ArticleIntegrative and comparative biology2025
Effect of Network Structure and Adaptive Foraging on Pollination Services of Species-Rich Plant-Pollinator Communities.
Article in Integrative and comparative biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Network science has had a great impact on ecology by providing tools to characterize the structure of species interactions in communities and evaluate the effect of such network structure on community dynamics. This has been particularly the case for the study of plant-pollinator communities, which has experienced a tremendous growth with the adoption of network analyses. Here, I build on such body of research to evaluate how network structure and adaptive foraging of pollinators affect ecosystem services of plant-pollinator communities. Specifically, I quantify-using model simulations-pollen deposition in networks that exhibit structures like the ones of empirical networks (hereafter empirically connected networks) and those with higher connectance and lower nestedness than empirical networks, for scenarios where pollinators are fixed foragers and scenarios where they are adaptive foragers. I found that empirically connected networks with adaptive foraging exhibit the highest pollen deposition rate. Increased network connectance reduces pollen deposition, as increased number of interactions leads to greater conspecific pollen dilution in the absence of other mechanisms such as pollinator floral constancy. High nestedness in moderately connected networks increases the proportion of pollinators visiting only one or two plant species, which are associated with the highest quality visits. Adaptive foraging allows pollinators to quantitatively specialize on specialist plant species, which increases conspecific pollen deposition. This research advances pollination biology by elucidating how population dynamics, consumer-resource interactions (i.e., pollinators foraging on floral rewards), adaptive foraging, and network structure (i.e., nestedness and connectance) affect pollen deposition in a network context.
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.