IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0150824.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contrasting Partners’ Traits of Generalized and Specialized Species in Flower-Visitation Networks

Author

Listed:
  • Rocío Castro-Urgal
  • Anna Traveset

Abstract

Much ecological research has focused on trying to understand why species are generalized or specialized in their interactions and how networks develop in a certain environment. It is now well known that traits such as phenology and abundance of a species are important determinants of its generalization level (i.e., number of different interactions or links to other species). Less information is available, however, on whether generalized and specialized species differ in particular traits of their interacting partners. Such partners might differ, for instance, in abundance and/or in the diversity of functional groups they belong to. Moreover, species might exhibit shifts through time (e.g., flowering season) in their partners’ traits, though we know close to nothing on whether these changes do indeed occur. Assessing how such network links in both types of species are established is important for a better understanding of how different types of disturbance can affect community dynamics. Using data from four quantitative flower-visitation networks and independent measures of flower availability obtained when recording interactions, we test for such differences between species which have been previously categorized according to two specialization indexes: (1) number of partners (links), also named linkage level; this is a qualitative index and (2) complementary specialization d’, named here selectiveness level; this is a quantitative index. We found that: (1) species with low linkage levels mainly interact with common species in the community whereas generalized species interact with a greater heterogeneity of partner’s abundances and functional richness, (2) both selective and opportunistic species (with high and low d’, respectively) interact with a similarly high functional richness (number of functional groups or families) of partners, and (3) generalized species are the only ones showing shifts along the season in their partners’ traits, driven by changes in community species composition. The risk of extinction in front of a disturbance is generally expected to be highest for specialized species (with few partners) and selective species (which visit non-abundant or scarce partners). However, our findings show that by linking to abundant and/or to functionally diverse partners, respectively, these species may be maintained in the community and be less vulnerable to disturbances.

Suggested Citation

  • Rocío Castro-Urgal & Anna Traveset, 2016. "Contrasting Partners’ Traits of Generalized and Specialized Species in Flower-Visitation Networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0150824
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150824
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150824
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150824&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0150824?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0150824. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.