Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30847066›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2019

Pollinator size and its consequences: Robust estimates of body size in pollinating insects.

Liam K Kendall, Romina Rader, Vesna Gagic, Daniel P Cariveau, Matthias Albrecht, Katherine C R Baldock, Breno M Freitas, Mark Hall, Andrea Holzschuh, Francisco P Molina and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing 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

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Thermal Tolerance in the Cellophane BeeEcology and evolution · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Towards acoustic monitoring of bees: wingbeat sounds are related to species and individual traits.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    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

19 authors.

Liam K KendallSchool of Environmental and Rural Science University of New England Armidale New South Wales Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0671-0121
Romina RaderSchool of Environmental and Rural Science University of New England Armidale New South Wales Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9056-9118
Vesna GagicCSIRO Agriculture Brisbane Queensland Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3214-7547
Daniel P CariveauDepartment of Entomology University of Minnesota St. Paul Minnesota.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3064-0071
Matthias AlbrechtAgroscope, Agroecology and Environment Zürich Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5518-3455
Katherine C R BaldockSchool of Biological Sciences & Cabot Institute University of Bristol Bristol UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6849-8747
Breno M FreitasDepartamento de Zootecnia-CCA Universidade Federal do Ceará Fortaleza Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9932-2207
Mark HallSchool of Environmental and Rural Science University of New England Armidale New South Wales Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4273-980X
Andrea HolzschuhAnimal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biocenter University of Würzburg Würzburg Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5235-4746
Francisco P MolinaDpto. Ecología Integrativa Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD-CSIC) Sevilla Spain.
Joanne M MortenSchool of Biological Sciences & Cabot Institute University of Bristol Bristol UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5783-9777
Janaely S PereiraDepartamento de Zootecnia-CCA Universidade Federal do Ceará Fortaleza Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4836-4228
Zachary M PortmanDepartment of Entomology University of Minnesota St. Paul Minnesota.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8943-8196
Stuart P M RobertsSchool of Agriculture, Policy and Development The University of Reading Reading UK.
Juanita RodriguezAustralian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9922-1978
Laura RussoBotany Department Trinity College Dublin Dublin Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7343-9837
Louis SutterAgroscope, Agroecology and Environment Zürich Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2626-216X
Nicolas J VereeckenInterfaculty School of Bioengineers, Université Libre de Bruxelles Bruxelles Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8858-4623
Ignasi BartomeusDpto. Ecología Integrativa Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD-CSIC) Sevilla Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7893-4389

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Body size is an integral functional trait that underlies pollination-related ecological processes, yet it is often impractical to measure directly. Allometric scaling laws have been used to overcome this problem. However, most existing models rely upon small sample sizes, geographically restricted sampling and have limited applicability for non-bee taxa. Allometric models that consider biogeography, phylogenetic relatedness, and intraspecific variation are urgently required to ensure greater accuracy. We measured body size as dry weight and intertegular distance (ITD) of 391 bee species (4,035 specimens) and 103 hoverfly species (399 specimens) across four biogeographic regions: Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. We updated existing models within a Bayesian mixed-model framework to test the power of ITD to predict interspecific variation in pollinator dry weight in interaction with different co-variates: phylogeny or taxonomy, sexual dimorphism, and biogeographic region. In addition, we used ordinary least squares regression to assess intraspecific dry weight ~ ITD relationships for ten bees and five hoverfly species. Including co-variates led to more robust interspecific body size predictions for both bees and hoverflies relative to models with the ITD alone. In contrast, at the intraspecific level, our results demonstrate that the ITD is an inconsistent predictor of body size for bees and hoverflies. The use of allometric scaling laws to estimate body size is more suitable for interspecific comparative analyses than assessing intraspecific variation. Collectively, these models form the basis of the dynamic

Indexed as

Apoideabiogeographybody sizedry weightpollimetrypollinationpredictive modelsR packageSyrphidae

Identifiers

PMID30847066
PMCPMC6392396

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.