
doi: 10.1111/btp.12465
AbstractPlant–pollinator interactions are critical to ecosystems. However, when artificial nectar feeders are available in an area, they could draw pollinators away from plants. We tested the effects of artificial nectar feeders in an Ecuadorian cloud forest on four aspects of bat–plant interactions: (1) bat relative abundance; (2) bat pollen loads; (3) flower visitation rates, and (4) breeding success of a bat‐pollinated species (Burmeistera glabrata). We divided the study site into areas close to (~30 m) and far from (~500 m) three different feeder sites. At each distance, we captured nectar bats (Anoura caudifer, Anoura cultrata, and Lonchophylla robusta) to estimate their relative abundance and to collect pollen from fur and fecal samples. We also videotaped flowers to estimate bat visitation rates and recorded different breeding success variables of B. glabrata. We found that areas close to feeders have higher relative bat abundance by a factor of 40. In spite of this, the presence of feeders did not affect bat pollen loads, nor the flower visitation rates and breeding success of B. glabrata. Interestingly, there were differences in pollen loads between the three bat species, in that L. robusta individuals rarely carried pollen and were only captured near feeders.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 9 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
