Sampling method influences the structure of plant–pollinator networks

The search for general properties in the structure of ecological networks is currently a very active area of research. Meta-analyses of published networks are a widely used technique. To have the best chance of discovering common properties though, networks should be constructed using a standardized approach. However, this is rarely the case, and pollination networks are constructed using two main methods: transects and timed observations. To investigate the potential for variation in network structure arising from different construction techniques we constructed plant–pollinator networks using two different methods at a single site, repeating our protocol over three field seasons. Transects and timed observation methods differ in the evenness of observation effort allocated among plant species in the observed community. We show that the uneven allocation of observation effort significantly affects the number of unique interactions in the network, and we reveal a strong trend in effects on web asymmetry and evenness of marginal abundance distributions. However, these effects do not appear to extend to the higher-order properties of connectance and nestedness.

[1]  D. Simberloff,et al.  Ecological Specialization and Susceptibility to Disturbance: Conjectures and Refutations , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[2]  Nils Blüthgen,et al.  Specialization, Constraints, and Conflicting Interests in Mutualistic Networks , 2007, Current Biology.

[3]  Carsten F. Dormann,et al.  Indices, Graphs and Null Models: Analyzing Bipartite Ecological Networks , 2009 .

[4]  Jane Memmott,et al.  Pollinator webs, plant communities and the conservation of rare plants: arable weeds as a case study , 2006 .

[5]  M. Devoto,et al.  Patterns of interaction between plants and pollinators along an environmental gradient , 2005 .

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

[7]  Christopher N. Kaiser-Bunbury,et al.  Community structure of pollination webs of Mauritian heathland habitats , 2009 .

[8]  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.

[9]  J. Bosch,et al.  Plant-pollinator networks: adding the pollinator's perspective. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[10]  Jens M. Olesen,et al.  The Dense and Highly Connected World of Greenland's Plants and Their Pollinators , 2005 .

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

[12]  Carsten F. Dormann,et al.  Introducing the bipartite Package: Analysing Ecological Networks , 2008 .

[13]  L. Carvalheiro,et al.  Pollinator networks, alien species and the conservation of rare plants: Trinia glauca as a case study , 2008 .

[14]  N. Bartoloni,et al.  A year‐long plant‐pollinator network , 2006 .

[15]  Daniel B. Stouffer,et al.  Nestedness versus modularity in ecological networks: two sides of the same coin? , 2010, The Journal of animal ecology.

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

[17]  Luciano Cagnolo,et al.  Uniting pattern and process in plant-animal mutualistic networks: a review. , 2009, Annals of botany.

[18]  Jochen Fründ,et al.  What do interaction network metrics tell us about specialization and biological traits? , 2008, Ecology.

[19]  Juan Manuel Pastor,et al.  Weighted-Interaction Nestedness Estimator (WINE): A new estimator to calculate over frequency matrices , 2008, Environ. Model. Softw..

[20]  Robert Belshaw,et al.  The structure of an aphid–parasitoid community , 1999 .

[21]  Jeff Ollerton,et al.  The pollination ecology of an assemblage of grassland asclepiads in South Africa. , 2003, Annals of botany.

[22]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  Temporal dynamics in a pollination network. , 2008, Ecology.

[23]  H. Siegismund,et al.  Structure of a plant-pollinator network on a pahoehoe lava desert of the Galapagos Islands , 2006 .

[24]  J. Bascompte,et al.  Effects of phenotypic complementarity and phylogeny on the nested structure of mutualistic networks , 2007 .

[25]  Werner Ulrich,et al.  A consumer's guide to nestedness analysis , 2009 .

[26]  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.

[27]  Carolina L. Morales,et al.  Invasive mutualisms and the structure of plant–pollinator interactions in the temperate forests of north‐west Patagonia, Argentina , 2006 .

[28]  Pedro Jordano,et al.  Patterns of Mutualistic Interactions in Pollination and Seed Dispersal: Connectance, Dependence Asymmetries, and Coevolution , 1987, The American Naturalist.

[29]  Jeff Ollerton,et al.  Latitudinal trends in plant‐pollinator interactions: are tropical plants more specialised? , 2002 .

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

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

[32]  Edda Klipp,et al.  Biophysical properties of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and their relationship with HOG pathway activation , 2010, European Biophysics Journal.

[33]  N. Waser,et al.  Size-specific interaction patterns and size matching in a plant-pollinator interaction web. , 2009, Annals of botany.

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

[35]  Jeff Ollerton,et al.  Year‐to‐year variation in the topology of a plant–pollinator interaction network , 2008 .

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

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