The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Plant–pollinator networks: adding the pollinator’s perspective
Abstract
Pollination network studies are based on pollinator surveys conducted on focal plants. This plant‐centred approach provides insufficient information on flower visitation habits of rare pollinator species, which are the majority in pollinator communities. As a result, pollination networks contain very high proportions of pollinator species linked to a single plant species (extreme specialists), a pattern that contrasts with the widely accepted view that plant–pollinator interactions are mostly generalized. In this study of a Mediterranean scrubland community in NE Spain we supplement data from an intensive field survey with the analysis of pollen loads carried by pollinators. We observed 4265 contacts corresponding to 19 plant and 122 pollinator species. The addition of pollen data unveiled a very significant number of interactions, resulting in important network structural changes. Connectance increased 1.43‐fold, mean plant connectivity went from 18.5 to 26.4, and mean pollinator connectivity from 2.9 to 4.1. Extreme specialist pollinator species decreased 0.6‐fold, suggesting that ecological specialization is often overestimated in plant–pollinator networks. We expected a greater connectivity increase in rare species, and consequently a decrease in the level of asymmetric specialization. However, new links preferentially attached to already highly connected nodes and, as a result, both nestedness and centralization increased. The addition of pollen data revealed the existence of four clearly defined modules that were not apparent when only field survey data were used. Three of these modules had a strong phenological component. In comparison to other pollination webs, our network had a high proportion of connector links and species. That is, although significant, the four modules were far from isolated.
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
Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815478 · Cited by 17,557
Functional cartography of complex metabolic networks
Guimerà, R., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03288 · Cited by 3,983
Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek
de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511806452 · Cited by 1,244
Cited by
Cusser, S., & Goodell, K. (2013) · Restoration Ecology · doi:10.1111/rec.12003 · Cited by 76
Metadata
- Authors
- Bosch, J., Martín González, A. M., Rodrigo, A., & Navarro, D.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-04-06
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 409-419
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2142359658
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.72
- 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: Plant–pollinator networks: adding the pollinator’s perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01296.x
- The paper
- Bosch, J., Martín González, A. M., Rodrigo, A., & Navarro, D. (2009). Plant–pollinator networks: adding the pollinator’s perspective. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01296.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.