The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Generalization in Pollination Systems, and Why it Matters
Abstract
One view of pollination systems is that they tend toward specialization. This view is implicit in many discussions of angiosperm evolution and plant—pollinator coevolution and in the long—standing concept of p ollination syndromes. But actual pollination systems often are more generalized and dynamic than these traditions might suggest. To illustrate the range of specialization and generalization in pollinators' use of plants and vice versa, we draw on studies of two floras in the United States, and of members of several plant families and solitary bee genera. We also summarize a recent study of one local flora which suggests that, although the colors of flowers are aggregated in p henotype space, there is no strong association with pollinator types as pollination syndromes would predict. That moderate to substantial generalization often occurs is not surprising on theoretical grounds. Plant generalization is predicted by a simple model as long as temporal and spatial variance in pollinator quality is appreciable, different pollinator species do not fluctuate in unison, and they are similar in their pollination effectiveness. Pollinator generalization is predicted when floral rewards are similar across plant species, travel is costly, constraints of behavior and morphology are minor, and/or pollinator lifespan is long relative to flowering of individual plant species. Recognizing that pollination systems often are generalized has important implications. In ecological predictions of plant reproductive success and population dynamics it is useful to widen the focus beyond flower visitors within the c orrect" pollination syndrome, and to recognize temporal and spatial fluidity of interactions. Behavioral studies of pollinator foraging choices and information—processing abilities will benefit from understanding the selective advantages of generalization. In studies of floral adaptation, microevolution, and plant speciation one should recognize that selection and gene flow vary in time and space and that the contribution of pollinators to reproductive isolation of plant species may be overstated. In conservation biology, generalized pollination systems imply resilience to linked extinctions, but also the possibility for introduced generalists to displace natives with a net loss of diversity.
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
The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks
Bascompte, J., Jordano, P., Melián, C. J., & Olesen, J. M. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1633576100 · Cited by 2,497
Positive Interactions of Nonindigenous Species: Invasional Meltdown?
Simberloff, D., & Von Holle, B. (1999) · Biological Invasions · doi:10.1023/a:1010086329619 · Cited by 2,231
Indices, Graphs and Null Models: Analyzing Bipartite Ecological Networks
Dormann, C. F., Frund, J., Bluthgen, N., & Gruber, B. (2009) · The Open Ecology Journal · doi:10.2174/1874213000902010007 · Cited by 1,772
Decline and conservation of bumble bees
Goulson, D., Lye, G. C., & Darvill, B. (2008) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.53.103106.093454 · Cited by 1,183
Review: Ecological networks – beyond food webs
Ings, T. C., Montoya, J. M., Bascompte, J., Blüthgen, N., Brown, L., Dormann, C. F., Edwards, F., Figueroa, D., Jacob, U., Jones, J. I., et al. (2009) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01460.x · Cited by 934
Metadata
- Authors
- Waser, N. M., Chittka, L., Price, M. V., Williams, N. M., & Ollerton, J.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1996-06
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1043-1060
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2000844300
- Cited by
- 1,934
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 40.06
- 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: Generalization in Pollination Systems, and Why it Matters. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2265575
- The paper
- Waser, N. M., Chittka, L., Price, M. V., Williams, N. M., & Ollerton, J. (1996). Generalization in Pollination Systems, and Why it Matters. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/2265575
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.