The ecological consequences of complex topology and nested structure in pollination webs.

176 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.

Structure in plant–animal interaction assemblages (2006, background): “Such a continuum may reflect coevolutionary dynamics varying from sequential specialization, by way of coevolutionary vortexes within diverse assemblages (Thompson 2005), up to highly diversified mutualisms evolving around a core of species in a nested assemblage (Jordano et al. 2006).”
Ecological Networks in a Changing Climate (2010, background): “…NE Greenland 74 °N, tundra phenology change in days from 1996 to 2005 112 GUY WOODWARD ET AL. phenomena, including phenological and spatial uncoupling, size- or rewardmismatching and foraging constraints (Jordano, 1987; Jordano et al., 2006; Nilsson, 1988; Olesen et al., 2008).”
Herbivore‐induced indirect interaction webs on terrestrial plants: the importance of non‐trophic, indirect, and facilitative interactions (2008, background): “In this context, community ecologists have started to explore interaction networks that include non-trophic, mutualistic, and indirect interactions such as plant–pollinator (Jordano et al., 2006), ant–plant (Guimarães et al.”
What makes a species central in a cleaning mutualism network (2010, background): “Interspecific interactions such as mutualisms are main processes that shape biodiversity by influencing the ecology and the evolution of populations and communities (Thompson 2005, Bascompte and Jordano 2006, Bascompte 2009).”