Moth‐pollination through the looking glass: Structure of a flower‐settling moth network reveals functional groups

Abstract Plant–pollinator mutualisms are key to sustaining ecosystem function and biodiversity. The study of plant–pollinator networks has conventionally focused on diurnal interactions, while flower‐settling moths are among the most diverse yet least understood pollinator groups. Previous network studies provide a valuable lesson on the important role of settling moths in supporting pollination systems. However, little is known regarding the structure of flower‐settling moth networks or the ecological and evolutionary mechanisms that may shape these interactions. Our main objective was to bring to focus the structure of a flower‐settling moth network, using records from a previous pollination study in the Florida Sandhill. We integrated key taxonomic, life history and functional traits of moths as potential drivers of network structure and discussed potential implications for the structure and long‐term stability of plant–pollinator networks in general. Flower‐settling moth networks were robust, diverse and significantly structured (modular), with functionally similar moths linked more often to particular modules (micro, small and macro). Notably, the average proboscis length and wingspan of moths varied significantly among modules (macro vs. micro/small), further suggesting that modules were at least partially determined by the similar function of moths. In addition, we provide the following scale to categorise moths by size guild or potential functional group: (1) micro‐settling (wingspan ≤14.5 mm; proboscis ≤4.39 mm); (2) small‐settling (14.5 < wingspan < 25.0; 4.40 ≤ proboscis ≤ 7.49) and (3) macro‐settling (wingspan ≥25.0 mm, proboscis ≥7.50 mm). Given the immense diversity and abundance of settling moths, it is not surprising that a continuum of functional traits (such as body size and proboscis length) has helped shape pollination niches among settling moths. We conclude that flower‐settling moth assemblages are more functionally diverse than previously understood and offer a glimmer of hope in the darkness for pollinator conservation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ecological Entomology
Published
2025-04-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/een.13446
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Plant and animal studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.05
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Moth‐pollination through the looking glass: Structure of a flower‐settling moth network reveals functional groups

James D. Ackerman, Jacqueline Y. Miller, Montana M. Atwater, Jaret C. Daniels
2 citations
Ecological Entomology
Plant and animal studies
6.05
article

Moth‐pollination through the looking glass: Structure of a flower‐settling moth network reveals functional groups

James D. Ackerman, Jacqueline Y. Miller, Montana M. Atwater, Jaret C. Daniels
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract Plant–pollinator mutualisms are key to sustaining ecosystem function and biodiversity. The study of plant–pollinator networks has conventionally focused on diurnal interactions, while flower‐settling moths are among the most diverse yet least understood pollinator groups. Previous network studies provide a valuable lesson on the important role of settling moths in supporting pollination systems. However, little is known regarding the structure of flower‐settling moth networks or the ecological and evolutionary mechanisms that may shape these interactions. Our main objective was to bring to focus the structure of a flower‐settling moth network, using records from a previous pollination study in the Florida Sandhill. We integrated key taxonomic, life history and functional traits of moths as potential drivers of network structure and discussed potential implications for the structure and long‐term stability of plant–pollinator networks in general. Flower‐settling moth networks were robust, diverse and significantly structured (modular), with functionally similar moths linked more often to particular modules (micro, small and macro). Notably, the average proboscis length and wingspan of moths varied significantly among modules (macro vs. micro/small), further suggesting that modules were at least partially determined by the similar function of moths. In addition, we provide the following scale to categorise moths by size guild or potential functional group: (1) micro‐settling (wingspan ≤14.5 mm; proboscis ≤4.39 mm); (2) small‐settling (14.5 < wingspan < 25.0; 4.40 ≤ proboscis ≤ 7.49) and (3) macro‐settling (wingspan ≥25.0 mm, proboscis ≥7.50 mm). Given the immense diversity and abundance of settling moths, it is not surprising that a continuum of functional traits (such as body size and proboscis length) has helped shape pollination niches among settling moths. We conclude that flower‐settling moth assemblages are more functionally diverse than previously understood and offer a glimmer of hope in the darkness for pollinator conservation.

Ecological EntomologyVol. 50(5)
Florida Museum of Natural History (US), University of Puerto Rico at Río Piedras (PR), University of Florida (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Plant and animal studies
6.05
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.