Facilitative interactions among plants via shared pollinators

By D. A. Moeller. 2004

488 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/c915ed9f358f389b12799741103b4b0a6944441e

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. Manu E. Saunders
2. L. Cavieres
3. J. Ghazoul
4. E. Badano
5. M. Geber
6. M. Molina‐Montenegro
7. Ørjan Totland
8. J. Maron

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. L. Cavieres
2. E. Badano
3. Manu E. Saunders
4. J. Ghazoul
5. A. Miller‐Rushing
6. M. Molina‐Montenegro
7. M. Geber
8. Toke Thomas Høye

In Plant Science

1. L. Cavieres
2. Manu E. Saunders
3. J. Ghazoul
4. E. Badano
5. A. Miller‐Rushing
6. M. Molina‐Montenegro
7. M. Geber
8. Ørjan Totland

Citations in the corpus

• The presence of a showy invasive plant disrupts pollinator service and reproductive output in native alpine species only at high densities (2008, unknown): “Rathcke (1983) proposed that competitive and facilitative interactions among plants for pollination service are opposite extremes of a continuum that is a function of population density or relative abundance of the floral resources (see also Feldman et al . 2004; Moeller 2004; Ghazoul 2006).”
• The utility of crop genetic diversity in maintaining ecosystem services (2008, background): “A specieslevel study of Clarkia has shown facilitative interactions, via pollinator sharing among congeners that jointly attract pollinators, increase pollinator availability and lower pollen limitation of reproduction compared to populations occurring alone (Moeller, 2004).”
• The tolerance of island plant–pollinator networks to alien plants (2011, background): “The effects of indirect interactions between plant species range frommutually beneficial (Moeller 2004; Moragues & Traveset 2005; Molina-Montenegro, Badano & Cavieres 2008), to neutral (Aigner 2004; Jones 2004; Kaiser-Bunbury & Müller 2009) and competitive (reviewed inMitchell et al.”
• Disentangling the drivers of context‐dependent plant–animal interactions (2014, background): “2006), the identity of coflowering species (Groom 1998; Moeller 2004; Ghazoul 2006; Vamosi et al. 2006; Sargent & Ackerly 2008), and pollinator abundance (Baker, Barrett & Thompson 2000; Cunningham 2000; Cosacov, Nattero & Cocucci 2008; G omez et al.”
• ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE EVOLUTION OF SELF-POLLINATION IN CLARKIA XANTIANA: POPULATION SIZE, PLANT COMMUNITIES, AND REPRODUCTIVE ASSURANCE (2005, background): “In this study, we focus on interactions between C. xantiana and two congeners, C. cylindrica and C. unguiculata, because previous work has shown that these species are the most common and abundant associates of C. xantiana (Moeller 2004).”
• Breeding systems of Bromeliaceae species: evolution of selfing in the context of sympatric occurrence (2010, background): “Nevertheless, pollinator sharing may be beneficial when plant species jointly attract and maintain populations of pollinators, which could imply few pollination limitations when compared with isolated populations (Moeller 2004; Sargent and Ackerly 2008).”
• Insect pollinators collect pollen from wind‐pollinated plants: implications for pollination ecology and sustainable agriculture (2018, background): “…plant species and these interactions are a key driver of plant community structure (e.g. Robertson, 1895; Mosquin, 1971; Heinrich, 1975; Waser, 1978; 2017 The Royal Entomological Society, Insect Conservation and Diversity, 11, 13–31 Johnson et al., 2003; Moeller, 2004; L azaro et al., 2009).”