Pollinator diversity and specialization in relation to flower diversity
Identifieur interne : 000726 ( Main/Corpus ); précédent : 000725; suivant : 000727Pollinator diversity and specialization in relation to flower diversity
Auteurs : Jochen Fründ ; Karl Eduard Linsenmair ; Nico BlüthgenSource :
- Oikos [ 0030-1299 ] ; 2010-10.
Abstract
In the face of global decline in biodiversity, the relationship between diversity and species interactions deserves particular attention. If pollinators are strongly dependent on floral diversity due to mutual specialization, declines in plant diversity, e.g. caused by land use intensification, may be associated with linked extinctions of pollinators. However, the general extent of pollinator specialization is still poorly known. To explore the dependence of local bee and hoverfly communities on flower diversity, we recorded flower supply and flower‐visiting insects on 27 meadows with varying flower diversity in southern Germany and analyzed (a) whether the diversity of flower visitors is correlated with flower diversity, (b) whether the degree of dietary specialization of flower visitors changes with flower diversity and (c) whether flower preferences of individual flower visitor species are constant or variable between different communities. Flower–visitor interaction webs were compiled during a single day on each meadow. This approach prevents relating pollinator species to flowers they never encounter because of non‐overlapping phenology or spatial segregation. (a) Flower diversity and flower visitor diversity were positively correlated. (b) Flower visitor assemblies were significantly specialized at a relatively high level, contrasting to the opinion that plant–pollinator webs are highly generalized, and providing a possible explanation for the positive diversity correlation. However, the level of specialization did not change significantly across the gradient of flower diversity, suggesting that pollinators are partitioned to a similar extent in each meadow. (c) In the analysis of ten common flower visitor species previously categorized as generalists, strong evidence was found for both, consistent preferences and preferences that differ between sites. These results indicate a flexibility in flower preferences and a dynamic resource partitioning among pollinators. Generally, our findings highlight the complexity of plant–pollinator interactions and confirm the importance of flower diversity for bee and hoverfly communities.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18450.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:2E4F717782F0A129B02152B0194601DAD3E3BE8FLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Pollinator diversity and specialization in relation to flower diversity</title><author><name sortKey="Frund, Jochen" sort="Frund, Jochen" uniqKey="Frund J" first="Jochen" last="Fründ">Jochen Fründ</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Linsenmair, Karl Eduard" sort="Linsenmair, Karl Eduard" uniqKey="Linsenmair K" first="Karl Eduard" last="Linsenmair">Karl Eduard Linsenmair</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Bluthgen, Nico" sort="Bluthgen, Nico" uniqKey="Bluthgen N" first="Nico" last="Blüthgen">Nico Blüthgen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:2E4F717782F0A129B02152B0194601DAD3E3BE8F</idno><date when="2010" year="2010">2010</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18450.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/2E4F717782F0A129B02152B0194601DAD3E3BE8F/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Corpus">000726</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Pollinator diversity and specialization in relation to flower diversity</title><author><name sortKey="Frund, Jochen" sort="Frund, Jochen" uniqKey="Frund J" first="Jochen" last="Fründ">Jochen Fründ</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Linsenmair, Karl Eduard" sort="Linsenmair, Karl Eduard" uniqKey="Linsenmair K" first="Karl Eduard" last="Linsenmair">Karl Eduard Linsenmair</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Bluthgen, Nico" sort="Bluthgen, Nico" uniqKey="Bluthgen N" first="Nico" last="Blüthgen">Nico Blüthgen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Oikos</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Oikos</title><idno type="ISSN">0030-1299</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0706</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2010-10">2010-10</date><biblScope unit="volume">119</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">10</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="1581">1581</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="1590">1590</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0030-1299</idno></series><idno type="istex">2E4F717782F0A129B02152B0194601DAD3E3BE8F</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18450.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">OIK18450</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0030-1299</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">In the face of global decline in biodiversity, the relationship between diversity and species interactions deserves particular attention. If pollinators are strongly dependent on floral diversity due to mutual specialization, declines in plant diversity, e.g. caused by land use intensification, may be associated with linked extinctions of pollinators. However, the general extent of pollinator specialization is still poorly known. To explore the dependence of local bee and hoverfly communities on flower diversity, we recorded flower supply and flower‐visiting insects on 27 meadows with varying flower diversity in southern Germany and analyzed (a) whether the diversity of flower visitors is correlated with flower diversity, (b) whether the degree of dietary specialization of flower visitors changes with flower diversity and (c) whether flower preferences of individual flower visitor species are constant or variable between different communities. Flower–visitor interaction webs were compiled during a single day on each meadow. This approach prevents relating pollinator species to flowers they never encounter because of non‐overlapping phenology or spatial segregation. (a) Flower diversity and flower visitor diversity were positively correlated. (b) Flower visitor assemblies were significantly specialized at a relatively high level, contrasting to the opinion that plant–pollinator webs are highly generalized, and providing a possible explanation for the positive diversity correlation. However, the level of specialization did not change significantly across the gradient of flower diversity, suggesting that pollinators are partitioned to a similar extent in each meadow. (c) In the analysis of ten common flower visitor species previously categorized as generalists, strong evidence was found for both, consistent preferences and preferences that differ between sites. These results indicate a flexibility in flower preferences and a dynamic resource partitioning among pollinators. Generally, our findings highlight the complexity of plant–pollinator interactions and confirm the importance of flower diversity for bee and hoverfly communities.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Jochen Fründ</name><affiliations><json:string>Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Karl Eduard Linsenmair</name><affiliations><json:string>Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Nico Blüthgen</name><affiliations><json:string>Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><abstract>In the face of global decline in biodiversity, the relationship between diversity and species interactions deserves particular attention. If pollinators are strongly dependent on floral diversity due to mutual specialization, declines in plant diversity, e.g. caused by land use intensification, may be associated with linked extinctions of pollinators. However, the general extent of pollinator specialization is still poorly known. To explore the dependence of local bee and hoverfly communities on flower diversity, we recorded flower supply and flower‐visiting insects on 27 meadows with varying flower diversity in southern Germany and analyzed (a) whether the diversity of flower visitors is correlated with flower diversity, (b) whether the degree of dietary specialization of flower visitors changes with flower diversity and (c) whether flower preferences of individual flower visitor species are constant or variable between different communities. Flower–visitor interaction webs were compiled during a single day on each meadow. This approach prevents relating pollinator species to flowers they never encounter because of non‐overlapping phenology or spatial segregation. (a) Flower diversity and flower visitor diversity were positively correlated. (b) Flower visitor assemblies were significantly specialized at a relatively high level, contrasting to the opinion that plant–pollinator webs are highly generalized, and providing a possible explanation for the positive diversity correlation. However, the level of specialization did not change significantly across the gradient of flower diversity, suggesting that pollinators are partitioned to a similar extent in each meadow. (c) In the analysis of ten common flower visitor species previously categorized as generalists, strong evidence was found for both, consistent preferences and preferences that differ between sites. These results indicate a flexibility in flower preferences and a dynamic resource partitioning among pollinators. Generally, our findings highlight the complexity of plant–pollinator interactions and confirm the importance of flower diversity for bee and hoverfly communities.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.5</score><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>0</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>2167</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>6581</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>42860</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>10</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>297</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Pollinator diversity and specialization in relation to flower diversity</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><volume>119</volume><pages><total>10</total><last>1590</last><first>1581</first></pages><issn><json:string>0030-1299</json:string></issn><issue>10</issue><genre></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1600-0706</json:string></eissn><title>Oikos</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0706</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>2010</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2010</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18450.x</json:string></doi><id>2E4F717782F0A129B02152B0194601DAD3E3BE8F</id><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2E4F717782F0A129B02152B0194601DAD3E3BE8F/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2E4F717782F0A129B02152B0194601DAD3E3BE8F/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/2E4F717782F0A129B02152B0194601DAD3E3BE8F/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Pollinator diversity and specialization in relation to flower diversity</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>WILEY</p></availability><date>2010</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Pollinator diversity and specialization in relation to flower diversity</title><author><persName><forename type="first">Jochen</forename><surname>Fründ</surname></persName><affiliation>Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany</affiliation></author><author><persName><forename type="first">Karl Eduard</forename><surname>Linsenmair</surname></persName><affiliation>Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany</affiliation></author><author><persName><forename type="first">Nico</forename><surname>Blüthgen</surname></persName><affiliation>Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Oikos</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Oikos</title><idno type="pISSN">0030-1299</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0706</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0706</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2010-10"></date><biblScope unit="volume">119</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">10</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="1581">1581</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="1590">1590</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">2E4F717782F0A129B02152B0194601DAD3E3BE8F</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18450.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">OIK18450</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2010</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>In the face of global decline in biodiversity, the relationship between diversity and species interactions deserves particular attention. If pollinators are strongly dependent on floral diversity due to mutual specialization, declines in plant diversity, e.g. caused by land use intensification, may be associated with linked extinctions of pollinators. However, the general extent of pollinator specialization is still poorly known. To explore the dependence of local bee and hoverfly communities on flower diversity, we recorded flower supply and flower‐visiting insects on 27 meadows with varying flower diversity in southern Germany and analyzed (a) whether the diversity of flower visitors is correlated with flower diversity, (b) whether the degree of dietary specialization of flower visitors changes with flower diversity and (c) whether flower preferences of individual flower visitor species are constant or variable between different communities. Flower–visitor interaction webs were compiled during a single day on each meadow. This approach prevents relating pollinator species to flowers they never encounter because of non‐overlapping phenology or spatial segregation. (a) Flower diversity and flower visitor diversity were positively correlated. (b) Flower visitor assemblies were significantly specialized at a relatively high level, contrasting to the opinion that plant–pollinator webs are highly generalized, and providing a possible explanation for the positive diversity correlation. However, the level of specialization did not change significantly across the gradient of flower diversity, suggesting that pollinators are partitioned to a similar extent in each meadow. (c) In the analysis of ten common flower visitor species previously categorized as generalists, strong evidence was found for both, consistent preferences and preferences that differ between sites. These results indicate a flexibility in flower preferences and a dynamic resource partitioning among pollinators. Generally, our findings highlight the complexity of plant–pollinator interactions and confirm the importance of flower diversity for bee and hoverfly communities.</p></abstract></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2010-10">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2E4F717782F0A129B02152B0194601DAD3E3BE8F/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0706</doi><issn type="print">0030-1299</issn><issn type="electronic">1600-0706</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="OIK"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="OIKOS">Oikos</title><title type="short">Oikos</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="10110"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/more.2010.119.issue-10</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="119">119</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="10">10</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2010-10">October 2010</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="6" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18450.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="OIK18450"></id><id type="supplier" value="oik18450"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="10"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Research Article</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2010 The Authors</copyright><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2010-04-23"></event><event type="publishedOnlineAcceptedOrEarlyUnpaginated" date="2010-04-23"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.25 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-11-05"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2010-09-14"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-02-06"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-11-03"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="1581">1581</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="1590">1590</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>N. Blüthgen, Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany. E‐mail: <email normalForm="bluethgen@biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de">bluethgen@biozentrum.uni‐wuerzburg.de</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:OIK.OIK18450.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Paper manuscript accepted 9 Febraury 2010</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="4"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="1"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="4"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="60"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Pollinator diversity and specialization in relation to flower diversity</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Jochen</givenNames><familyName>Fründ</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Karl Eduard</givenNames><familyName>Linsenmair</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Nico</givenNames><familyName>Blüthgen</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="DE"><unparsedAffiliation>Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="DE"><unparsedAffiliation>Agroecology, Dept of Crop Science, Univ. of Göttingen, Germany</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>In the face of global decline in biodiversity, the relationship between diversity and species interactions deserves particular attention. If pollinators are strongly dependent on floral diversity due to mutual specialization, declines in plant diversity, e.g. caused by land use intensification, may be associated with linked extinctions of pollinators. However, the general extent of pollinator specialization is still poorly known. To explore the dependence of local bee and hoverfly communities on flower diversity, we recorded flower supply and flower‐visiting insects on 27 meadows with varying flower diversity in southern Germany and analyzed (a) whether the diversity of flower visitors is correlated with flower diversity, (b) whether the degree of dietary specialization of flower visitors changes with flower diversity and (c) whether flower preferences of individual flower visitor species are constant or variable between different communities. Flower–visitor interaction webs were compiled during a single day on each meadow. This approach prevents relating pollinator species to flowers they never encounter because of non‐overlapping phenology or spatial segregation. (a) Flower diversity and flower visitor diversity were positively correlated. (b) Flower visitor assemblies were significantly specialized at a relatively high level, contrasting to the opinion that plant–pollinator webs are highly generalized, and providing a possible explanation for the positive diversity correlation. However, the level of specialization did not change significantly across the gradient of flower diversity, suggesting that pollinators are partitioned to a similar extent in each meadow. (c) In the analysis of ten common flower visitor species previously categorized as generalists, strong evidence was found for both, consistent preferences and preferences that differ between sites. These results indicate a flexibility in flower preferences and a dynamic resource partitioning among pollinators. Generally, our findings highlight the complexity of plant–pollinator interactions and confirm the importance of flower diversity for bee and hoverfly communities.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Pollinator diversity and specialization in relation to flower diversity</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Pollinator diversity and specialization in relation to flower diversity</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jochen</namePart><namePart type="family">Fründ</namePart><affiliation>Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Karl Eduard</namePart><namePart type="family">Linsenmair</namePart><affiliation>Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Nico</namePart><namePart type="family">Blüthgen</namePart><affiliation>Dept of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, Univ. of Würzburg, Am Hubland, DE–97074 Würzburg, Germany</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2010-10</dateIssued><edition>Paper manuscript accepted 9 Febraury 2010</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="figures">4</extent><extent unit="tables">1</extent><extent unit="formulas">4</extent><extent unit="references">60</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">In the face of global decline in biodiversity, the relationship between diversity and species interactions deserves particular attention. If pollinators are strongly dependent on floral diversity due to mutual specialization, declines in plant diversity, e.g. caused by land use intensification, may be associated with linked extinctions of pollinators. However, the general extent of pollinator specialization is still poorly known. To explore the dependence of local bee and hoverfly communities on flower diversity, we recorded flower supply and flower‐visiting insects on 27 meadows with varying flower diversity in southern Germany and analyzed (a) whether the diversity of flower visitors is correlated with flower diversity, (b) whether the degree of dietary specialization of flower visitors changes with flower diversity and (c) whether flower preferences of individual flower visitor species are constant or variable between different communities. Flower–visitor interaction webs were compiled during a single day on each meadow. This approach prevents relating pollinator species to flowers they never encounter because of non‐overlapping phenology or spatial segregation. (a) Flower diversity and flower visitor diversity were positively correlated. (b) Flower visitor assemblies were significantly specialized at a relatively high level, contrasting to the opinion that plant–pollinator webs are highly generalized, and providing a possible explanation for the positive diversity correlation. However, the level of specialization did not change significantly across the gradient of flower diversity, suggesting that pollinators are partitioned to a similar extent in each meadow. (c) In the analysis of ten common flower visitor species previously categorized as generalists, strong evidence was found for both, consistent preferences and preferences that differ between sites. These results indicate a flexibility in flower preferences and a dynamic resource partitioning among pollinators. Generally, our findings highlight the complexity of plant–pollinator interactions and confirm the importance of flower diversity for bee and hoverfly communities.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Oikos</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>Oikos</title></titleInfo><genre type="Journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0030-1299</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1600-0706</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0706</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">OIK</identifier><part><date>2010</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>119</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>10</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>1581</start><end>1590</end><total>10</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">2E4F717782F0A129B02152B0194601DAD3E3BE8F</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18450.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">OIK18450</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2010 The Authors</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Musique/explor/SchutzV1/Data/Main/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000726 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000726 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Musique
|area= SchutzV1
|flux= Main
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:2E4F717782F0A129B02152B0194601DAD3E3BE8F
|texte= Pollinator diversity and specialization in relation to flower diversity
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.38. |  |