Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29658115›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of animal ecology2018

Generalisation and specialisation in hoverfly (Syrphidae) grassland pollen transport networks revealed by DNA metabarcoding.

Andrew Lucas, Owen Bodger, Berry J Brosi, Col R Ford, Dan W Forman, Carolyn Greig, Matthew Hegarty, Penelope J Neyland, Natasha de Vere

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of animal ecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Discrimination of Hover Fly Species and Sexes by Wing Interference Signals.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Andrew LucasDepartment of Biosciences, College of Science, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3530-711X
Owen BodgerSchool of Medicine, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Berry J BrosiDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Col R FordNational Botanic Garden of Wales, Llanarthne, UK.
Dan W FormanDepartment of Biosciences, College of Science, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Carolyn GreigSchool of Medicine, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Matthew HegartyAberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK.
Penelope J NeylandDepartment of Biosciences, College of Science, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Natasha de VereNational Botanic Garden of Wales, Llanarthne, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pollination by insects is a key ecosystem service and important to wider ecosystem function. Most species-level pollination networks studied have a generalised structure, with plants having several potential pollinators, and pollinators in turn visiting a number of different plant species. This is in apparent contrast to a plant's need for efficient conspecific pollen transfer. The aim of this study was to investigate the structure of pollen transport networks at three levels of biological hierarchy: community, species and individual. We did this using hoverflies in the genus Eristalis, a key group of non-Hymenopteran pollinators. We constructed pollen transport networks using DNA metabarcoding to identify pollen. We captured hoverflies in conservation grasslands in west Wales, UK, removed external pollen loads, sequenced the pollen DNA on the Illumina MiSeq platform using the standard plant barcode rbcL, and matched sequences using a pre-existing plant DNA barcode reference library. We found that Eristalis hoverflies transport pollen from 65 plant taxa, more than previously appreciated. Networks were generalised at the site and species level, suggesting some degree of functional redundancy, and were more generalised in late summer compared to early summer. In contrast, pollen transport at the individual level showed some degree of specialisation. Hoverflies defined as "single-plant visitors" varied from 40% of those captured in early summer to 24% in late summer. Individual hoverflies became more generalised in late summer, possibly in response to an increase in floral resources. Rubus fruticosus agg. and Succisa pratensis were key plant species for hoverflies at our sites Our results contribute to resolving the apparent paradox of how generalised pollinator networks can provide efficient pollination to plant species. Generalised hoverfly pollen transport networks may result from a varied range of short-term specialised feeding bouts by individual insects. The generalisation and functional redundancy of Eristalis pollen transport networks may increase the stability of the pollination service they deliver.

Indexed as

PollenPollinationAnimalsDipteraDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, PlantGrasslandMagnoliopsidaSpecies SpecificityWalesDNA, PlantDNA metabarcodinggeneralisationgrasslandhoverflypollinationpollination networksspecialisation

Identifiers

PMID29658115
PMCPMC6032873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.