TY - JOUR
T1 - Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks
T2 - Are we using the right measure?
AU - Novella-Fernandez, Roberto
AU - Rodrigo, Anselm
AU - Arnan, Xavier
AU - Bosch, Jordi
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by the Spanish MICINN, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (http:// www.ciencia.gob.es/); Projects CGL2005-00491, CGL2009-12646, CGL2013-41856 and CSD2008-0040, and a Ram?n y Cajal research grant to X.A. (RYC-2015-18448). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. We are grateful to S. Revert?, H. Barril, M.A. Requesens, C. Primante and A.M. Mart?n-Gonz?lez for their assistance during field work, and to C. Ruiz Arenas for his help with data management. We also thank J. M. G?mez (CSIC, Almer?a) for his comments on an early draft of the manuscript. Finally, we thank Diputaci? de Barcelona for allowing us to work in the Garraf Natural Park.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Novella-Fernandez et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/12/1
Y1 - 2019/12/1
N2 - Understanding how ecological networks are assembled is important because network structure reflects ecosystem functioning and stability. Quantitative network analysis incorporates measures of interaction strength as an estimate of the magnitude of the effect of interaction partners on one another. Most plant-pollinator network studies use frequency of interaction between individual pollinators and individual plants (encounter) as a surrogate of interaction strength. However, the number of flowers visited per encounter may strongly vary among pollinator and plant species, and therefore not all encounters are quantitatively equivalent. We sampled plant-pollinator interactions in a Mediterranean scrubland and tested whether using a measure of interaction strength based on the number of flowers visited resulted in changes in species (species strength, interaction species asymmetry, specialization) and network descriptors (nestedness, H2’, interaction evenness, plant generality, pollinator generality) compared to the encounter-based measure. Several species (including some of the most abundant ones) showed important changes in species descriptors, notably in specialization. These changes were especially important in plant species with large floral displays, which became less specialized with the visit-based measure of interaction strength. At the network level we found significant changes in all properties analysed. With the encounter-based approach plant generality was much higher than pollinator generality (high specialization asymmetry between trophic levels). However, with the visit-based approach plant generality was greatly reduced so that plants and pollinators had similar levels of generalization. Interaction evenness also decreased strongly with the visit-based approach. We conclude that accounting for the number of flowers visited per encounter provides a more ecologically relevant measure of interaction strength. Our results have important implications for the stability of pollination networks and the evolution of plant-pollinator interactions. The use of a visit-based approach is especially important in studies relating interaction network structure and ecosystem function (pollination and/or exploitation of floral resources).
AB - Understanding how ecological networks are assembled is important because network structure reflects ecosystem functioning and stability. Quantitative network analysis incorporates measures of interaction strength as an estimate of the magnitude of the effect of interaction partners on one another. Most plant-pollinator network studies use frequency of interaction between individual pollinators and individual plants (encounter) as a surrogate of interaction strength. However, the number of flowers visited per encounter may strongly vary among pollinator and plant species, and therefore not all encounters are quantitatively equivalent. We sampled plant-pollinator interactions in a Mediterranean scrubland and tested whether using a measure of interaction strength based on the number of flowers visited resulted in changes in species (species strength, interaction species asymmetry, specialization) and network descriptors (nestedness, H2’, interaction evenness, plant generality, pollinator generality) compared to the encounter-based measure. Several species (including some of the most abundant ones) showed important changes in species descriptors, notably in specialization. These changes were especially important in plant species with large floral displays, which became less specialized with the visit-based measure of interaction strength. At the network level we found significant changes in all properties analysed. With the encounter-based approach plant generality was much higher than pollinator generality (high specialization asymmetry between trophic levels). However, with the visit-based approach plant generality was greatly reduced so that plants and pollinators had similar levels of generalization. Interaction evenness also decreased strongly with the visit-based approach. We conclude that accounting for the number of flowers visited per encounter provides a more ecologically relevant measure of interaction strength. Our results have important implications for the stability of pollination networks and the evolution of plant-pollinator interactions. The use of a visit-based approach is especially important in studies relating interaction network structure and ecosystem function (pollination and/or exploitation of floral resources).
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076438482&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930
DO - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930
M3 - Article
C2 - 31830077
AN - SCOPUS:85076438482
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 14
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
IS - 12
M1 - e0225930
ER -