Effects of phenotypic complementarity and phylogeny on the nested structure of mutualistic networks

168 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.

The macroecology of phylogenetically structured hummingbird–plant networks (2015, background): “…may structure biotic interactions via niche conservatism, as closely related species may display more similar phenotypes, spatial distributions and ecological interactions than distantly related species (Webb et al., 2002; Ives & Godfray, 2006; Rezende et al., 2007; Vázquez et al., 2009a).”
On the meanings of nestedness: back to the basics (2012, background): “Regarding bipartite networks, asymmetric interaction strength and complementarity, both leading to gradients in species specialization, have been reported (Bascompte et al. 2003, Rezende et al. 2007).”
Complexity and stability of ecological networks: a review of the theory (2018, background): “However, mutualistic networks still have low to moderate level of connectance (average of 0.11 in Olesen and Jordano 2002 and 0.18 in; Rezende et al. 2007).”