Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 85721, USA.
Department of Applied Ecology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27695, USA.
Ecology. 2018 Aug;99(8):1815-1824. doi: 10.1002/ecy.2395. Epub 2018 Jun 29.
Many mutualisms are taken advantage of by organisms that take rewards from their partners but provide no benefit in return. In the absence of traits that limit exploitation, facultative exploiters (partners that can either exploit or cooperate) are widely predicted by mutualism theory to choose an exploitative strategy, potentially threatening mutualism stability. However, it is unknown whether facultative exploiters choose to exploit, and, if so, make this choice because it is the most beneficial strategy for them. We explored these questions in a subalpine plant-insect community in which individuals of several bumble bee species visit flowers both "legitimately" (entering via the flower opening, picking up and depositing pollen, and hence behaving mutualistically) and via nectar robbing (creating holes through corollas or using an existing hole, bypassing stigmas and anthers). We applied foraging theory to (1) quantify handling costs, benefits and foraging efficiencies incurred by three bumble bee species as they visited flowers legitimately or robbed nectar in cage experiments, and (2) determine whether these efficiencies matched the food handling tactics these bee species employed in the field. Relative efficiencies of legitimate and robbing tactics depended on the combination of bee and plant species. In some cases (Bombus mixtus visiting Corydalis caseana or Mertensia ciliata), the robbing tactic permitted more efficient nectar removal. As both mutualism and foraging theory would predict, in the field, B. mixtus visiting C. caseana were observed more frequently robbing than foraging legitimately. However, for Bombus flavifrons visiting M. ciliata, the expectation from mutualism theory did not hold: legitimate visitation was the more efficient tactic. Legitimate visitation to M. ciliata was in fact more frequently observed in free-flying B. flavifrons. Free-flying B. mixtus also frequently visited M. ciliata flowers legitimately. This may reflect lower nectar volumes in robbed than unrobbed flowers in the field. These results suggest that a foraging ecology perspective is informative to the choice of tactics facultative exploiters make. In contrast, the simple expectation that exploiters should always have an advantage, and hence could threaten mutualism persistence unless they are deterred or punished, may not be broadly applicable.
许多互利共生关系都被那些从合作伙伴那里获取回报但不提供任何回报的生物所利用。在没有限制剥削的特征的情况下,根据互利共生理论,机会主义剥削者(既可以剥削也可以合作的合作伙伴)被广泛预测会选择剥削策略,这可能会威胁到互利共生的稳定性。然而,目前还不清楚机会主义剥削者是否会选择剥削,如果是这样,他们是否会选择这种策略,因为这对他们来说是最有利的策略。我们在一个亚高山植物-昆虫群落中探索了这些问题,在这个群落中,几种熊蜂物种的个体既“合法地”(通过花朵开口进入,采集和沉积花粉,从而表现出互利共生)又通过花蜜掠夺(通过花冠或使用现有孔刺穿,绕过柱头和花药)访问花朵。我们应用觅食理论来:(1)量化在笼养实验中,三种熊蜂物种合法访问花朵或掠夺花蜜时所产生的处理成本、收益和觅食效率;(2)确定这些效率是否与这些蜂种在野外使用的食物处理策略相匹配。合法和掠夺策略的相对效率取决于蜂种和植物物种的组合。在某些情况下(混合熊蜂访问紫堇属或毛茛属),掠夺策略允许更有效地去除花蜜。正如互利共生和觅食理论都预测的那样,在野外,观察到混合熊蜂访问紫堇属的次数比合法访问的次数更多。然而,对于访问毛茛属的熊蜂,从互利共生理论的期望来看,这种情况并没有发生:合法访问是更有效的策略。事实上,在自由飞行的熊蜂中,观察到毛茛属的合法访问比掠夺访问更频繁。自由飞行的混合熊蜂也经常合法访问毛茛属的花朵。这可能反映了野外被掠夺的花朵中的花蜜量比未被掠夺的花朵少。这些结果表明,从觅食生态学的角度来看,机会主义剥削者选择的策略是有信息意义的。相比之下,简单地认为剥削者应该始终具有优势,并且除非他们被阻止或受到惩罚,否则可能会威胁到互利共生的持久性,这种观点可能并不广泛适用。