Pollination and Floral Ecology

By P. Willmer. 2011

862 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9b7991f73b23c215d76965ba2625fb5feff9fce2

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. Ollerton
2. J. Memmott
3. G. Ballantyne
4. P. Willmer
5. C. King
6. S. Potts
7. Richard J. Gill
8. T. Breeze

Citations in the corpus

• Foraging behaviour and preference of pollen sources by honey bee (Apis mellifera) relative to protein contents (2020, background): “…and quantity, of course, can be counted as one of the key parameters followed by other influential factors like the appearance of flower including colour, shape, morphology, display area and odour (Willmer, 2011; Brunet et al., 2015) to understand foraging decision-making of insect foragers.”
• Reproductive Ecology of Flowering Plants: A Manual (2014, background): “…2003 ; Ramawat et al. 2014 ) and details of pollination biology (McGregor 1976 ; Moore and Webb 1978 ; Faegri and van der Pijl 1979 ; Real 1983 ; Jones and Little 1983 ; Richards 1986 ; Free 1993 ; Roubik 1995 ; Harder and Barrett 2006 ; Waser and Ollerton 2006 ; Patiny 2012 ; Willmer 2011 ).”
• Protecting an ecosystem service: approaches to understanding and mitigating threats to wild insect pollinators (2016, background): “…2012; Rader et al., 2013; Stanley et al., 2013; Thomson and Goodell, 2001; 296 Vicens and Bosch, 2000; Woodcock et al., 2013), and that long tongued wild pollinators can 297 effectively pollinate plants that may not be accessible for short-tongued pollinators such as 298 honeybees (Willmer, 2011).”
• How do belowground organisms influence plant–pollinator interactions? (2015, neutral): “These include nectar constituents such as amino acids, pathogens and carbohydrate ratios (Willmer 2011), as well as floral and nectar defenses (Adler and Irwin 2005; McCall and Karban 2006) and VOCs (Pichersky and Gershenzon 2002).”
• Why flower visitation is a poor proxy for pollination: measuring single‐visit pollen deposition, with implications for pollination networks and conservation (2013, methodology): “For every plant species studied, SVD values were calculated for ‘visitor groups’ defined according to traditional pollination syndromes (Willmer 2011), and for each visitor species separately where numbers of recordings allowed (Table 1; expanded details in Table S2).”
• Flies and Flowers II: Floral Attractants and Rewards (2014, background): “…carbohydrates in nectar for short-term energy needs (Hocking 1953; Downes 1955; Downes & Smith 1969), especially during periods of peak activity such as swarming, mating and oviposition, dispersal, and migration (Kevan 1973; Haslett 1989a, Service 1997; Branquart & Hemptinne 2000; Willmer 2011).”
• Big bees do a better job: intraspecific size variation influences pollination effectiveness. (2014, background): “Echium flowers mainly dehisce in the early morning, and have pollen available primarily in the first half of their first day of opening; and across many plant species this pattern has been widely assumed to relate to attracting bees as pollinators (Shelly & Villalobos 2000; Castellanos et al. 2006; ”
• Phenology of farmland floral resources reveals seasonal gaps in nectar availability for bumblebees (2019, background): “It also allows us to directly compare the nutritional contribution of all plant species and habitats through the common currency of total sugars (Willmer, 2011).”
• Plant biodiversity enhances bees and other insect pollinators in agroecosystems. A review (2012, neutral): “Such substrates include undisturbed areas and bare ground, dry branches or logs, or sandy or earth bank (Willmer 2011).”
• Insights from measuring pollen deposition: quantifying the pre-eminence of bees as flower visitors and effective pollinators (2017, background): “…for most of the 76 plants we studied, as highlighted in Supplementary Material Table 1, using trait predictions (with the important exception of nectar rewards) comprehensively covered in Willmer (2011); this matching with syndrome predictions occurs despite the site differences outlined earlier.”