Bartomeus invasions

IGNASI BARTOMEUS

QUI MENJA A QUI?

LES INVASIONS BIOLÒGIQUES COM UNA PEÇA DISRUPTIVA DE LES XARXES TRÒFIQUES

TEXT

SOSPITOSOS HABITUALS:

B = Ocells M = Mamífers R = Reptils Doherty et al 2016

QUI MENJA QUI?

QUI MENJA QUI?

TEXT

Polinizadores

Plantas

Bartomeus et al. 2008, 2010, 2016

Plantas

Polinizadores

Plantas

Polinizadores

Planta invasora

Bartomeus et al. 2008, 2010, 2016

Plantas

Polinizadores

Plantas

Polinizadores

Planta invasora

Bartomeus et al. 2008, 2010, 2016

Plantas

Polinizadores

Plantas

Polinizadores

Planta invasora

Bartomeus et al. 2008, 2010, 2016

Plantas

Polinizadores

Plantas

Polinizadores

Planta invasora

Bartomeus et al. 2008, 2010, 2016

(a)

no. species per module

14

12

10

8 (b)

6 uninvaded

a

Figure 4. Mean (+1 s.e.) module size ( module) of modules of uninvaded pla modules of invaded networks not conta and modules of invaded networks conta

Figure 3. Example of the modular structure of (a) an uninvaded plant –

Of the 469 native plant an in both the uninvaded and the in pair, 111 species (23.7%) show invasion, with plants showing mo Albretch al. 2012 tors (19.2%) (x21 Âźet7:65, p Âź 0.00

(a)

no. species per module

14

12

10

8 (b)

6 uninvaded

a

Figure 4. Mean (+1 s.e.) module size ( module) of modules of uninvaded pla modules of invaded networks not conta and modules of invaded networks conta

Figure 3. Example of the modular structure of (a) an uninvaded plant –

Of the 469 native plant an in both the uninvaded and the in pair, 111 species (23.7%) show invasion, with plants showing mo Albrecht et7:65, al. 2012 tors (19.2%) (x21 Âź p Âź 0.00

QUI MENJA QUI?

Varroa destructor

Nosema bombi

Fig. 1. Summary of Bombus individuals surveyed from 382 collection locations for eight target species, including h current sightings (pie charts) and associated photographs of hypothesized declining western B. occidentalis (A (G), and B. terricola (H); stable species are represented by the western B. bifarius (B) and B. vosnesenskii (C), and th (F). Sizes of the pie charts indicate total number of individuals surveyed at each location; size of the orange seg target species collected at that site (some locations are pooled across sites for visual clarity; for detailed data, ref represents the modeled distribution of each target species from unique presence localities obtained from natu Niche Models). Photograph A (B. occidentalis) taken by D. Ditchburn, B (B. bifarius) by L. Solter, C (B. vosnesenskii) b E (B. bimaculatus) by J. WhitďŹ eld, F (B. impatiens) by J. Lucier, G (B. afďŹ nis) by J. James-Heinz, and H (B. terricola 2 of 6 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1014743108

Cameron et al. 2016

Fig. 1. Summary of Bombus individuals surveyed from 382 collection locations for eight target species, including h current sightings (pie charts) and associated photographs of hypothesized declining western B. occidentalis (A (G), and B. terricola (H); stable species are represented by the western B. bifarius (B) and B. vosnesenskii (C), and th (F). Sizes of the pie charts indicate total number of individuals surveyed at each location; size of the orange seg target species collected at that site (some locations are pooled across sites for visual clarity; for detailed data, ref represents the modeled distribution of each target species from unique presence localities obtained from natu Niche Models). Photograph A (B. occidentalis) taken by D. Ditchburn, B (B. bifarius) by L. Solter, C (B. vosnesenskii) b E (B. bimaculatus) by J. WhitďŹ eld, F (B. impatiens) by J. Lucier, G (B. afďŹ nis) by J. James-Heinz, and H (B. terricola 2 of 6 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1014743108

Nosema bombi

Cameron et al. 2016

QUI MENJA QUI?

75% depen de polinitzadors

Klein et al. 2007

pollinator abundance

400

total 29% decrease

300 200

exotic 150% increase native 87% decrease

100 0 0.4

0.6 0.8 proportion agriculture

1.0

Figure 3. The relationship between aggregate pollinator abundance and theet al 2017 Stavert

pollinator abundance

400

total 29% decrease

300 200

exotic 150% increase native 87% decrease

100 0 0.4

0.6 0.8 proportion agriculture

1.0

Figure 3. The relationship between aggregate pollinator abundance and theet al 2017 Stavert

pollinator abundance

400

total 29% decrease

300 200

exotic 150% increase native 87% decrease

100 0 0.4

0.6 0.8 proportion agriculture

1.0

Figure 3. The relationship between aggregate pollinator abundance and theet al 2017 Stavert

QUI MENJA QUI?

Other Orange grove Orange Woodland grove Woodland

c)

c)

After

Orange Orangegrove grove Woodland Woodland

After

Other Woodland

Other Other

Woodland

Woodland Woodland

Honeybee Honeybeespillover spillover

Orange grove Orange Woodland grove Woodland Other

Woodland Other

Woodland

Change in network structure Change structure Cambios en in la network estructura de la red

Honeybee spillover Honeybee spillover

high competition low apparent competition Altaapparent competencia high apparent competition low apparent competition Change in network Change structure in network structure Baja competencia

Baja de lowequidad interaction high apparent competition high apparent competition low interaction evenness interacciones evenness

Plant reproductive success

Alta segregaciรณn de nicho

high interaction highequidad interaction Alta evenness de evenness interacciones

high interaction evenness

{

{{

high link density high link density Alta densidad de high link density high link density low niche low niche interacciones low niche lowsegregation niche segregation segregation segregation Baja segregaciรณn

{

{

{{

high niche high niche high niche segregation high niche segregation segregation segregation

Plant reproductive lant reproductive success success

low link density link density Bajalow densidad de low link density low link density interacciones

high interaction evenness

{

low interaction evenness

Plant reproductive success

low interaction evenness

low apparent competition low apparent competition

de nicho

Magrach et al. 2017

10

0

10

20

30

40 km

Low grove cover

Other Orange grove Orange Woodland grove Woodland b

c)

c)

High grove cover

After

After

N=8

Other Other

Woodland

Other

Orange grove Orange Woodland grove Woodland Other

Woodland Woodland Woodland

N=9

Honeybee spillover Honeybee After spillover

Woodland

Low grove cover N=9

During Orange Orangegrove grove Woodland Woodland Orange grove

Other Woodland

N=8

Woodland Other

Woodland

Woodland Other Woodland Change in network structure Change structure Cambios en in la network estructura de la red Orange grove

c

Honeybee spillover Honeybee spilloverAfter

high competition low apparent competition Altaapparent competencia high apparent competition low apparent competition Change in network Change structure in network structure Baja competencia Orange grove Woodland Other Woodland Baja de lowequidad interaction high apparent competition high apparent competition low apparent competition low apparent competition low interaction evenness interacciones Honeybee spillover evenness

low interaction evenness

high interaction evenness

Change in network structure High apparent competition

High interaction evenness

Plant reproductive success

Low link density

Alta segregaciรณn High niche de nicho segregation

High Low Grove cover

{{

high link density high link density Alta densidad de high link density high link density low niche low niche interacciones low niche lowsegregation niche segregation segregation segregation Baja segregaciรณn

{

{

{{

high niche high niche high niche segregation high niche segregation segregation segregation

Plant reproductive lant reproductive success success Exito reproductivo โ จ Plant reproductive Plant reproductive success plantas success

{

Low interaction low link density evenness link density Bajalow densidad de low link density low link density interacciones

high interaction evenness

Low apparent competition

{

low interaction evenness

high interaction highequidad interaction Alta evenness de evenness interacciones

High link density Low niche segregation

de nicho

Magrach et al. 2017

High

Low Landscape type

C. crispus no. pollen tubes

e

High

Low Landscape type

80 Quantile 0.1 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.9

60

40

20

0

10

20

Honeybee visits

on for the two most abundant plant species. a, Scatter plot showing the effect of Magrach et al. 2017 or each of ten mother C. salvifolius plants in woodlands surrounded by high (orange)

QUI MENJA QUI?