Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 325

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Size constraints and flower abundance determine the number of interactions in a plant–flower visitor web

Open access
Stang, Martina, Klinkhamer, Peter G. L., Van Der Meijden, Eddy·2006·Oikos

Abstract

The number of interactions with flower visitor species differs considerably among insect pollinated plants. Knowing the causes for this variation is central to the conservation of single species as well as whole plant–flower visitor communities. Species specific constraints on flower visitor numbers are seldom investigated at the community level. In this study we tested whether flower size parameters set constraints on the morphology of the potential nectar feeding visitors and thus determine the number of visitor species. We studied three possible constraints: the depth and width of tubular structures hiding the nectar (nectar holder depth and width) and the size of flower parts that visitors can land on (size of the alighting place). In addition we assess the role of flower abundance on this relationship. We hypothesized that the stronger size constraints and the smaller flower abundance, the smaller the number of visitor species will be. Our study of a Mediterranean plant–flower visitor community revealed that nectar holder depth, nectar holder width and number of flowers explained 71% of the variation in the number of visitor species. The size of the alighting place did not restrict the body length of the visitors and was not related to visitor species number. In a second step of the analyses we calculated for each plant species the potential number of visitors by determining for each insect species of the local visitor pool whether it passed the morphological limits set by the plant. These potential numbers were highly correlated with the observed numbers (r 2 =0.5, p<0.001). For each plant species we tested whether the observed visitors were a random selection out of these potential visitors by comparing the mean of the observed and expected proboscis length distributions. For most plant species the observed mean was not significantly different from the random means. Our findings shed light on the way plant–flower visitor networks are structured. Knowing the constraints on interaction patterns will be an important prerequisite to formulate realistic null models and understand patterns of resource partitioning as well as coevolutionary processes.

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/j.0030-1299.2006.14199.x

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.

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

Cited by

See all 325

Metadata

Authors
Stang, M., Klinkhamer, P. G. L., & Van Der Meijden, E.
Venue
Oikos
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-01
Volume
112
Issue
1
Pages
111-121
ISSN
  • 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0706
OpenAlex
W2106498071
Cited by
325
References
0
FWCI
16.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Size constraints and flower abundance determine the number of interactions in a plant–flower visitor web. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.14199.x
The paper
Stang, M., Klinkhamer, P. G. L., & Van Der Meijden, E. (2006). Size constraints and flower abundance determine the number of interactions in a plant–flower visitor web. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.14199.x

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.