Year‐to‐year variation in the topology of a plant–pollinator interaction network

By R. Alarcón, N. Waser, J. Ollerton. 2008

350 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/53bda27435b5b609f3852a057284bdb73779c42a

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. J. Olesen
2. Pedro Jordano
3. J. Memmott
4. Kristian Trøjelsgaard
5. A. Traveset
6. C. Kaiser‐Bunbury
7. J. Tylianakis
8. Anders Nielsen

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. J. Olesen
2. Pedro Jordano
3. J. Memmott
4. C. Kaiser‐Bunbury
5. A. Traveset
6. J. Tylianakis
7. Kristian Trøjelsgaard
8. D. Hansen

In Plant Science

1. J. Olesen
2. A. Traveset
3. C. Kaiser‐Bunbury
4. Pedro Jordano
5. Kristian Trøjelsgaard
6. J. Memmott
7. T. Petanidou
8. Anders Nielsen

Citations in the corpus

• The ‘night shift’: nocturnal pollen‐transport networks in a boreal pine forest (2011, background): “…flower visitors of a given community may change within hours (Baldock, 2007), days (Olesen et al., 2008), seasons (Basilio et al., 2006) and years (Alarcón et al., 2008; Petanidou et al., 2008; Brunet, 2009), and so the inclusion of temporal variation is important; (ii) to identify the key moth…”
• The winners and losers of land use intensification: pollinator community disassembly is non‐random and alters functional diversity (2014, positive): “This method compares two distance matrices using permutation tests to calculate the statistical significance of matrix resemblance (Alarc on et al., 2008; Burkle and Irwin, 2009; Alarc on, 2010) and has been shown to be more robust than the classic Mantel test (Peres-Neto & Jackson, 2001).”
• How to monitor ecological communities cost-efficiently: The example of plant–pollinator networks (2010, background): “Previous studies have shown that there is a well-defined relationship between the shape of the connectivity (number of links) distribution and the robustness of the network to secondary extinctions (Albert and Barabasi, 2000; Tylianakis et al., in press).”
• Bees in the trees: Diverse spring fauna in temperate forest edge canopies (2021, result): “Abundance varied year to year, consistent with other studies finding high intra-year community-level variation in bee diversity and abundance (e. g. Alarcón et al., 2008; Dupont et al., 2009), which in our system may be particularly driven by year to year weather or resource variability due to…”
• Spatio‐temporal variation in the structure of pollination networks (2009, result): “This is in accordance with Alarcón et al. (2008), reporting a similar level of nestedness in a pollination network observed for three consecutive years.”
• Biodiversity, species interactions and ecological networks in a fragmented world (2012, background): “mented (Alarcón et al., 2008; Dupont andOlesen, 2009; Olesen et al., 2008; Petanidou et al., 2008), but the consequences of adding the spatial component of a fragmented landscape to temporal mismatches are virtually unknown.”
• Conservation and restoration of plant–animal mutualisms on oceanic islands (2010, background): “Thus, resulting interaction networks would display higher interaction consistency than communities on mainland sites, many of which show high temporal variation (Herrera, 1988; Willson and Whelan, 1993; Jordano, 1994; Elberling and Olesen, 1999; Alarcón et al., 2008; Petanidou et al., 2008).”