The restoration of ecological interactions: plant-pollinator networks on ancient and restored heathlands
The restoration of ecological interactions: plant-pollinator networks on ancient and restored heathlands
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01390.x
复制
发表时间：
2008-06-01
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Memmott, Jane
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Forup, Mikael Lytzau;Henson, Kate S. E.;Memmott, Jane
1.恢复受损生态系统的努力通常强调生物多样性的结构方面，如物种丰富度和丰度。另一种方法是强调功能方面，如物种之间的相互作用模式。花粉是植物和动物之间普遍存在的相互作用。植物-传粉者相互作用的模式可以用食物网或复杂系统的方法进行分析，比较恢复地和参考地之间的传粉网可以用来检验生态恢复是否已经发生.使用生态网络的方法，我们比较了四对恢复和古老的石楠恢复管理后11年和14年的植物传粉者的相互作用。我们使用的网络数据来测试是否已恢复访花传粉者，我们计算了8个网站上的每个昆虫物种的传粉者的重要性指数。最后，我们比较了恢复后的网络和古代网络对物种损失的鲁棒性.植物和传粉者社区恢复网站上成功地建立。几乎没有证据表明，从古代网站到邻近的恢复网站的传粉者的运动，虽然配对的网站在这两年的传粉者物种丰富度。2001年至2004年，每个石南荒原内几乎没有昆虫物种重叠。一些广泛分布的昆虫物种占主导地位的社区，是主要的传粉者。最重要的传粉者通常是蜜蜂（Apis mellifera）、熊蜂（Bombus spp.）和一种食蚜蝇（Episyrphus balteatus）。的相互作用网络显着不那么复杂的恢复荒地，在连通性值方面，虽然在2004年的低值可能反映了连通性和物种丰富度之间的负相关关系。最后，有一种趋势是恢复的网络比古代网络更容易受到扰动，尽管这需要谨慎解释。合成与应用。生态网络为评估恢复方案的成果提供了一个强有力的工具。我们的研究结果表明，石楠恢复并不一定要发生在紧邻古石楠功能传粉者社区的建立。此外，在恢复传粉者的相互作用方面，石南荒原的管理者只需要关心最常见的昆虫物种。我们对授粉的关注表明了一个关键的生态服务如何可以作为判断恢复成功的标准。
1. Attempts to restore damaged ecosystems usually emphasize structural aspects of biodiversity, such as species richness and abundance. An alternative is to emphasize functional aspects, such as patterns of interaction between species. Pollination is a ubiquitous interaction between plants and animals. Patterns in plant-pollinator interactions can be analysed with a food web or complex-systems approach and comparing pollination webs between restored and reference sites can be used to test whether ecological restoration has taken place.2. Using an ecological network approach, we compared plant-pollinator interactions on four pairs of restored and ancient heathlands 11 and 14 years following initiation of restoration management. We used the network data to test whether visitation by pollinators had been restored and we calculated pollinator importance indices for each insect species on the eight sites. Finally, we compared the robustness of the restored and ancient networks to species loss.3. Plant and pollinator communities were established successfully on the restored sites. There was little evidence of movement of pollinators from ancient sites onto adjacent restored sites, although paired sites correlated in pollinator species richness in both years. There was little insect species overlap within each heathland between 2001 and 2004.4. A few widespread insect species dominated the communities and were the main pollinators. The most important pollinators were typically honeybees (Apis mellifera), species of bumblebee (Bombus spp.) and one hoverfly species (Episyrphus balteatus). The interaction networks were significantly less complex on restored heathlands, in terms of connectance values, although in 2004 the low values might reflect the negative relationship between connectance and species richness. Finally, there was a trend of restored networks being more susceptible to perturbation than ancient networks, although this needs to be interpreted with caution.5. Synthesis and applications. Ecological networks provide a powerful tool for assessing the outcome of restoration programmes. Our results indicate that heathland restoration does not have to occur immediately adjacent to ancient heathland for functional pollinator communities to be established. Moreover, in terms of restoring pollinator interactions, heathland managers need only be concerned with the most common insect species. Our focus on pollination demonstrates how a key ecological service can serve as a yardstick for judging restoration success.