Do pollination syndromes cause modularity and predict interactions in a pollination network in tropical high‐altitude grasslands?

By Aline Danieli-Silva, J. T. A. D. Souza, A. J. Donatti, R. P. Campos, José Vicente-Silva, L. Freitas, I. Varassin. 2012

88 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Morphological and Spatio‐Temporal Mismatches Shape a Neotropical Savanna Plant‐Hummingbird Network (2014, background): “…specialized functional groups of pollinators and floral traits, which may determine the subset of preferentially interacting species (Olesen et al. 2007, Danieli-Silva et al. 2012) or seasonality in floral and pollinator appearance, i.e., phenological matching (Mart ın Gonz alez et al. 2012).”
The outcome of shared pollination services is affected by the density and spatial pattern of an attractive neighbour (2014, background): “…be that the groups were too heterogeneous for a clear trend, our results fit previous conclusions that these groups are highly generalist and are therefore not expected to show clear flower preferences or to act as effective pollinators (e.g. Branquart & Hemptinne 2000; Danieli-Silva et al. 2012).”
A method for detecting modules in quantitative bipartite networks (2013, unknown): “…compartments (May, 1973; Pimm, 1982; Prado & Lewinsohn, 2004), modules (Olesen et al. , 2007; Garcia-Domingo & Saldaña, 2008; Dupont & Olesen, 2009), cohesive groups (Bascompte et al. , 2003; Danieli-Silva et al. , 2011; Guimarães Jr et al. , 2011) or simply commu-15 nities (Fortunato, 2010).”