Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31089144›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Experimental loss of generalist plants reveals alterations in plant-pollinator interactions and a constrained flexibility of foraging.

Paolo Biella, Asma Akter, Jeff Ollerton, Sam Tarrant, Štěpán Janeček, Jana Jersáková, Jan Klecka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Pollination ecology in the tropical Andes: moving towards a cross-scale approach.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Towards a system-level causative knowledge of pollinator communities.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors.

Paolo BiellaUniversity of South Bohemia, Faculty of Science, Department of Zoology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic. paolo.biella@unimib.it.
Asma AkterUniversity of South Bohemia, Faculty of Science, Department of Zoology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Jeff OllertonFaculty of Arts, Science and Technology, University of Northampton, Northampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0887-8235
Sam TarrantFaculty of Arts, Science and Technology, University of Northampton, Northampton, UK.
Štěpán JanečekDepartment of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, Praha, CZ-12844, Czech Republic.
Jana JersákováUniversity of South Bohemia, Faculty of Science, Department of Ecosystems Biology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Jan KleckaCzech Academy of Sciences, Biology Centre, Institute of Entomology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0633-3896

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Species extinctions undermine ecosystem functioning, with the loss of a small subset of functionally important species having a disproportionate impact. However, little is known about the effects of species loss on plant-pollinator interactions. We addressed this issue in a field experiment by removing the plant species with the highest visitation frequency, then measuring the impact of plant removal on flower visitation, pollinator effectiveness and insect foraging in several sites. Our results show that total visitation decreased exponentially after removing 1-4 most visited plants, suggesting that these plants could benefit co-occurring ones by maintaining high flower visitor abundances. Although we found large variation among plant species, the redistribution of the pollinator guild affected mostly the other plants with high visitor richness. Also, the plant traits mediated the effect of removal on flower visitation; while visitation of plants which had smaller inflorescences and more sugar per flower increased after removal, flower visitors did not switch between flower shapes and visitation decreased mostly in plants visited by many morpho-species of flower visitors. Together, these results suggest that the potential adaptive foraging was constrained by flower traits. Moreover, pollinator effectiveness fluctuated but was not directly linked to changes of flower visitation. In conclusion, it seems that the loss of generalist plants alters plant-pollinator interactions by decreasing pollinator abundance with implications for pollination and insect foraging. Therefore, generalist plants have high conservation value because they sustain the complex pattern of plant-pollinator interactions.

Indexed as

Extinction, BiologicalFood ChainAnimal MigrationAnimalsFeeding BehaviorFlowersInsectaPilot ProjectsPlant DispersalPollinationSpecies Specificity

Identifiers

PMID31089144
PMCPMC6517441

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.