Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
29.99±15.86%; Figure 2B). An opposite trend was observed for large and very
large flowers, fragments with more than a 10-fold lower proportion of individu-
als with large flowers (0.5±0.84%) and almost a three-fold decrease of the very
large ones (13.74±11.77%) in comparison to control plots (7.54±8.58% and
35.4±13.54%, respectively). By grouping the five categories of flower size into two
[i.e. inconspicuous/small (≤10 mm) and medium/very large (>10 mm)] results
were similar. Fragments showing a prevalence of individuals with inconspicuous/
small flowers (68.85±21.43%) in contrast with control plots (45.98±16.04%),
and a significant lower proportion of individuals with medium to very large flow-
ers ones (31.15±21.43%) than control sites (54.02±16.04%) (Figure 2B).
Nectar was the most frequent floral reward observed in tree species of frag-
ment and control sites, however, these habitats differed in two of the other five
categories of floral rewards adopted in this study (Table 2). Nectar/pollen-flower
species were twice as higher in fragments than in control plots, and fragments
had also higher frequency of species with oil-flowers in comparison with control
plots (Table 2). Similar patterns were observed with respect to the proportions of
individuals within categories of floral rewards in each habitat, but, additionally,
fragments faced a slight and statistically significant reduction on the proportion
of individuals with BMFT flowers (0.19±0.41%) in contrast with control plots
(1.25±1.56%) (Figure 2C).
As expected, fragments and control plots largely differed in terms of floral types
considering the proportion of both species and individuals. Noticeable differences
refer to significantly lower scores of species with flag and brush flowers, and high-
er scores of inconspicuous flowers in fragments in comparison with control plots
(Table 2). Similar patterns were detected by analyzing the eight categories of floral
types based on reward accessibility: (1) inconspicuous+open/dish flowers (eas-
ily accessible resource [sensu 66]), and (2) non-inconspicuous/open (concealed
resource, at least some degree of hiddenness [sensu 66]). Under this approach,
fragments showed a prevalence of species with inconspicuous/open type, which
was significantly higher than in control sites. In terms of relative abundance of
tree species within floral types categories, figures described fragments facing the
same patterns observed to species regarding flag, inconspicuous (with even stron-
ger differences), and brush flowers. Additionally, fragments showed lower pro-
portions of individuals bearing camera and tube flowers in contrast with control
areas (Figure 3A). Similarly, when observing proportions of individuals within
categories of floral types according to reward accessibility, fragments had signifi-
cant higher frequency of individuals with flowers of the inconspicuous/open type
than control plots (Figure 3A), differences being yet more expressive than for
species richness. Moreover, fragments revealed to be particularly impoverished in
terms of tree species with nocturnal anthesis, showing a frequency more than two
