Flower‐visitor and pollen‐load data provide complementary insight into species and individual network roles

Most animal pollination results from plant–insect interactions, but how we perceive these interactions may differ with the sampling method adopted. The two most common methods are observations of visits by pollinators to plants and observations of pollen loads carried by insects. Each method could f...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Oikos
Main Authors: Cirtwill, Alyssa R., Wirta, Helena, Kaartinen, Riikka, Ballantyne, Gavin, Stone, Graham N., Cunnold, Helen, Tiusanen, Mikko, Roslin, Tomas
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2024
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/oik.10301
id crwiley:10.1111/oik.10301
record_format openpolar
spelling crwiley:10.1111/oik.10301 2024-10-13T14:05:40+00:00 Flower‐visitor and pollen‐load data provide complementary insight into species and individual network roles Cirtwill, Alyssa R. Wirta, Helena Kaartinen, Riikka Ballantyne, Gavin Stone, Graham N. Cunnold, Helen Tiusanen, Mikko Roslin, Tomas 2024 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/oik.10301 en eng Wiley http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Oikos volume 2024, issue 4 ISSN 0030-1299 1600-0706 journal-article 2024 crwiley https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.10301 2024-09-17T04:45:58Z Most animal pollination results from plant–insect interactions, but how we perceive these interactions may differ with the sampling method adopted. The two most common methods are observations of visits by pollinators to plants and observations of pollen loads carried by insects. Each method could favour the detection of different species and interactions, and pollen load observations typically reveal more interactions per individual insect than visit observations. Moreover, while observations concern plant and insect individuals, networks are frequently analysed at the level of species. Although networks constructed using visitation and pollen‐load data have occasionally been compared in relatively specialised, bee‐dominated systems, it is not known how sampling methodology will affect our perception of how species (and individuals within species) interact in a more generalist system. Here we use a Diptera‐dominated high‐Arctic plant–insect community to explore how sampling approach shapes several measures of species' interactions (focusing on specialisation), and what we can learn about how the interactions of individuals relate to those of species. We found that species degrees, interaction strengths, and species motif roles were significantly correlated across the two method‐specific versions of the network. However, absolute differences in degrees and motif roles were greater than could be explained by the greater number of interactions per individual provided by the pollen‐load data. Thus, despite the correlations between species roles in networks built using visitation and pollen‐load data, we infer that these two perspectives yield fundamentally different summaries of the ways species fit into their communities. Further, individuals' roles generally predicted the species' overall role, but high variability among individuals means that species' roles cannot be used to predict those of particular individuals. These findings emphasize the importance of adopting a dual perspective on bipartite networks, as ... Article in Journal/Newspaper Arctic Wiley Online Library Arctic Oikos 2024 4
institution Open Polar
collection Wiley Online Library
op_collection_id crwiley
language English
description Most animal pollination results from plant–insect interactions, but how we perceive these interactions may differ with the sampling method adopted. The two most common methods are observations of visits by pollinators to plants and observations of pollen loads carried by insects. Each method could favour the detection of different species and interactions, and pollen load observations typically reveal more interactions per individual insect than visit observations. Moreover, while observations concern plant and insect individuals, networks are frequently analysed at the level of species. Although networks constructed using visitation and pollen‐load data have occasionally been compared in relatively specialised, bee‐dominated systems, it is not known how sampling methodology will affect our perception of how species (and individuals within species) interact in a more generalist system. Here we use a Diptera‐dominated high‐Arctic plant–insect community to explore how sampling approach shapes several measures of species' interactions (focusing on specialisation), and what we can learn about how the interactions of individuals relate to those of species. We found that species degrees, interaction strengths, and species motif roles were significantly correlated across the two method‐specific versions of the network. However, absolute differences in degrees and motif roles were greater than could be explained by the greater number of interactions per individual provided by the pollen‐load data. Thus, despite the correlations between species roles in networks built using visitation and pollen‐load data, we infer that these two perspectives yield fundamentally different summaries of the ways species fit into their communities. Further, individuals' roles generally predicted the species' overall role, but high variability among individuals means that species' roles cannot be used to predict those of particular individuals. These findings emphasize the importance of adopting a dual perspective on bipartite networks, as ...
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Cirtwill, Alyssa R.
Wirta, Helena
Kaartinen, Riikka
Ballantyne, Gavin
Stone, Graham N.
Cunnold, Helen
Tiusanen, Mikko
Roslin, Tomas
spellingShingle Cirtwill, Alyssa R.
Wirta, Helena
Kaartinen, Riikka
Ballantyne, Gavin
Stone, Graham N.
Cunnold, Helen
Tiusanen, Mikko
Roslin, Tomas
Flower‐visitor and pollen‐load data provide complementary insight into species and individual network roles
author_facet Cirtwill, Alyssa R.
Wirta, Helena
Kaartinen, Riikka
Ballantyne, Gavin
Stone, Graham N.
Cunnold, Helen
Tiusanen, Mikko
Roslin, Tomas
author_sort Cirtwill, Alyssa R.
title Flower‐visitor and pollen‐load data provide complementary insight into species and individual network roles
title_short Flower‐visitor and pollen‐load data provide complementary insight into species and individual network roles
title_full Flower‐visitor and pollen‐load data provide complementary insight into species and individual network roles
title_fullStr Flower‐visitor and pollen‐load data provide complementary insight into species and individual network roles
title_full_unstemmed Flower‐visitor and pollen‐load data provide complementary insight into species and individual network roles
title_sort flower‐visitor and pollen‐load data provide complementary insight into species and individual network roles
publisher Wiley
publishDate 2024
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/oik.10301
geographic Arctic
geographic_facet Arctic
genre Arctic
genre_facet Arctic
op_source Oikos
volume 2024, issue 4
ISSN 0030-1299 1600-0706
op_rights http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.10301
container_title Oikos
container_volume 2024
container_issue 4
_version_ 1812811729789255680