How to monitor ecological communities cost-efficiently: The example of plant–pollinator networks

110 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.

Why flower visitation is a poor proxy for pollination: measuring single‐visit pollen deposition, with implications for pollination networks and conservation (2013, background): “Without distinguishing visitors from pollinators, various negative consequences could ensue: conservation efforts could be misled by suggestions that networks are robust and extinctions can be tolerated (e.g. Memmott, Waser & Price 2004; Dupont et al. 2009;Hegland et al. 2010;Kaiser-Bunbury et al. 2”
Merging DNA metabarcoding and ecological network analysis to understand and build resilient terrestrial ecosystems (2016, background): “193 They are almost always very labour intensive (Hegland et al. 2010), prone to sampling biases 194 (Gibson et al. 2011) and can miss cryptic species and associated interactions (Derocles et al. 195 2015).”
Macroecology of pollination networks (2013, background): “Numbers of species and their links are particularly sensitive to undersampling, although other network properties appear resilient (Nielsen & Bascompte, 2007; Hegland et al., 2010).”