:53-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00665594

Balkenius A, Rosen W, Kelber A (2006) The relative importance of olfaction and vision in a diurnal and a nocturnal hawkmoth. Journal of Comparative Physiology A. 192:431-437. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-005-0081-6

Bartomeus I, Vilà M, Santamaría L (2008) Contrasting effects of invasive plants in plant–pollinator networks. Oecologia 155:761-770. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-007-0946-1

Bell JM, Karron JD, Mitchell RJ (2005) Interspecific competition for pollination lowers seed production and outcrossing in Mimulus ringens. Ecology 86:762-771. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0694

Bolten AB, Feinsinger P (1978) Why do hummingbird flowers secrete dilute nectar? Biotropica 10:307-309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2387684

Brown BJ, Mitchell RJ (2001) Competition for pollination: effects of pollen of an invasive plant on seed set of a native congener. Oecologia 129:43-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420100700

Brown BJ, Mitchell RJ, Graham SA (2002) Competition for pollination between invasive species (purple loosestrife) and a native congener. Ecology 83:2328-2336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2328:CFPBAI]2.0.CO;2

Butterflies and Moths of North America. 2013. (http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/)

Cartar RV (1991) A test of risk-sensitive foraging in wild bumblebees. Ecology 72:888-895. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1940590

Dafni A, Lehrer M, Kevan PG (1997) Spatial flower parameters and insect spatial vision. Biological Reviews 72:239-282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0006323196005002

Feinsinger P, Swarm LA (1982) Ecogical release, seasonal variation in food supply and the hummingbird Amazilia tobaci on Trinidad and Tobago. Ecology 63:1574-1587. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1938881

Grundel R, Pavlovic NB, Sulzman CL (2000) Nectar plant selection by the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaedes Melissa samuelis) at the Indiana Dunes national lakeshore. The American Midland Naturalist 144:1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(2000)144[0001:NPSBTK]2.0.CO;2

Heinrich B (1979a) “Majoring” and “minoring” by foraging bumblebees, Bombus vagans: An experimental analysis. Ecology 60:245-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1937652

Heinrich B (1979b) Resource heterogeneity and patterns of movement in foraging bumblebees. Oecologia 40: 235-245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00345321

Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). Retrieved Jan 31, 2014 from (http://www.itis.gov).

Kandori I, Hirao T, Matsunaga S, Kurosaki T (2009) An invasive dandelion unilaterally reduces the reproduction of a native congener through competition for pollination. Oecologia 159:559-569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-008-1250-4

Kearns CA, Inouye DW (1993) Animals. In: Kearns CA and Inouye (eds) Techniques for pollination biologists. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO. pp 263-392.

Kelber A (1996) Colour learning in the hawkmoth Macroglossum stellatarum. Journal of Experimental Biology 199:1127-1131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.199.5.1127

Kelber A (1997) Innate preferences for flower features in the hawkmoth Macroglossum stellatarum. Journal of Experimental Biology 200:827-836. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.200.4.827

Laverty T, Hiemstra H (1998) Effect of flowering dandelion as a competitor to flowers of fruit trees for pollen-collecting honey bees in Ontario. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario 129:3-8.

Leong JM, Thorp RW (1999) Colour-coded sampling: the pan trap colour preferences of oligolectic and nonoligolectic bees associated with a vernal pool plant. Ecological Entomology 24:329-335. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2311.1999.00196.x

Mitchell RJ, Flanagan RJ, Brown BJ, Waser NM, Karron JD (2009) New frontiers in competition for pollination. Annals of Botany 103:1403-1413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcp062

Moragues E, Traveset A (2005) Effect of Carpobrotus spp. on the pollination success of native plant species of the Balearic Islands. Biological Conservation 122:611-619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.09.015

Morisawa T-L (1999) Weed Notes: Centaurea maculosa. The Nature Conservancy Wildland Weeds Management and Research. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu.

Mosquin T (1971) Competition for pollinators as a stimulus foot the evolution of flowering time. Oikos 22:398–402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3543864

Parker IM, Haubensak KA (2002) Comparative pollinator limitation of two non-native shrubs: do mutualisms influence invasions? Oecologia 130:250-258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420100799

Persson A, Hansson LA (1999) Diet shift in fish following competitive release. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:70-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/f98-141

Raguso RA (2004) Flowers as sensory billboards: progress towards an integrated understanding of floral advertisement. Current Opinions in Plant Biology 7:434-440 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2004.05.010

Riffell JA, Alarcón R, Abrell L, Davidowitz G, Bronstein JL, Hildebrand JG (2008) Behavioral consequences of innate preferences and olfactory learning in hawkmoth–flower interactions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:3404-3409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0709811105

Roberts MW (1996) Hummingbirds' nectar concentration preferences at low volume: the importance of time scale. Animal Behaviour 52:361-370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0180

Roubik DW, Buchmann SL (1984) Nectar selection by Melipona and Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and the ecology of nectar intake by bee colonies in a tropical forest. Oecologia 61:1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379082

Schemske DW, Bradshaw HD (1999) Pollinator preference and the evolution of floral traits in monkeyflowers (Mimulus). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96:11910-11915. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.21.11910

Schondube JE, Del Rio CM (2003) Concentration‐dependent sugar preferences in nectar‐feeding birds: mechanisms and consequences. Functional Ecology 17:445-453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.2003.00749.x

Sydeman WJ, Hester MM, Thayer JA, Gres F, Martin P, Buffa J (2001) Climate change, reproductive performance and diet composition of marine birds in the southern California Current system, 1969–1997. Progress in Oceanography 49:309-329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6611(01)00028-3

Tartaglia ES (2013) Hawkmoth-Flower interactions in the urban landscape: Sphingidae ecology with a focus on the genus Hemaris. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.

Tuttle JP (2007) The Hawkmoths of North America. Washington, D.C.: The Wedge Entomological Society.

Waser NM, Real LA (1979) Effective mutualism between sequentially flowering plant species. Nature 281:671-672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/281670a0

Wiklund C, Eriksson T, Lundberg H (1979) The wood white butterfly Leptidea sinapis and its nectar plants: A case of mutualism or parasitism? Oikos 33:358-362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3544323

Wykes GR (1952) The preferences of honeybees for solutions of various sugars which occur in nectar. Journal of Experimental Biology 29:511-519 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.29.4.511