The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2009
DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01296.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Plant–pollinator networks: adding the pollinator’s perspective

Abstract: 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 t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

22
327
3
16

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 232 publications
(368 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
(128 reference statements)
22
327
3
16
Order By: Relevance
“…Number of missing links was reduced by (i) extending sampling time to a full season and (ii) using both a phytocentric and a zoo-centric approach to monitor links, i.e. flower-/fruit-visit data and data on pollen on the body surface of flower visitors and seeds in faeces of frugivores, respectively ( [22]; the 'smoking gun' method sensu [23]). As in any biodiversity monitoring, accounting for sampling effects when monitoring interactions has long been recognized as a fundamental aspect [6], and this two-sided approach was recommended by Blü thgen [24]; also see [22,25] to reduce effects of observation bias.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Number of missing links was reduced by (i) extending sampling time to a full season and (ii) using both a phytocentric and a zoo-centric approach to monitor links, i.e. flower-/fruit-visit data and data on pollen on the body surface of flower visitors and seeds in faeces of frugivores, respectively ( [22]; the 'smoking gun' method sensu [23]). As in any biodiversity monitoring, accounting for sampling effects when monitoring interactions has long been recognized as a fundamental aspect [6], and this two-sided approach was recommended by Blü thgen [24]; also see [22,25] to reduce effects of observation bias.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The food sources exploited by bees can be identified by direct observation of the visiting bee at the flower [23,24] or by pollen analysis [14,25,26]. Pollen analysis enables quantification of the diversity and frequency of pollen grains found on the bodies of the bees [14,27], the nest [28,29], and/or feces of adult and immature bees [13].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…10,11 The same can be applied from the pollinator's perspective -that is, the range of plants a pollinator prefers relates to it being generalised or specialised, as discussed below. 10,12 In some extreme cases, both parties could co-evolve morphologically and behaviourally to allow only one-on-one plant-pollinator interactions, whereby the plant protects access to rewards for its specific pollinator -a feature of, amongst others, many genera in the Orchidaceae. 13 It has been argued that the formation of specific floral structures in plants is largely driven by means of natural selection from their respective pollinators.…”
Section: Evolution Of Plant-pollinator Interactionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…27 Oligolectic bees still visit flowers from plant taxa other than those from which pollen are collected for other resources, such as nectar and oils. 12 Floral choices of bee pollinators play an important role in the sustainability of a plant community. According to food web theory, the more complex http://www.sajs.co.za…”
Section: Generalist Versus Specialist Interactionsmentioning
confidence: 99%