Abstract
Abstract Pollination networks are increasingly used to model the complexity of interactions between pollinators and flowering plants in communities. Different methods exist to sample these interactions, with direct observations of plant–pollinator contacts in the field being by far the most common. Although the identification of pollen carried by pollinators allows uncovering interactions and increasing sample sizes, the methods used to build pollen‐transport networks are variable and their effect on network structure remains unclear. To understand how interaction sampling influences the structure of networks, we analyzed the pollen found on wild bees from eight communities across Mallorca Island and investigated the differences in pollen loads between bee body parts (scopa vs. body) and sexes. We then assessed how these differences, as well as the uncovered interactions not detected in the field, influenced the structure of wild bee–plant networks. We identified a higher quantity and diversity of pollen in the scopa than in the rest of the female body, but these differences did not lead to differences in structure between plant‐pollination (excluding scopa pollen) and bee‐feeding interaction (including scopa pollen) networks. However, networks built with pollen data were richer in plant species and interactions and showed lower modularity and specialization (H 2 '), and higher nestedness than visitation networks based on field observations. Female interactions with plants were stronger compared to those of males, although not richer. Accordingly, females were more generalist (low d’) and tended to be more central in interaction networks, indicating their more key role structuring pollination networks in comparison to males. Our study highlights the importance of palynological data to increase the resolution of networks, as well as to understand important ecological questions such as the differences between plant‐pollination and bee‐feeding interaction networks, and the role of sexes in pollination.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Wild bee scopa held a higher quantity and diversity of pollen than the rest of the female body.
Verbatim
t0“wild bee”
e0“We identified a higher quantity and diversity of pollen in the scopa than in the rest of the female body”
Claim · model-written summary
These pollen differences did not produce differences in network structure between plant-pollination and bee-feeding interaction networks.
Verbatim
t0“wild bee”
e0“did not lead to differences in structure between plant”
Claim · model-written summary
Networks built with pollen data were richer in plant species and interactions than visitation networks from field observations.
Verbatim
t0“wild bee”
e0“networks built with pollen data were richer in plant species and interactions”
e1“visitation networks based on field observations”
Claim · model-written summary
Pollen-based networks showed lower modularity and specialization (H2) than visitation networks.
Verbatim
t0“wild bee”
e0“showed lower modularity and specialization”
e1“visitation networks based on field observations”
Claim · model-written summary
Pollen-based networks showed higher nestedness than visitation networks based on field observations.
Verbatim
t0“wild bee”
e0“higher nestedness than visitation networks based on field observations”
e1“visitation networks based on field observations”
Claim · model-written summary
Female bees had stronger interactions with plants than males, although not richer.
Verbatim
t0“wild bee”
e0“Female interactions with plants were stronger compared to those of males, although not richer”
Claim · model-written summary
Females were more generalist than males.
Verbatim
t0“wild bee”
e0“females were more generalist”
Claim · model-written summary
Females tended to be more central in interaction networks.
Verbatim
t0“wild bee”
e0“tended to be more central in interaction networks”