Congruence between visitation and pollen‐transport networks in a California plant–pollinator community

By R. Alarcón. 2010

148 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b4b0f01840803454328d182a409ca912c76ce5e3

Citations in the corpus

• How to be a specialist? Quantifying specialisation in pollination networks (2011, unknown): “…of visitation, not of pollination events, and we should not over-interpret results based on visitation networks: Smooth skinned hoverflies may well be common flower visitors, but they are not on a par with bees in terms of pollination efficiency (Schittenhelm et al., 1997, but see Alarcón, 2010).”
• The winners and losers of land use intensification: pollinator community disassembly is non‐random and alters functional diversity (2014, unknown): “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).”