CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29Plant and animal studiesEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior

Impacts of deforestation on plant-pollinator networks assessed using an agent based model

Open access
Newton, Adrian C., Boscolo, Danilo, Ferreira, Patrícia A., Lopes, Luciano E., Evans, Paul·2018·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0209406PMC PMC6312366
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Plant-pollinator networks have been widely used to understand the ecology of mutualistic interactions between plants and animals. While a number of general patterns have been identified, the mechanisms underlying the structure of plant-pollinator networks are poorly understood. Here we present an agent based model (ABM) that simulates the movement of bees over heterogeneous landscapes and captures pollination events, enabling the influence of landscape pattern on pollination networks to be explored. Using the model, we conducted a series of experiments using virtual landscapes representing a gradient of forest loss and fragmentation. The ABM was able to produce expected trends in network structure, from simulations of interactions between individual plants and pollinators. For example, results indicated an increase in the index of complementary specialization (H2') and a decline in network connectance with increasing forest cover. Furthermore, network nestedness was not associated with the degree of forest cover, but was positively related to forest patch size, further supporting results obtained in the field. This illustrates the potential value of ABMs for exploring the structure and dynamics of plant-pollinator networks, and for understanding the mechanisms that underlie them. We attribute the results obtained primarily to a shift from specialist to generalist pollinators with increasing forest loss, a trend that has been observed in some field situations.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0209406

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ABMs have been widely used to explore the interplay between human activities, decision-making, and their impacts on the environment under management.

    “ABMs have also been widely used in various studies to explore the interplay between human activities, decision-making, and their impacts on the environment under management (Mahdian et al., 2023;Newton et al., 2018;Schreinemachers and Berger, 2011).”

    From Towards integrated management of sandy anthropogenic shores: Developing tools for the exploration of human-natural interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Newton et al., 2018

    The Introduction describes ABMs as tools for studying ecological systems, and the Model experiments section uses one to examine how deforestation affects plant–pollinator networks. It does not model human decision-making: the agents are bees, while forest loss is supplied through simulated landscapes. The paper therefore supports the environmental-impact example, but not the full characterization attributed to it. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. [1]Klein AM, Vaissière BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, et al Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2007; 274: 303– 313. 10.1098/rspb.2006.3721 17164193 PMC1702377 · DOI
  2. [2]Potts SG, Imperatriz-Fonseca VL, Ngo HT, Biesmeijer JC, Breeze TD, Dicks LV, et al. Summary for policymakers of the assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on pollinators, pollination and food production. Report. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany, pp. 36. 2016.
  3. [3]Gallai N, Salles J-M, Settele J, Vaissière BE. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics 2009; 68: 810– 821.
  4. [4]Aizen MA, Garibaldi LA, Cunningham SA, Klein AM. Long-term global trends in crop yield and production reveal no current pollination shortage but increasing pollinator dependency. Current Biology 2008; 18: 1572– 1575. 10.1016/j.cub.2008.08.066 18926704 · DOI
  5. [5]Lautenbach S, Seppelt R, Liebscher J, Dormann CF. Spatial and temporal trends of global pollination benefit. PLoS One 2012; 7: e35954 10.1371/journal.pone.0035954 22563427 PMC3338563 · DOI
  6. [6]Memmott J, Craze PG, Waser NM, Price MV. Global warming and the disruption of plant–pollinator interactions. Ecology Letters 2007; 10, 710– 717. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01061.x 17594426 · DOI
  7. [7]Garibaldi LA, Carvalheiro LG, Vaissière BE, Gemmill-Herren B, Hipólito J, Freitas BM, et al Mutually beneficial pollinator diversity and crop yield outcomes in small and large farms. Science 2016; 351(6271): 388– 391. 10.1126/science.aac7287 26798016 · DOI
  8. [9]Ferreira PA, Boscolo D, Viana BF. What do we know about the effects of landscape changes on plant–pollinator interaction networks? Ecological Indicators 2013; 31: 35– 40.
  9. [10]Mandelik Y, Winfree R, Neeson T, Kremen C. Complementary habitat use by wild bees in agro-natural landscapes. Ecological Applications 2012; 22: 1535– 1546. 22908712
  10. [11]Bascompte J, Jordano P. Plant-animal mutualistic networks: the architecture of biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 2007; 38: 567– 593.
  11. [12]Bascompte J, Jordano P, Melián CJ; Olesen JM. The nested assembly of plant-animal mutualistic networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2003; 100(16): 9383– 9387. PMC170927 12881488
  12. [13]Gonzalez A, Rayfield B and Lindo Z. The disentangled bank: how loss of habitat fragments and disassembles ecological networks. American Journal of Botany 2011; 98(3): 503– 516. 10.3732/ajb.1000424 21613142 · DOI
  13. [14]Aizen MA, Sabatiano M, Tylianakis JM. Specialization and rarity predict nonrandom loss of interactions from mutualist networks. Science 2012; 335: 1486– 1489. 10.1126/science.1215320 22442482 · DOI
  14. [16]Bartomeus I. Understanding linkage rules in plant-pollinator networks by using hierarchical models that incorporate pollinator detectability and plant traits. PLoS ONE 2013; 8(7): e69200 10.1371/journal.pone.0069200 23840909 PMC3698228 · DOI
  15. [17]Vázquez DP, Blüthgen N, Cagnolo L, Chacoff NP. Uniting pattern and process in plant–animal mutualistic networks: a review. Annals of Botany 2009; 103: 1445– 1457. 10.1093/aob/mcp057 19304996 PMC2701748 · DOI
  16. [18]Blüthgen N. Why network analysis is often disconnected from community ecology: a critique and an ecologist’s guide. Basic and Applied Ecology 2010; 11: 185– 195.
  17. [19]Nielsen A, Bascompte J. Ecological networks, nestedness, and sampling effort. Journal of Ecology 2007; 95: 1134– 41.
  18. [20]Railsback SF, Grimm V. Agent-based and Individual-based Modeling: A Practical Introduction. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA 2011.
  19. [21]Bonabeau E. Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2002; 99 (3): 7280– 7287. PMC128598 12011407
  20. [22]Dornhaus A, Klügl F, Oechslein C, Puppe F, Chittka L. Benefits of recruitment in honey bees: effects of ecology and colony size in an individual based model. Behavioural Ecology 2006; 17(3): 336– 344.
  21. [23]Dyer AG, Dorin A, Reinhardt V, Garcia JE, Rosa MGP. Bee reverse-learning behaviour and intra-colony differences: simulations based on behavioural experiments reveal benefits of diversity. Ecological Modelling 2014; 277: 119– 131.
  22. [24]De Vries H, Biesjmeijer JC. Modelling collective foraging by means of individual behaviour rules in honey-bees. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 1998; 44: 109– 124.
  23. [25]Becher MA, Grimm V, Knapp J, Horn J, Twiston-Davies G, Osborne JL. BEESCOUT: A model of bee scouting behaviour and a software tool for characterizing nectar/pollen landscapes for BEEHAVE. Ecological Modelling 2016; 340: 126– 133. 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.09.013 27890965 PMC5070411 · DOI
  24. [26]Becher MA, Grimm V, Thorbek P, Horn J, Kennedy PJ, Osborne JL. BEEHAVE: a systems model of honeybee colony dynamics and foraging to explore multifactorial causes of colony failure. Journal of Applied Ecology 2014; 51: 470– 482. 10.1111/1365-2664.12222 25598549 PMC4283046 · DOI
  25. [27]Qu H, Seifan T, Tielbörger K, Seifan M. A spatially explicit agent-based simulation platform for investigating effects of shared pollination service on ecological communities. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 2013; 37: 107– 124.
  26. [28]Ribeiro MC, Metzger JP, Martensen AC, Ponzoni FJ, Hirota MM. The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 2009; 142: 1141– 1153.
  27. [29]da Silva JMC, Tabarelli M. Tree species impoverishment and the future flora of the Atlantic forest of northeast Brazil. Nature 2000; 404: 72– 74. 10.1038/35003563 10716443 · DOI
  28. [30]Banks-Leite C, Ewers RM, Metzger JP. Unraveling the drivers of community dissimilarity and species extinction in fragmented landscapes. Ecology 2012; 93(12): 2560– 2569. 23431587
  29. [31]Ferreira PA, Boscolo D, Carvalheiro LG, Biesmeijer JC, Rocha PLB, Viana BF. Responses of bees to habitat loss in fragmented landscapes of Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest. Landscape Ecology 2015; 30(10): 2067– 2078.
  30. [32]Ferreira PA, Boscolo D, Lopes LE, Carvalheiro LG, Biesmeijer JC, da Rocha PLB et al. Forest fragmentation and connectivity loss simplify tropical pollination networks (2018) Oecologia. In press. 31897723
  31. [33]Groffman PM, Baron JS, Blett T, Gold AJ, Goodman I, Gunderson LH et al Ecological thresholds: the key to successful environmental management or an important concept with no practical application? Ecosystems 2006; 9 (1): 1– 13.
  32. [35]Cambui ECB, de Vasconcelos RN, Boscolo D, da Rocha PLB, Miranda JGV. GradientLand Software: A landscape change gradient generator. Ecological Informatics 2015; 25: 57– 62.
  33. [38]Hargis CD, Bissonette JA, David JL. The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landscape Ecology 1998; 13: 167– 186.
  34. [39]Tapia-Armijos MF, Homeier J, Espinosa CI, Leuschner C, de la Cruz M. Deforestation and forest fragmentation in South Ecuador since the 1970s –losing a hotspot of biodiversity. PLoS ONE 2015; 10(9): e0133701 10.1371/journal.pone.0133701 26332681 PMC4557835 · DOI
  35. [40]Blüthgen N, Menzel F, Blüthgen N. Measuring specialization in species interaction networks. BMC Ecology 2006; 6: 9 10.1186/1472-6785-6-9 16907983 PMC1570337 · DOI
  36. [41]Watts S, Dormann CF, Martín González AM, Ollerton J. The influence of floral traits on specialization and modularity of plant-pollinator networks in a biodiversity hotspot in the Peruvian Andes. Annals of Botany 2016; 118: 415– 429. 10.1093/aob/mcw114 27562649 PMC4998976 · DOI
  37. [42]Geslin B, Gauzens B, Thébault E, Dajoz I. Plant pollinator networks along a gradient of urbanisation. PLOS ONE 2013; 8(5): e63421 10.1371/journal.pone.0063421 23717421 PMC3661593 · DOI
  38. [43]Xiao Y, Li X, Cao Y, Dong M. The diverse effects of habitat fragmentation on plant–pollinator interactions. Plant Ecology 2016; 217(7): 857– 868.
  39. [44]Traveset A, Castro-Urgal R, Rotllàn-Puig X, Lázaro A. Effects of habitat loss on the plant-flower visitor network structure of a dune community. Oikos 2017; 127(1): 45– 55.
  40. [45]Burgos E, Ceva H, Perazzo RPJ, Devoto M, Medan D, Zimmermann M et al Why nestedness in mutualistic networks? Journal of Theoretical Biology 2007; 249(2): 307– 13. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.07.030 17897679 · DOI
  41. [46]Soares RGS, Ferreira PA, Lopes LE. Can plant-pollinator network metrics indicate environmental quality? Ecological Indicators 2017; 78: 361– 370.
  42. [47]Spiesman BJ, Inouye BD. Habitat loss alters the architecture of plant–pollinator interaction networks. Ecology 2013; 94(12): 2688– 2696. 24597216
  43. [48]Bastolla U, Fortuna MA, Pascual-Garcia A, Ferrera A, Luque B, Bascompte J. The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity. Nature 2009; 458: 1018– 1020. 10.1038/nature07950 19396144 · DOI
  44. [49]Vanbergen AJ, Woodcock BA, Heard MS, Chapman DS. Network size, structure and mutualism dependence affect the propensity for plant–pollinator extinction cascades. Functional Ecology 2017; 31: 1285– 1293.
  45. [50]Grass I, Jauker B, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T, Jauker F. Past and potential future effects of habitat fragmentation on structure and stability of plant–pollinator and host–parasitoid networks. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2018; 2(9): 1408– 1417. 30082735
  46. [51]Pardini R, Bueno AdA, Gardner TA, Prado PI, Metzger JP. Beyond the fragmentation threshold hypothesis: regime shifts in biodiversity across fragmented landscapes. PLoS ONE 2010; 5(10): e13666 10.1371/journal.pone.0013666 21060870 PMC2965145 · DOI
  47. [52]Estavillo C, Pardini R, Rocha PLBd. Forest loss and the biodiversity threshold: an evaluation considering species habitat requirements and the use of matrix habitats. PLoS ONE (2013); 8(12): e82369 10.1371/journal.pone.0082369 24324776 PMC3853156 · DOI
  48. [53]Vázquez DP, Aizen MA. Asymmetric specialization: A pervasive feature of plant–pollinator interactions. Ecology 2004; 85: 1251– 1257.
  49. [54]Rivera-Hutinel A, Bustamante RO, Marín VH, Medel R. Effects of sampling completeness on the structure of plant—pollinator networks. Ecology 2012; 93(7): 1593– 1603. 22919906
  50. [55]Burkle LA, Alarcón R. The future of plant–pollinator diversity: understanding interaction networks across time, space, and global change. American Journal of Botany 2011; 98(3): 528– 538. 10.3732/ajb.1000391 21613144 · DOI
  51. [56]Kaiser-Bunbury CN, Mougal J, Whittington AE, Valentin T, Gabriel R, Olesen JM et al Ecosystem restoration strengthens pollination network resilience and function. Nature 2017; 542: 223– 229. 10.1038/nature21071 28135718 · DOI
  52. [57]Moreira EF, Boscolo D, Viana BF. Spatial heterogeneity regulates plant-pollinator networks across multiple landscape scales. PLoS ONE 2015; 10(4): e0123628 10.1371/journal.pone.0123628 25856293 PMC4391788 · DOI
  53. [58]Boscolo D, Tokumoto PM, Ferreira PA, Ribeiro JW, Santos JS. Positive responses of flower visiting bees to landscape heterogeneity depend on functional connectivity levels. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 2017; 15 (1): 18– 24.
  54. [59]Memmott J, Waser NM, Price MV. Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions. Proceedings of the Royal Society 2004; 271: 2605– 2611. PMC1691904 15615687
  55. [60]Jordano P, Bascompte J, Olesen JM. Invariant properties in coevolutionary networks of plant–animal interactions. Ecology Letters 2003; 6: 69– 81.
  56. [61]Blüthgen N, Fründ J, Vázquez DP, Menzel F. What do interaction network metrics tell us about specialization and biological traits? Ecology 2008; 89: 3387– 3399. 19137945
  57. [62]Kupfer JA. Landscape ecology and biogeography: Rethinking landscape metrics in a post-FRAGSTATS landscape. Progress in Physical Geography 2012; 36(3): 400– 420.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Newton, A. C., Boscolo, D., Ferreira, P. A., Lopes, L. E., & Evans, P.
Affiliations
  • Bournemouth University (GB)
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • Universidade Federal de São Carlos (BR)
Corresponding author
Newton, Adrian C.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2018-12-31
Volume
13
Issue
12
Pages
e0209406
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0209406
PMC
PMC6312366
OpenAlex
W2907217626
Cited by
29
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bournemouth University Research Online (Bournemouth University) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
FAPESP / CONFAP / UK Academies (2014/50971-5.)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Insect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Keywords
plant-pollinator networks, deforestation, forest fragmentation, landscape heterogeneity, pollination, network structure, connectance, nestedness, forest cover, patch size, agent-based modeling
MeSH terms
Animals, Bees, Conservation of Natural Resources, Humans, Symbiosis, Systems Analysis, Ecosystem, Plant Physiological Phenomena, Pollination, Forests

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