NULL MODEL ANALYSES OF SPECIALIZATION IN PLANT–POLLINATOR INTERACTIONS

By D. P. Vázquez, M. Aizen. 2003

247 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/d6047608db13230f1ff30192a1660baaaa5dd078

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

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

In Plant Science

Citations in the corpus

Size constraints and flower abundance determine the number of interactions in a plant /flower visitor web (2006, background): “…the constraints on these patterns will be an important prerequisite to formulate realistic null models (Gotelli & Graves, 1996; Vàzquez, 2005; Vàzquez & Aizen, 2003) and understand resource partitioning and compartmentalization in studies that include the visitation frequency of the flower…”
Invasive mutualisms and the structure of plant–pollinator interactions in the temperate forests of north‐west Patagonia, Argentina (2006, result): “This result agrees with the view that abundance seems to be the main determinant of the degree of pollinator specialization (Vázquez & Aizen 2003).”
Changes in interaction biodiversity induced by an introduced ungulate (2003, background): “These networks can also be represented as two-dimensional matrices (see Supplementary Material) in which each column represents a plant and each row a pollinator species, and cells represent the number of times each interaction was observed (Vázquez & Aizen 2003).”
Introducing the bipartite Package: Analysing Ecological Networks (2008, background): “There are many dif- ferent ways to construct a null model, and this is only one of them (Vázquez and Aizen, 2003).”
A land for flowers and bees: studying pollination ecology in Mediterranean communities (2005, background): “Additionally, the objective of understanding the structure of the pollinator communities will be biased if only a few species of plants or pollinators are studied or studies are temporally limited (Waser et al, 1996 ; Petanidou & Ellis, 1996 ; Memmott, 1999 ; Ollerton & Cranmer, 2002 ; Vazquez &”
On nestedness in ecological networks (2010, background): “We (Joppa et al., 2009), and others (Vazquez and Aizen, 2003, 2004; Bascompte et al., 2006), show elsewhere that reciprocal specialization is statistically very rare in the networks examined here.”
Measuring specialization in species interaction networks (2006, background): “Moreover, Vazquez and Aizen [ 35 ] noted that the number of links of a species (L i ) is strongly positively correlated with its overall frequency (Ai) in five pollination networks including the datasets analyzed above.”
Species abundance and the distribution of specialization in host–parasite interaction networks (2005, methodology): “1999; Combes 2001; Vázquez & Aizen 2003, 2004, 2005).”
The ‘night shift’: nocturnal pollen‐transport networks in a boreal pine forest (2011, background): “The salient properties are the presence of few extreme specialists and many moderate generalists (Waser et al., 1996; Jordano et al., 2003; Vázquez & Aizen, 2003), a nested pattern of interactions (Bascompte et al., 2003), and the prevalence of asymmetric interactions (Vázquez & Aizen, 2004).”