ArticlePloS one2020
Loss of pollinator specialization revealed by historical opportunistic data: Insights from network-based analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trait Dataset for 3,000 European Wild Bee and Hoverfly Species.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Toward a Functional Trait Approach to Bee Ecology.Ecology and evolution · 2024Review
- Mixed effects of honey bees on pollination function in the Tibetan alpine grasslands.Nature communications · 2024Article
- A bee's-eye view of landscape change: differences in diet of 2 Andrena species (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae) between 1943 and 2021.Journal of insect science (Online) · 2024Article
- Unfulfilled Promise: Pollinator Declines, Crop Deficits, and Diet-Associated Disease.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Article
- Beyond the Decline of Wild Bees: Optimizing Conservation Measures and Bringing Together the Actors.Insects · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We are currently facing a large decline in bee populations worldwide. Who are the winners and losers? Generalist bee species, notably those able to shift their diet to new or alternative floral resources, are expected to be among the least vulnerable to environmental change. However, studies of interactions between bees and plants over large temporal and geographical scales are limited by a lack of historical records. Here, we used a unique opportunistic century-old countrywide database of bee specimens collected on plants to track changes in the plant-bee interaction network over time. In each historical period considered, and using a network-based modularity analysis, we identified some major groups of species interacting more with each other than with other species (i.e. modules). These modules were related to coherent functional groups thanks to an a posteriory trait-based analysis. We then compared over time the ecological specialization of bees in the network by computing their degree of interaction within and between modules. "True" specialist species (or peripheral species) are involved in few interactions both inside and between modules. We found a global loss of specialist species and specialist strategies. This means that bee species observed in each period tended to use more diverse floral resources from different ecological groups over time, highly specialist species tending to enter/leave the network. Considering the role and functional traits of species in the network, combined with a long-term time series, provides a new perspective for the study of species specialization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.