Why flower visitation is a poor proxy for pollination: measuring single‐visit pollen deposition, with implications for pollination networks and conservation

By C. King, G. Ballantyne, P. Willmer. 2013

359 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/b20f07eddc7371e36119eccde2e1e19aa7276f95

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. G. Ballantyne
2. J. Ollerton
3. P. Willmer
4. Richard J. Gill
5. S. Potts
6. John M. Holland
7. H. Cunnold
8. T. Breeze

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. S. Potts
2. P. Willmer
3. John M. Holland
4. G. Stone
5. G. Woodward
6. Nigel D. Boatman
7. G. Ballantyne
8. Richard J. Gill

In Plant Science

1. J. Ollerton
2. S. Potts
3. John M. Holland
4. P. Willmer
5. P. Batáry
6. B. Howlett
7. J. Osborne
8. G. Woodward

Citations in the corpus

• Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation (2015, neutral): “Because the differences in per-visit pollen deposition among species are generally outweighed by the differences in flower visitation among species 46 , visitation frequency is considered to be a good proxy for total pollination per species 47 .”
• Pollination efficiency and foraging behaviour of honey bees and non‐Apis bees to sweet cherry (2019, background): “On the level of a single flower, the SFV efficiency is an essential measure for ranking the pollination performance of different types of bees (Spears Jr, 1983; King et al., 2013).”
• Larger pollinators deposit more pollen on stigmas across multiple plant species—A meta‐analysis (2020, background): “In practice, the measurement of the single visit pollen deposition resulting from an insect visit necessitates the monitoring of virgin flowers until an insect completes a visit (King et al., 2013; Rader et al., 2009).”
• Protecting an ecosystem service: approaches to understanding and mitigating threats to wild insect pollinators (2016, methodology): “…matching DNA from pollen would 785 allow the practitioner to populate plant-pollinator networks in a more direct fashion than 786 studies using visitation as a proxy (King et al., 2013), and more rapidly, reliably and to a 787 higher resolution than microscopy methods (Kraaijeveld et al., 2015).”
• Insights from measuring pollen deposition: quantifying the pre-eminence of bees as flower visitors and effective pollinators (2017, result): “Finally, and as also demonstrated by King et al. (2013), SVD measures of pollinator effectiveness as reported here accord well with traditional pollination syndrome predictions; the match of visit frequencies and pollinator effectiveness to syndrome traits is evident for most of the 76 plants we…”