Plant-pollinator networks: adding the pollinator's perspective.

Pollination network studies are based on pollinator surveys conducted on focal plants. This plant-centred approach provides insufficient information on flower visitation habits of rare pollinator species, which are the majority in pollinator communities. As a result, pollination networks contain very high proportions of pollinator species linked to a single plant species (extreme specialists), a pattern that contrasts with the widely accepted view that plant-pollinator interactions are mostly generalized. In this study of a Mediterranean scrubland community in NE Spain we supplement data from an intensive field survey with the analysis of pollen loads carried by pollinators. We observed 4265 contacts corresponding to 19 plant and 122 pollinator species. The addition of pollen data unveiled a very significant number of interactions, resulting in important network structural changes. Connectance increased 1.43-fold, mean plant connectivity went from 18.5 to 26.4, and mean pollinator connectivity from 2.9 to 4.1. Extreme specialist pollinator species decreased 0.6-fold, suggesting that ecological specialization is often overestimated in plant-pollinator networks. We expected a greater connectivity increase in rare species, and consequently a decrease in the level of asymmetric specialization. However, new links preferentially attached to already highly connected nodes and, as a result, both nestedness and centralization increased. The addition of pollen data revealed the existence of four clearly defined modules that were not apparent when only field survey data were used. Three of these modules had a strong phenological component. In comparison to other pollination webs, our network had a high proportion of connector links and species. That is, although significant, the four modules were far from isolated.

[1]  Bernd Heinrich,et al.  THE FORAGING SPECIALIZATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL BUMBLEBEES , 1976 .

[2]  Bernd Heinrich,et al.  "Majoring" and "Minoring" by Foraging Bumblebees, Bombus Vagans: An Experimental Analysis , 1979 .

[3]  C. Hill,et al.  Pollen Carried for Long Periods by Butterflies , 1982 .

[4]  C. Toft.  Resource shifts in bee flies (Bombyliidae): interactions among species determine choice of resources , 1984 .

[5]  Javier Herrera,et al.  Pollination relationships in southern Spanisch Mediterranean shrublands , 1988 .

[6]  Constancia floral en Heliotaurus ruficollis Fabricius, 1781 (Coleoptera : Alleculidae) , 1991 .

[7]  W. Kunin.  Sex and the single mustard : population density and pollinator behavior effects on seed-set , 1993 .

[8]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Improving Food Webs , 1993 .

[9]  D. Cohen,et al.  The evolution of flower display and reward , 1993 .

[10]  C. Herrera,et al.  Floral Traits and Plant Adaptation to Insect Pollinators: A Devil’s Advocate Approach , 1996 .

[11]  Lars Chittka,et al.  Generalization in Pollination Systems, and Why it Matters , 1996 .

[12]  J. Castilla,et al.  Challenges in the Quest for Keystones , 1996 .

[13]  J C Stout,et al.  Can flower constancy in nectaring butterflies be explained by Darwin’s interference hypothesis? , 1997, Oecologia.

[14]  Lars Chittka,et al.  Foraging dynamics of bumble bees: correlates of movements within and between plant species , 1997 .

[15]  J. Bosch,et al.  Flowering phenology, floral traits and pollinator composition in a herbaceous Mediterranean plant community , 1997, Oecologia.

[16]  Lloyd Goldwasser,et al.  SAMPLING EFFECTS AND THE ESTIMATION OF FOOD‐WEB PROPERTIES , 1997 .

[17]  D. Goulson,et al.  Flower constancy in the hoverflies Episyrphus balteatus (Degeer) and Syrphus ribesii (L.) (Syrphidae) , 1998 .

[18]  Bradford A. Hawkins,et al.  EFFECTS OF SAMPLING EFFORT ON CHARACTERIZATION OF FOOD-WEB STRUCTURE , 1999 .

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

[20]  Martin G. Everett,et al.  Models of core/periphery structures , 2000, Soc. Networks.

[21]  J. Bosch,et al.  A Phylogenetic Analysis of Nesting Behavior in the Genus Osmia (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) , 2001 .

[22]  N. Williams,et al.  Variation in Native Bee Faunas and its Implications for Detecting Community Changes , 2001 .

[23]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness , 2001 .

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

[25]  Lynn V. Dicks,et al.  Compartmentalization in plant–insect flower visitor webs , 2002 .

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

[27]  N. Williams,et al.  Consistent mixing of near and distant resources in foraging bouts by the solitary mason bee Osmia lignaria , 2003 .

[28]  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.

[29]  Diego P. Vázquez,et al.  NULL MODEL ANALYSES OF SPECIALIZATION IN PLANT–POLLINATOR INTERACTIONS , 2003 .

[30]  Michele R. Dudash,et al.  Pollination Syndromes and Floral Specialization , 2004 .

[31]  Wirt Atmar,et al.  The measure of order and disorder in the distribution of species in fragmented habitat , 1993, Oecologia.

[32]  Diego P. Vázquez,et al.  ASYMMETRIC SPECIALIZATION: A PERVASIVE FEATURE OF PLANT-POLLINATOR INTERACTIONS , 2004 .

[33]  M. Aizen,et al.  Chapter 9 Community-Wide Patterns of Specialization in Plant – Pollinator Interactions Revealed by Null Models , 2004 .

[34]  Vladimir Batagelj,et al.  Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek , 2005 .

[35]  R. Guimerà,et al.  Functional cartography of complex metabolic networks , 2005, Nature.

[36]  A. P. Schaffers,et al.  Parallel Declines in Pollinators and Insect-Pollinated Plants in Britain and the Netherlands , 2006, Science.

[37]  S. Armbruster.  Evolutionary and ecological aspects of specialized pollination: views from the arctic to the tropics , 2006 .

[38]  Miguel A. Rodríguez-Gironés,et al.  A new algorithm to calculate the nestedness temperature of presence–absence matrices , 2006 .

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

[40]  Paulo Guimarães,et al.  Improving the analyses of nestedness for large sets of matrices , 2006, Environ. Model. Softw..

[41]  J. Cane,et al.  Floral specialization by bees: analytical methodologies and a revised lexicon for oligolecty , 2006 .

[42]  Luis Santamaría,et al.  Linkage Rules for Plant–Pollinator Networks: Trait Complementarity or Exploitation Barriers? , 2007, PLoS biology.

[43]  Neal M. Williams,et al.  Species abundance and asymmetric interaction strength in ecological networks , 2007 .

[44]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  Plant-Animal Mutualistic Networks: The Architecture of Biodiversity , 2007 .

[45]  J. Bosch,et al.  Pollinator diversity affects plant reproduction and recruitment: the tradeoffs of generalization , 2007, Oecologia.

[46]  Jane Memmott,et al.  The restoration of ecological interactions: plant-pollinator networks on ancient and restored heathlands , 2007 .

[47]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  Ecological networks, nestedness and sampling effort , 2007 .

[48]  J. Bascompte,et al.  The modularity of pollination networks , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[49]  Joseph Tzanopoulos,et al.  Long-term observation of a pollination network: fluctuation in species and interactions, relative invariance of network structure and implications for estimates of specialization. , 2008, Ecology letters.

[50]  Werner Ulrich,et al.  A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement , 2008 .