The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Linkage Rules for Plant–Pollinator Networks: Trait Complementarity or Exploitation Barriers?
Open accessAbstract
Recent attempts to examine the biological processes responsible for the general characteristics of mutualistic networks focus on two types of explanations: nonmatching biological attributes of species that prevent the occurrence of certain interactions ("forbidden links"), arising from trait complementarity in mutualist networks (as compared to barriers to exploitation in antagonistic ones), and random interactions among individuals that are proportional to their abundances in the observed community ("neutrality hypothesis"). We explored the consequences that simple linkage rules based on the first two hypotheses (complementarity of traits versus barriers to exploitation) had on the topology of plant-pollination networks. Independent of the linkage rules used, the inclusion of a small set of traits (two to four) sufficed to account for the complex topological patterns observed in real-world networks. Optimal performance was achieved by a "mixed model" that combined rules that link plants and pollinators whose trait ranges overlap ("complementarity models") and rules that link pollinators to flowers whose traits are below a pollinator-specific barrier value ("barrier models"). Deterrence of floral parasites (barrier model) is therefore at least as important as increasing pollination efficiency (complementarity model) in the evolutionary shaping of plant-pollinator 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
Cited by
A global test of the pollination syndrome hypothesis
Ollerton, J., Alarcón, R., Waser, N. M., Price, M. V., Watts, S., Cranmer, L., Hingston, A., Peter, C. I., & Rotenberry, J. (2009) · Annals of Botany · doi:10.1093/aob/mcp031 · Cited by 484
Metadata
- Authors
- Santamaría, L., & Rodríguez-Gironés, M. A.
- Venue
- PLoS Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2007-01-23
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e31
- ISSN
- 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-7885
- OpenAlex
- W1992923997
- Cited by
- 237
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
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.