DOI: 10.5061/dryad.gxd2547xh
title: Data from: Moth-pollination through the looking glass: Structure of a flower-settling moth network reveals functional groups

description: 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. Our main objective
 was to bring to focus the structure and function of a flower-settling moth
 network based on a previous pollination study in the Florida Sandhill.
 Specifically, we considered key taxonomic, life history, and functional
 traits of moths as potential drivers of network structure. We integrated
 two network types: 1. Flower-visitor, based on direct field observation of
 moths visiting flowers for nectar; and 2. Pollen transport, inferred from
 the identification of pollen found on trapped moths. Flower-settling moth
 networks were diverse and significantly structured (modular). Moth
 phenology and caterpillar host-plant interactions associated with module
 formation. Additionally, functionally similar moths were linked more often
 to particular modules. Notably, the average proboscis length and wingspan
 of moths varied significantly among modules, thus revealing potential
 functional niches. Accordingly, we propose three potential functional
 groups of flower-settling moths: micro, small, and macro - as supported by
 modes in the distribution of proboscis length and wingspan, and as
 reflected in modularity analysis. In addition, we recommend the use of
 wingspan as a potential proxy for the moth functional group. 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.
description: Dataset for moth-flower interactions was provided from a previous
 study published by the lead author on the diversity and flower-nectar
 hosts of settling moths within a sandhill ecosystem. We integrated two
 network types, based on two methods applied by the latter study to
 document flower-settling moth interactions: 1. Flower-visitor network -
 based on individual field observations of moths taking nectar on flowers;
 and 2. Pollen- transport network - based on the identification of pollen
 found on individual moths sampled from traps.  For each
 interaction, the dataset includes Moth and Flower identification (Family,
 genus, species), the network type, specimen voucher number, date of
 interaction, and Functional traits, including flower tube-length and moth
 wingspan, proboscis length and body size were measured and included for
 each interaction in the dataset. Input for both the
 flower-visitor and pollen-transport networks was structured the same for
 easy integration. Input included a list of all individual interactions,
 recorded as the species of moth in the first column, with the flower
 species in the second column. Networks excluded flower species linked by
 only a single interaction (Observed or inferred from pollen). Most pollen
 samples were easily identified to the Family level; however, network
 analysis only included interactions with pollen identified at the species
 level. Meanwhile, for a description of moth functional traits, we included
 all measurements from moths with pollen. 
 <strong>Measurement of functional
 traits</strong>  Moth proboscis length was
 measured using fresh moth specimens (after sampling pollen), secured with
 a pin in modeling clay, and placed in view under a light microscope. A
 micro-pin attached to the end of a wooden probe was then used to extend
 the proboscis for measurement under an ocular scale to the nearest 0.01
 mm. After moths were pinned with wings spread, wingspan was measured as
 the length between the apex of one forewing to the apex of the facing
 wing, using a caliper or ruler (for larger moths) to the nearest 0.01 mm.
 Body size guild in moths was indicated by modes in the frequency
 distribution of wingspan and proboscis length of individual moths. Tube
 length was measured for five individual flowers per flower species using a
 ruler to the nearest 0.01 mm. <strong>Field
 Methods & Pollen Microscopy</strong>
 Field methods and pollen microscopy were originally conducted by
 the lead Author. Moth-flower interactions were recorded weekly, during the
 peak moth flight period (first 2-3 hours after sunset; or ≈17.00 to 24.00
 hr, depending on the day length), from 15 July 2010 to 17 November 2010,
 totaling 9 nights of sampling and observation sessions. Beginning just
 after sunset, moths were sampled from a light trap, while observation
 sessions were conducted within a 25 m radius of the light trap. Sampling
 and observation sessions continued until moth activity on flowers and at
 traps stopped, typically 2-3 hours after sunset.
 <strong>1.     Field Observations</strong> Direct
 field observation sessions of moths taking nectar on flowers were
 conducted using a 1-watt LED headlamp set on red illumination (white light
 distracts the moths). Focusing on one flowering plant at a time, flowers
 were scanned, and flower-settling moth interactions were recorded (15-20
 minutes). This continued until all flowering plants within the plot were
 scanned (≈ 1-2 hours). For each moth observed on a flower, nectar feeding
 behavior was recorded for 10-20 seconds, and included photographic or
 video documentation of moths taking nectar on flowers before the moth was
 sampled. To prevent damage to the flower and pollen contamination, moths
 were collected off flowers by holding a clean vial directly above the
 moth, allowing the moth to fly up into the vial.
 <strong>2.     Trapping moths.</strong> Moths were
 sampled manually from a light trap composed of one 40-watt ultraviolet
 light and one 70-watt mercury vapor lamp suspended on each side of a
 vertical white sheet (approximately 2.0 × 2.4 m). All moths were collected
 individually in sanitized vials or envelopes to prevent contamination
 (moth scales and pollen). Samples were then placed in a small cooler while
 in the field to sedate the moths and stored in a deep ultracold (-80˚C)
 freezer until ready for processing and identification.
 <strong>Pollen sampling and preservation.</strong>
 All moths sampled at light traps were scanned for pollen and subsequently
 included for pollen microscopy. Pollen was stained and preserved in
 glycerin gel on a microscope slide with a cover slip. Pollen samples were
 visualized and measured using a reflective microscope 40 × (objective) and
 1.25 × (optivar), and imaging software was used to capture an image of
 pollen. Pollen characteristics such as shape, number, and length (μm) of
 spines, diameter (μm), and number of furrows or pores were considered for
 identification. <strong>Pollen Reference
 Library</strong> A pollen reference library was prepared from all
 flowering plants recorded in bloom during the course of the study and used
 as a reference for pollen identification. All plants were photographed,
 collected, pressed, and identified, and pollen was sampled from flowers.
 Photographs were taken of pollen and used as reference images for the
 identification of pollen on moths. When pollen could not be matched with
 the reference collection, local pollen keys and manuals were also used to
 identify pollen (Kapp et al. 2000, Jelks 2001). Pollen samples from moths
 and the pollen reference library were processed and deposited at the
 Palynology Pollen Library, Florida Museum of Natural History
 (Gainesville). Plant vouchers were deposited with the moth reference
 collection at the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera &
 Biodiversity.
description: # Data from: Moth-pollination through the looking glass: Structure of a
 flower-settling moth network reveals functional groups Dataset DOI:
 [10.5061/dryad.gxd2547xh](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.gxd2547xh) ##
 Description of the data and file structure The dataset includes individual
 interactions of moths and flowers, either observed directly
 (flower-visitor) or inferred from pollen found on moths
 (pollen-transport). Functional traits such as proboscis length (mm),
 wingspan (mm), and flower tube length (mm) are included. If the values are
 not determined, then the cells are left blank. Data was derived from the
 following sources: * Lead author, previous publication (Atwater 2013) ###
 Files and variables #### File:
 RAW_DATA_Ecological_Entomology_ID_24-0350-EEN.csv **Description:**  #####
 Variables * network type (flower-visitor, pollen transport): type of
 ecological network the interaction belongs to * specimen no.: unique
 specimen identifier * Date of interaction: The date on which the
 interaction between the moth and plant was observed. * moth
 Family: taxonomic family of the moth involved in the interaction * moth
 Genus: The genus of the moth. * Moth species: The species name of the
 moth. * moth size guild: grouping moths by body size * moth proboscis
 length (mm): length of the moth’s proboscis (feeding tube) measured in
 millimeters * moth wingspan (mm): wingspan of the moth measured in
 millimeters * Flower tube-length (mm): length of the flower’s corolla tube
 or nectar tube in millimeters—important for determining which moths can
 access the nectar * Plant Family: Taxonomic family of the plant visited by
 the moth * plant Genus * plant species * plant Family 2 * plant Genus 2 *
 plant species 2 ## Code/software Excel, or any XLSX Viewer (eg, Canva) ##
 Access information Other publicly accessible locations of the data: * None
 Data was derived from the following sources: * Previous publication of the
 main author, Atwater, 2013