Article

Macroevolution of the plant–hummingbird pollination system

Barreto et al. (2024) – Biological Reviews

Plant–hummingbird interactions are considered a classic example of coevolution, a process in which mutually dependent species influence each other’s evolution. Plants depend on hummingbirds for pollination, whereas hummingbirds rely on nectar for food. As a step towards understanding coevolution, this review focuses on the macroevolutionary consequences of plant–hummingbird interactions, a relatively underexplored area in the current literature. We synthesize prior studies, illustrating the origins and dynamics of hummingbird pollination across different angiosperm clades previously pollinated by insects (mostly bees), bats, and passerine birds. In some cases, the crown age of hummingbirds pre-dates the plants they pollinate. In other cases, plant groups transitioned to hummingbird pollination early in the establishment of this bird group in the Americas, with the build-up of both diversities coinciding temporally, and hence suggesting co-diversification. Determining what triggers shifts to and away from hummingbird pollination remains a major open challenge. The impact of hummingbirds on plant diversification is complex, with many tropical plant lineages experiencing increased diversification after acquiring flowers that attract hummingbirds, and others experiencing no change or even a decrease in diversification rates. This mixed evidence suggests that other extrinsic or intrinsic factors, such as local climate and isolation, are important covariables driving the diversification of plants adapted to hummingbird pollination. To guide future studies, we discuss the mechanisms and contexts under which hummingbirds, as a clade and as individual species (e.g. traits, foraging behaviour, degree of specialization), could influence plant evolution. We conclude by commenting on how macroevolutionary signals of the mutualism could relate to coevolution, highlighting the unbalanced focus on the plant side of the interaction, and advocating for the use of species-level interaction data in macroevolutionary studies.

Barreto 2024
Macroevolution of the plant–hummingbird pollination system 4

https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13094

Article

When cheating turns into a stabilizing mechanism of plant–pollinator communities

Duchenne et al. (2023) – PLOS Biology

Mutualistic interactions, such as plant–mycorrhizal or plant–pollinator interactions, are widespread in ecological communities and frequently exploited by cheaters, species that profit from interactions without providing benefits in return. Cheating usually negatively affects the fitness of the individuals that are cheated on, but the effects of cheating at the community level remains poorly understood. Here, we describe 2 different kinds of cheating in mutualistic networks and use a generalized Lotka–Volterra model to show that they have very different consequences for the persistence of the community. Conservative cheating, where a species cheats on its mutualistic partners to escape the cost of mutualistic interactions, negatively affects community persistence. In contrast, innovative cheating occurs with species with whom legitimate interactions are not possible, because of a physiological or morphological barrier. Innovative cheating can enhance community persistence under some conditions: when cheaters have few mutualistic partners, cheat at low or intermediate frequency and the cost associated with mutualism is not too high. Under these conditions, the negative effects of cheating on partner persistence are overcompensated at the community level by the positive feedback loops that arise in diverse mutualistic communities. Using an empirical dataset of plant–bird interactions (hummingbirds and flowerpiercers), we found that observed cheating patterns are highly consistent with theoretical cheating patterns found to increase community persistence. This result suggests that the cheating patterns observed in nature could contribute to promote species coexistence in mutualistic communities, instead of necessarily destabilizing them.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002434