Counting marmots…
Plants produce an array of chemical and mechanical defences that provide protection against many herbivores and pathogens. Putatively defensive compounds and structures can even occur in floral rewards: for example, the pollen of some plant taxa contains toxic compounds or possesses conspicuous spines. Yet little is known about whether pollen defences restrict host-plant use by bees. In other words, do bees, like other insect herbivores, tolerate the defences of their specific host plants while being harmed by non-host defences? To answer this question, we compared the effects of a chemical defence from <i>Lupinus</i> (Fabaceae) pollen and a putative mechanical defence (pollen spines) from Asteraceae pollen on larval survival of nine bee species in the tribe Osmiini (Megachilidae) varying in their pollen-host use. We found that both types of pollen defences reduce larval survival rate in some bee species. These detrimental effects were, however, mediated by host-plant associations, with bees being more tolerant of the pollen defences of their hosts, relative to the defences of plant taxa exploited by other species. This pattern strongly suggests that bees are adapted to the pollen defences of their hosts, and that host-plant use by bees is constrained by their ability to tolerate such defences.
Knowledge graph centered on Pollen chemical and mechanical defences restrict h with 13 nodes and 46 connections. Top connected: Ligusticum porteri, Asteraceae, Interactions between bee foraging and floral resou, Osmiini, Foraging efficiency and size matching in a plant-p.
Items connected by shared entities, co-authorship, citations, or semantic similarity.
6 in Knowledge Commons, 70 external