Individual‐based plant–pollinator networks are structured by phenotypic and microsite plant traits

Abstract

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as

Drivers of individual‐based, antagonistic interaction networks during plant range expansion

“…ERGM has been used recently in ecological research for the analysis of individual‐based mutualistic interaction networks (Arroyo‐Correa et al, 2021; Miguel et al, 2018). The ERGM design is analogous to a GLM and implements a Markov chain Monte Carlo maximum likelihood parameter estimation.…”

“…In a weighted ERGM, the coefficient estimates of node covariates must be interpreted in terms of the effect on the probability of increasing (or decreasing) the strength of pairwise interactions. They indicate the expected change in the logged number of any pairwise interaction increasing (or decreasing) as a function of a given one‐unit change in a specific node attribute (Arroyo‐Correa et al, 2021; Kolaczyk & Csárdi, 2014). In our case these predictor variables are directly associated with the node (plants) attributes (e.g.…”

“…Thus, it is possible to compare the structure of an observed network with that generated by models that include or exclude specific node information. These models have been recently introduced in ecological research (Arroyo‐Correa et al, 2021; Miguel et al, 2018), providing ways to infer causes determining the distribution of the interactions among network nodes (Kolaczyk & Csárdi, 2014). The relative roles of intrinsic and extrinsic traits in interaction network structures have been evaluated for mutualistic networks (Arroyo‐Correa et al, 2021; Miguel et al, 2018; also see Gómez et al, 2011; Valverde et al, 2016), although how these factors drive antagonistic network topologies at the individual level remains unexplored.…”

Pollinator individual‐based networks reveal the specialized plant–pollinator mutualism in two biodiverse communities

“…We expected that the linkage density, interaction diversity, interaction evenness, the average plant linkage level, and interaction diversity would increase, but connectance, degree of nestedness, the average pollinator linkage level, and interaction diversity in the pollinator individual‐based networks would decrease due to individual pollinator specialization and the increased number of pollinator nodes when downsizing from pollinator species‐based networks to individual‐based networks (Brosi, 2016; Tur et al, 2014). We also expected that pollinator individual‐based networks would be a higher level of specialization than pollinator species‐based networks because most pollinator individuals may show a high degree of specialization and floral fidelity over individual foraging bouts (Araújo et al, 2011; Arroyo‐Correa et al, 2021; Brosi, 2016).…”

“…Building pollination networks based on flower visitors that contact the reproductive organs (Kaiser-Bunbury et al, 2017;Memmott, 1999), identification of pollen carried by flower visitors (Lucas et al, 2018;Tur et al, 2014), pollen on stigmas (Fang & Huang, 2013), and the direct assessment of pollinator effectiveness (de Santiago-Hernández et al, 2019;Traveset et al, 2015) (Brosi, 2016;Tur et al, 2014). We also expected that pollinator individual-based networks would be a higher level of specialization than pollinator species-based networks because most pollinator individuals may show a high degree of specialization and floral fidelity over individual foraging bouts (Araújo et al, 2011;Arroyo-Correa et al, 2021;Brosi, 2016).…”