Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35038208›Full record

ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2022

Pollen-insect interaction meta-networks identify key relationships for conservation in mosaic agricultural landscapes.

Mark A Hall, Jamie R Stavert, Manu E Saunders, Shannon Barr, Simon G Haberle, Romina Rader

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Pollen-insect interaction meta-networks identify key relationships for conservation in mosaic agricultural landscapes.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2022
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mark A HallSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4273-980X
Jamie R StavertSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.
Manu E SaundersSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0645-8277
Shannon BarrSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.
Simon G HaberleSchool of Culture, History and Language, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Romina RaderSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.
University of New England · AUAustralian National University · AUWestern Sydney University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Flower visitors use different parts of the landscape through the plants they visit, however these connections vary within and among land uses. Identifying which flower-visiting insects are carrying pollen, and from where in the landscape, can elucidate key pollen-insect interactions and identify the most important sites for maintaining community-level interactions across land uses. We developed a bipartite meta-network, linking pollen-insect interactions with the sites they occur in. We used this to identify which land-use types at the site- and landscape-scale (within 500 m of a site) are most important for conserving pollen-insect interactions. We compared pollen-insect interactions across four different land uses (remnant native forest, avocado orchard, dairy farm, rotational potato crop) within a mosaic agricultural landscape. We sampled insects using flight intercept traps, identified pollen carried on their bodies and quantified distinct pollen-insect interactions that were highly specialized to both natural and modified land uses. We found that sites in crops and dairy farms had higher richness of pollen-insect interactions and higher interaction strength than small forest patches and orchards. Further, many interactions involved pollinator groups such as flies, wasps, and beetles that are often under-represented in pollen-insect network studies, but were often connector species in our networks. These insect groups require greater attention to enable wholistic pollinator community conservation. Pollen samples were dominated by grass (Poaceae) pollen, indicating anemophilous plant species may provide important food resources for pollinators, particularly in modified land uses. Field-scale land use (within 100 m of a site) better predicted pollen-insect interaction richness, uniqueness, and strength than landscape-scale. Thus, management focused at smaller scales may provide more tractable outcomes for conserving or restoring pollen-insect interactions in modified landscapes. For instance, actions aimed at linking high-richness sites with those containing unique (i.e., rare) interactions by enhancing floral corridors along field boundaries and between different land uses may best aid interaction diversity and connectance. The ability to map interactions across sites using a meta-network approach is practical and can inform land-use planning, whereby conservation efforts can be targeted toward areas that host key interactions between plant and pollinator species.

Indexed as

EcosystemPollinationAnimalsCrops, AgriculturalInsectaPoaceaePollenbipartite networkDipteraecosystem servicesplant-pollinator networksPoaceaespecializationwind pollination

Identifiers

PMID35038208
PMCPMC9285751
OpenAlexW4206786505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.