The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why flower visitation is a poor proxy for pollination: measuring single‐visit pollen deposition, with implications for pollination networks and conservation
Abstract
Summary: The relative importance of specialized and generalized plant‐pollinator relationships is contentious, yet analyses usually avoid direct measures of pollinator quality (effectiveness), citing difficulties in collecting such data in the field and so relying on visitation data alone. We demonstrate that single‐visit deposition (SVD) of pollen on virgin stigmas is a practical measure of pollinator effectiveness, using 13 temperate and tropical plant species. For each flower the most effective pollinator measured from SVD was as predicted from its pollination syndrome based on traditional advertisement and reward traits. Overall,c. 40% of visitors were not effective pollinators (range 0–78% for different flowers); thus, flower–pollinator relationships are substantially more specialized than visitation alone can reveal. Analyses at species level are crucial, as significant variation in SVD occurred within both higher‐level taxonomic groups (genus, family) and within functional groups. Other measures sometimes used to distinguish visitors from pollinators (visit duration, frequency, or feeding behaviour in flowers) did not prove to be suitable proxies. Distinguishing between ‘pollinators’ and ‘visitors’ is therefore crucial, and true ‘pollination networks’ should include SVD to reveal pollinator effectiveness (PE). Generating such networks, now underway, could avoid potential misinterpretations of the conservation values of flower visitors, and of possible extinction threats as modelled in existing networks.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A framework for comparing pollinator performance: effectiveness and efficiency
Ne'eman, G., Jürgens, A., Newstrom‐Lloyd, L., Potts, S. G., & Dafni, A. (2010) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2009.00108.x · Cited by 431 · cited 5×
“We use the term pollinator effectiveness (PE) throughout, rather than other variant terms (Inouye et al. 1994; Ne’eman et al. 2010), agreeing that it best describes the character of the measure needed.”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Cited by
Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation
Kleijn, D., Winfree, R., Bartomeus, I., Carvalheiro, L. G., Henry, M., Isaacs, R., Klein, A.-M., Kremen, C., M'Gonigle, L. K., Rader, R., et al. (2015) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms8414 · Cited by 982
Dunn, L., Lequerica, M., Reid, C. R., & Latty, T. (2020) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.5807 · Cited by 253
Functional flower traits and their diversity drive pollinator visitation
Fornoff, F., Klein, A., Hartig, F., Benadi, G., Venjakob, C., Schaefer, H. M., & Ebeling, A. (2017) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/oik.03869 · Cited by 135
Metadata
- Authors
- King, C., Ballantyne, G., & Willmer, P. G.
- Venue
- Methods in Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-07-16
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 811-818
- ISSN
- 2041-210X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2113773347
- Cited by
- 407
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 21.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why flower visitation is a poor proxy for pollination: measuring single‐visit pollen deposition, with implications for pollination networks and conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/2041-210x.12074
- The paper
- King, C., Ballantyne, G., & Willmer, P. G. (2013). Why flower visitation is a poor proxy for pollination: measuring single‐visit pollen deposition, with implications for pollination networks and conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12074
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.