ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2025
Landscape homogenization strengthens the fitness benefits of plant species' centrality in pollination networks.
Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Landscape homogenization strengthens the fitness benefits of plant species' centrality in pollination networks.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding how plant-pollinator interactions vary along disturbance gradients and influence community function is essential to comprehend how pollination services can be maintained in increasingly anthropized landscapes. Recent studies found positive relationships between plant fitness and centrality in interaction networks (i.e., high proximity to other plants via shared pollinators). However, this relationship might vary depending on communities' landscape context and species' functional traits. We hypothesized that the fitness benefits of centrality might be higher in homogeneous landscapes than in heterogeneous landscapes, as the former might favor generalist species and behaviors. We also expected stronger positive relationships between centrality and fitness in pollinator-dependent actinomorphic species compared to autogamous species that do not depend on pollinators or zygomorphic species that are pollinated by a small set of specialized species. Here, we combined field samplings and experiments to study how centrality related to fitness (seeds produced) in 11 plant species from 20 communities along a gradient of landscape heterogeneity. For that, we assessed changes in the centrality-fitness relationship associated with landscape variations and species' functional groups: autogamous species, entomophilous-actinomorphic species, and entomophilous-zygomorphic species. We found that centrality positively influenced plant fitness in more homogeneous landscapes, whereas it had a null effect on fitness in more heterogeneous landscapes. Furthermore, centrality was irrelevant for the fitness of mostly autogamous plant species but influenced the fitness of mostly entomophilous species, increasing the reproductive output in actinomorphic species while decreasing it in zygomorphic ones. For the first time, we show that the relationship between interaction structure and function varies with the landscape context and the group of species evaluated. Our study also highlights the importance of conserving heterogeneous landscapes to maintain effective specialized interactions, as the higher fitness benefits of centrality in homogeneous landscapes might drive feedback cycles of increased generalization over time in communities within these landscapes.
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.