Hidden effects of habitat restoration on the persistence of pollination networks

Abstract

Past and recent studies have focused on the effects of global change drivers such as species invasions on species extinction. However, as we enter the United Nations Decade of Ecosystem Restoration the aim must switch to understanding how invasive‐species management affects the persistence of the remaining species in a community. Focusing on plant‐pollinator interactions, we test how species persistence is affected by restoration via the removal of invasive plant species. Restoration had a clear positive effect on plant persistence, whereas there was no difference between across treatments for pollinator persistence in the early season, but a clear effect in late season, with higher persistence in unrestored sites. Network structure affected only pollinator persistence, while centrality had a strong positive effect on both plants and pollinators. Our results suggest a hidden effect of invasive plants—although they may compete with native plant species, invasive plants may provide important resources for pollinators, at least in the short term.

Stability in plant–pollinator communities across organizational levels: present, gaps, and future

“…In some cases, this positive relationship is not found as it was mostly common abundant and generalist species driving ecosystem services, suggesting that selection effects, where particular species with key traits disproportionately influence ecosystem functioning, may not always align with patterns of species abundance ( Genung et al 2017 ; Redhead et al 2018 ). In turn, restoration efforts reveal complexities as multiple trophic levels are considered: plants benefit from restoration and invasive plant removal, while pollinators suffer from floral resource loss ( Valdovinos et al 2009 ; Gaiarsa and Bascompte 2022 ).…”

Different influences of phylogenetically conserved and independent floral traits on plant functional specialization and pollination network structure

“…Therefore, there is always a negative correlation between complementary specialization d' and other specialization metrics such as species degree, species strength, and closeness centrality (Laźaro et al, 2020;Suaŕez-Mariño et al, 2022). However, some studies also revealed an opposite pattern, an unexpected positive relationship between complementary specialization d' and weighted closeness (Pocock et al, 2011;Trøjelsgaard et al, 2019;Gaiarsa and Bascompte, 2022). It seems like a "paradox" because low closeness scores indicate specialization and high closeness scores more central (e.g., closer to all other species in the network).…”

Native Bee Habitat Restoration- Key Ecological Considerations from Recent Literature

“…Non-native plants can disrupt insect communities (Tallamy et al, 2021). The role of non-native plants in bee conservation is highly debated; recent research supports that non-native plants can promote bee abundance and pollination networks (Gaiarsa and Bascompte, 2022;Kovács-Hostyánszki et al, 2022). However, these studies focus on the floral resources that non-native plants provide and do not account for competition between native species (Aizen and Morales, 2020) or disruptions in ecosystem function (Tallamy et al, 2021).…”