Search

Existing assessments of the ecosystem service of pollination have been largely restricted to diurnal insects, with a particular focus on generalist foragers such as wild and honey bees. As knowledge of how these plant-pollinator systems function, their relevance to food security and biodiversity, and the fragility of these mutually beneficial interactions increases, attention is diverting to other, less well-studied pollinator groups. One such group are those that forage at night. In this review, we document evidence that nocturnal species are providers of pollination services (including pollination of economically valuable and culturally important crops, as well as wild plants of conservation concern), but highlight how little is known about the scale of such services. We discuss the primary mechanisms involved in night-time communication between plants and insect pollen-vectors, including floral scent, visual cues (and associated specialized visual systems), and thermogenic sensitivity (associated with thermogenic flowers). We highlight that these mechanisms are vulnerable to direct and indirect disruption by a range of anthropogenic drivers of environmental change, including air and soil pollution, artificial light at night, and climate change. Lastly, we highlight a number of directions for future research that will be important if nocturnal pollination services are to be fully understood and ultimately conserved., (© 2020 The Author(s).)

1. Moths are globally relevant as pollinators but nocturnal pollination remains poorly understood. Plant–pollinator interaction networks are traditionally constructed using either flower‐visitor observations or pollen‐transport detection using microscopy. Recent studies have shown the potential of DNA metabarcoding for detecting and identifying pollen‐transport interactions. However, no study has directly compared the realised observations of pollen‐transport networks between DNA metabarcoding and conventional light microscopy. 2. Using matched samples of nocturnal moths, we constructed pollen‐transport networks using two methods: light microscopy and DNA metabarcoding. Focussing on the feeding mouthparts of moths, we developed and provide reproducible methods for merging DNA metabarcoding and ecological network analysis to better understand species interactions. 3. DNA metabarcoding detected pollen on more individual moths, and detected multiple pollen types on more individuals than microscopy, although the average number of pollen types per individual was unchanged. However, after aggregating individuals of each species, metabarcoding detected more interactions per moth species. Pollen‐transport network metrics differed between methods because of variation in the ability of each to detect multiple pollen types per moth and to separate morphologically similar or related pollen. We detected unexpected but plausible moth–plant interactions with metabarcoding, revealing new detail about nocturnal pollination systems. 4. The nocturnal pollination networks observed using metabarcoding and microscopy were similar yet distinct, with implications for network ecologists. Comparisons between networks constructed using metabarcoding and traditional methods should therefore be treated with caution. Nevertheless, the potential applications of metabarcoding for studying plant–pollinator interaction networks are encouraging, especially when investigating understudied pollinators such as moths. We constructed nocturnal pollination networks for matched samples of moths from a U.K. agro‐ecosystem, using a conventional light microscopy approach and a DNA metabarcoding approach.DNA metabarcoding detected more pollen‐transport interactions per moth species than microscopy, and had a greater ability to separate morphologically similar or related pollen types.We detected previously unknown moth–plant pollen‐transport interactions, including pollen of several insect‐pollinated crop species, highlighting a need for research into the possible role of moths as ecosystem service providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial light at night (ALAN) is an increasingly important driver of global change. Lighting directly affects plants, but few studies have investigated indirect effects mediated by interacting organisms. Nocturnal Lepidoptera are globally important pollinators, and pollen transport by moths is disrupted by lighting. Many street lighting systems are being replaced with novel, energy-efficient lighting, with unknown ecological consequences. Using the wildflower Silene latifolia, we compared pollination success and quality at experimentally lit and unlit plots, testing two major changes to street lighting technology: in lamp type, from high-pressure sodium lamps to light-emitting diodes, and in lighting regime, from fullnight (FN) to part-night (PN) lighting. We predicted that lighting would reduce pollination. S. latifolia was pollinated both diurnally and nocturnally. Contrary to our predictions, flowers under FN lighting had higher pollination success than flowers under either PN lighting or unlit controls, which did not signifi- cantly differ from each other. Lamp type, lighting regime, and distance from the light all significantly affected aspects of pollination quality. These results confirm that street lighting could affect plant reproduction through indirect effects mediated by nocturnal insects, and further highlight the possibility for novel lighting technologies to mitigate the effects of ALAN on ecosystems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Among drivers of environmental change, artificial light at night is relatively poorly understood, yet is increasing on a global scale. The community-level effects of existing street lights on moths and their biotic interactions have not previously been studied. Using a combination of sampling methods at matched-pairs of lit and unlit sites, we found significant effects of street lighting: moth abundance at ground level was halved at lit sites, species richness was >25% lower, and flight activity at the level of the light was 70% greater. Furthermore, we found that 23% of moths carried pollen of at least 28 plant species and that there was a consequent overall reduction in pollen transport at lit sites. These findings support the disruptive impact of lights on moth activity, which is one proposed mechanism driving moth declines, and suggest that street lighting potentially impacts upon pollination by nocturnal invertebrates. We highlight the importance of considering both direct and cascading impacts of artificial light. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]