Abstract
To understand the reproductive strategies of the typically introduced plant Hibiscus mutabilis and to compare the pollination efficiency of its different pollinators, we observed, measured, and recorded the flowering dynamics, floral traits, and visiting insects of H. mutabilis. Furthermore, we compared the body size, visitation rate, and pollination efficiency of the pollination insects of H. mutabilis. The results indicated that, despite exhibiting specialized moth pollination characteristics based on similarities in flower features to other moth-pollinated species, H. mutabilis actually presented a generalized pollination system. The nectar of H. mutabilis attracted a variety of insects to provide pollination services, a total of five flower visitors, one moth species (Macroglossum pyrrhosticta), and four bee species (Xylocopa appendiculata, Xylocopa dissimilis, Bombus breviceps, and Apis mellifera), were found to provide pollination services for H. mutabilis. The pollination efficiency of these pollinators was related to the parts of their body in contact with the stamens and stigmas of flowers. Although M. pyrrhosticta was larger in size and its visitation frequency in our field observations was higher, its pollination efficiency was lower. This was due to the small part of its body (proboscis) contacting the two sexual organs of H. mutabilis while visiting flowers, resulting in a low amount of pollen being transferred and deposited. In contrast, the bee pollinators’ proboscis was significantly shorter than that of M. pyrrhosticta, and it must enter the flower to suck the nectar that is hidden deeply inside the base of the flower. Therefore, the body parts of bee pollinators in contact with the two sexual organs of H. mutabilis were larger than M. pyrrhosticta in the process of visiting flowers, and the pollination efficiencies were significantly higher than those of M. pyrrhosticta. In addition, larger bee pollinators have higher pollination efficiency. As a result, H. mutabilis suffered from pollen limitation due to the pollination efficiencies of the moth pollinators in the introduced habitats, but it compensated by attracting more species of bee pollinators.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 17
Claim · model-written summary
Hibiscus mutabilis had a generalized pollination system.
- Outcome
- H. mutabilis actually presented a generalized pollination system.e0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“H. mutabilis actually presented a generalized pollination system.”
t0“Hibiscus mutabilis”
Claim · model-written summary
Macroglossum pyrrhosticta provided pollination services to H. mutabilis.
- Taxon
- H. mutabilis
Hibiscus mutabilise0 - Interactor
- Macroglossum pyrrhosticta
Macroglossum pyrrhostictume0pollinator - Outcome
- one moth species (Macroglossum pyrrhosticta), and four bee species (Xylocopa appendiculata, Xylocopa dissimilis, Bombus breviceps, and Apis mellifera), were found to provide pollination services for H. mutabilis.e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“one moth species (Macroglossum pyrrhosticta), and four bee species (Xylocopa appendiculata, Xylocopa dissimilis, Bombus breviceps, and Apis mellifera), were found to provide pollination services for H. mutabilis.”
Claim · model-written summary
Xylocopa appendiculata provided pollination services to H. mutabilis.
- Taxon
- H. mutabilisHibiscus mutabilise0
- Interactor
- Xylocopa appendiculata
Xylocopa appendiculatae0pollinator - Outcome
- one moth species (Macroglossum pyrrhosticta), and four bee species (Xylocopa appendiculata, Xylocopa dissimilis, Bombus breviceps, and Apis mellifera), were found to provide pollination services for H. mutabilis.e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“one moth species (Macroglossum pyrrhosticta), and four bee species (Xylocopa appendiculata, Xylocopa dissimilis, Bombus breviceps, and Apis mellifera), were found to provide pollination services for H. mutabilis.”
Claim · model-written summary
Xylocopa dissimilis provided pollination services to H. mutabilis.
- Taxon
- H. mutabilisHibiscus mutabilise0
- Interactor
- Xylocopa dissimilis
Xylocopa nasalise0pollinator - Outcome
- one moth species (Macroglossum pyrrhosticta), and four bee species (Xylocopa appendiculata, Xylocopa dissimilis, Bombus breviceps, and Apis mellifera), were found to provide pollination services for H. mutabilis.e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“one moth species (Macroglossum pyrrhosticta), and four bee species (Xylocopa appendiculata, Xylocopa dissimilis, Bombus breviceps, and Apis mellifera), were found to provide pollination services for H. mutabilis.”
Claim · model-written summary
Bombus breviceps provided pollination services to H. mutabilis.
- Taxon
- H. mutabilisHibiscus mutabilise0
- Interactor
- Bombus breviceps
.jpg?width=60)
Bombus brevicepse0pollinator - Outcome
- one moth species (Macroglossum pyrrhosticta), and four bee species (Xylocopa appendiculata, Xylocopa dissimilis, Bombus breviceps, and Apis mellifera), were found to provide pollination services for H. mutabilis.e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“one moth species (Macroglossum pyrrhosticta), and four bee species (Xylocopa appendiculata, Xylocopa dissimilis, Bombus breviceps, and Apis mellifera), were found to provide pollination services for H. mutabilis.”
Claim · model-written summary
Apis mellifera provided pollination services to H. mutabilis.
- Taxon
- H. mutabilisHibiscus mutabilise0
- Interactor
- Apis mellifera
_Apis_mellifera_(female)_-_on_viburnum_tinus_flowers.jpg?width=60)
Apis melliferae0pollinator - Outcome
- one moth species (Macroglossum pyrrhosticta), and four bee species (Xylocopa appendiculata, Xylocopa dissimilis, Bombus breviceps, and Apis mellifera), were found to provide pollination services for H. mutabilis.e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Apis_mellifera_(female)_-_on_viburnum_tinus_flowers.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“one moth species (Macroglossum pyrrhosticta), and four bee species (Xylocopa appendiculata, Xylocopa dissimilis, Bombus breviceps, and Apis mellifera), were found to provide pollination services for H. mutabilis.”
Claim · model-written summary
Pollination efficiency was related to the body parts contacting flower reproductive organs.
- Organ / stage
- stamens and stigmase0
- Outcome
- The pollination efficiency of these pollinators was related to the parts of their body in contact with the stamens and stigmas of flowers.e0
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“The pollination efficiency of these pollinators was related to the parts of their body in contact with the stamens and stigmas of flowers.”
t0“Hibiscus mutabilis”
Claim · model-written summary
M. pyrrhosticta had larger size than bee pollinators.
- Interactor
- M. pyrrhostictaMacroglossum pyrrhostictume0pollinator
- Outcome
- sizee0
- Direction
- largere0
Not reportedTaxon
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Although M. pyrrhosticta was larger in size and its visitation frequency in our field observations was higher, its pollination efficiency was lower.”
t0“Hibiscus mutabilis”
Claim · model-written summary
M. pyrrhosticta had higher visitation frequency than bee pollinators.
- Interactor
- M. pyrrhostictaMacroglossum pyrrhostictume0pollinator
- Outcome
- visitation frequencye0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedTaxon
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Although M. pyrrhosticta was larger in size and its visitation frequency in our field observations was higher, its pollination efficiency was lower.”
t0“Hibiscus mutabilis”
Claim · model-written summary
M. pyrrhosticta had lower pollination efficiency than bee pollinators.
- Interactor
- M. pyrrhostictaMacroglossum pyrrhostictume0pollinator
- Outcome
- pollination efficiencye0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedTaxon
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Although M. pyrrhosticta was larger in size and its visitation frequency in our field observations was higher, its pollination efficiency was lower.”
t0“Hibiscus mutabilis”
Claim · model-written summary
Limited moth contact with floral organs produced low pollen transfer and deposition.
- Taxon
- H. mutabilisHibiscus mutabilise0
- Interactor
- itse0pollinator
- Outcome
- This was due to the small part of its body (proboscis) contacting the two sexual organs of H. mutabilis while visiting flowers, resulting in a low amount of pollen being transferred and deposited.e0
- Qualifier
- small part of its body (proboscis) contacting the two sexual organse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This was due to the small part of its body (proboscis) contacting the two sexual organs of H. mutabilis while visiting flowers, resulting in a low amount of pollen being transferred and deposited.”
Claim · model-written summary
Bee pollinators had significantly shorter proboscises than the moth.
- Interactor
- bee pollinatorse0pollinator
- Outcome
- the bee pollinators’ proboscis was significantly shorter than that of M. pyrrhostictae0
- Direction
- shortere0
- Comparator
- M. pyrrhostictae0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“the bee pollinators’ proboscis was significantly shorter than that of M. pyrrhosticta”
t0“Hibiscus mutabilis”
Claim · model-written summary
Bee pollinators had larger body parts of bee pollinators in contact with the two sexual organs than the moth.
- Taxon
- H. mutabilisHibiscus mutabilise0
- Interactor
- bee pollinatorse0pollinator
- Outcome
- body parts of bee pollinators in contact with the two sexual organse0
- Direction
- largere0
- Comparator
- M. pyrrhostictae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the body parts of bee pollinators in contact with the two sexual organs of H. mutabilis were larger than M. pyrrhosticta in the process of visiting flowers, and the pollination efficiencies were significantly higher than those of M. pyrrhosticta.”
Claim · model-written summary
Bee pollinators had higher pollination efficiencies than the moth.
- Taxon
- H. mutabilisHibiscus mutabilise0
- Interactor
- bee pollinatorse0pollinator
- Outcome
- pollination efficienciese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- M. pyrrhostictae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the body parts of bee pollinators in contact with the two sexual organs of H. mutabilis were larger than M. pyrrhosticta in the process of visiting flowers, and the pollination efficiencies were significantly higher than those of M. pyrrhosticta.”
Claim · model-written summary
Larger bee pollinators had higher pollination efficiency.
- Interactor
- bee pollinatorse0pollinator
- Outcome
- larger bee pollinators have higher pollination efficiency.e0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“larger bee pollinators have higher pollination efficiency.”
t0“Hibiscus mutabilis”
Claim · model-written summary
Moth pollination efficiency caused pollen limitation in introduced habitats.
- Taxon
- H. mutabilisHibiscus mutabilise0
- Interactor
- moth pollinatorse0pollinator
- Outcome
- H. mutabilis suffered from pollen limitation due to the pollination efficiencies of the moth pollinators in the introduced habitats, but it compensated by attracting more species of bee pollinators.e0
- Setting
- introduced habitatse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“H. mutabilis suffered from pollen limitation due to the pollination efficiencies of the moth pollinators in the introduced habitats, but it compensated by attracting more species of bee pollinators.”
Claim · model-written summary
H. mutabilis compensated for pollen limitation by attracting more bee pollinator species.
- Taxon
- H. mutabilisHibiscus mutabilise0
- Interactor
- bee pollinatorse0pollinator
- Outcome
- H. mutabilis suffered from pollen limitation due to the pollination efficiencies of the moth pollinators in the introduced habitats, but it compensated by attracting more species of bee pollinators.e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“H. mutabilis suffered from pollen limitation due to the pollination efficiencies of the moth pollinators in the introduced habitats, but it compensated by attracting more species of bee pollinators.”