Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 407

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

King, Caroline, Ballantyne, Gavin, Willmer, Pat G.·2013·Methods in Ecology and Evolution

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/2041-210x.12074

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 407

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.