The Dense and Highly Connected World of Greenland's Plants and Their Pollinators

Abstract A pollination network of 26 pollinator species interacting with 17 plant species from the small Greenlandic island Uummannaq was analyzed for multiple parameters values. Of the insects collected, 77% of all individuals and 77% of all species belonged to Diptera. The ratio of pollinators to plant species was 1.5, which is lower than in other Arctic pollination networks. This might be a double-island effect as Uummannaq is a small island next to Greenland. Connectance was 14.3%, and linkage level of pollinator and plant species averaged 2.4 and 3.7 species links, respectively. The characteristic path length and average clustering coefficient of the 1-mode networks were 1.4 and 0.83, respectively, for the pollinator species and 1.3 and 0.79, respectively, for the plant species. For both pollinator species and plant species, the tail of the degree distribution had the best fit to an exponential model, indicating that the most connected species was constrained in their linking. However, the extremely short path length and high clustering indicated that the networks had small-world behavior, meaning that any disturbance is spread very fast to the entire network and that the networks are error tolerant but vulnerable to attack on the most linked species.

[1]  B. Hocking,et al.  Insect-flower associations in the high Arctic with special reference to nectar' , 1968 .

[2]  S. Carlquist,et al.  Hawaii, a natural history , 1970 .

[3]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994 .

[4]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[5]  Jens M. Olesen,et al.  The structure of a high latitude plant‐flower visitor system: the dominance of flies , 1999 .

[6]  J Memmott,et al.  The structure of a plant-pollinator food web. , 1999, Ecology letters.

[7]  H E Stanley,et al.  Classes of small-world networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  Albert,et al.  Topology of evolving networks: local events and universality , 2000, Physical review letters.

[9]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Error and attack tolerance of complex networks , 2000, Nature.

[10]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Simple rules yield complex food webs , 2000, Nature.

[11]  R. Albert,et al.  The large-scale organization of metabolic networks , 2000, Nature.

[12]  Andrew D. Huberman,et al.  Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation , 2000, Nature.

[13]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Lethality and centrality in protein networks , 2001, Nature.

[14]  S. Strogatz Exploring complex networks , 2001, Nature.

[15]  J. Bascompte,et al.  Invariant properties in coevolutionary networks of plant-animal interactions , 2002 .

[16]  R. Solé,et al.  Selection, Tinkering, and Emergence in Complex Networks - Crossing the Land of Tinkering , 2002 .

[17]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Food-web structure and network theory: The role of connectance and size , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  J. Montoya,et al.  Small world patterns in food webs. , 2002, Journal of theoretical biology.

[19]  Pedro Jordano,et al.  GEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS IN PLANT–POLLINATOR MUTUALISTIC NETWORKS , 2002 .

[20]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age , 2003 .

[21]  Carlos J. Melián,et al.  The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  The ecological consequences of complex topology and nested structure in pollination webs. , 2006 .