title: The robustness of plant-pollinator assemblages: linking plant interaction patterns and sensitivity to pollinator loss.
abstract: Most flowering plants depend on pollinators to reproduce. Thus, evaluating the robustness of plant-pollinator assemblages to species loss is a major concern. How species interaction patterns are related to species sensitivity to partner loss may influence the robustness of plant-pollinator assemblages. In plants, both reproductive dependence on pollinators (breeding system) and dispersal ability may modulate plant sensitivity to pollinator loss. For instance, species with strong dependence (e.g. dioecious species) and low dispersal (e.g. seeds dispersed by gravity) may be the most sensitive to pollinator loss. We compared the interaction patterns of plants differing in dependence on pollinators and dispersal ability in a meta-dataset comprising 192 plant species from 13 plant-pollinator networks. In addition, network robustness was compared under different scenarios representing sequences of plant extinctions associated with plant sensitivity to pollinator loss. Species with different dependence on pollinators and dispersal ability showed similar levels of generalization. Although plants with low dispersal ability interacted with more generalized pollinators, low-dispersal plants with strong dependence on pollinators (i.e. the most sensitive to pollinator loss) interacted with more particular sets of pollinators (i.e. shared a low proportion of pollinators with other plants). Only two assemblages showed lower robustness under the scenario considering plant generalization, dependence on pollinators and dispersal ability than under the scenario where extinction sequences only depended on plant generalization (i.e. where higher generalization level was associated with lower probability of extinction). Overall, our results support the idea that species generalization and network topology may be good predictors of assemblage robustness to species loss, independently of plant dispersal ability and breeding system. In contrast, since ecological specialization among partners may increase the probability of disruption of interactions, the fact that the plants most sensitive to pollinator loss interacted with more particular pollinator assemblages suggest that the persistence of these plants and their pollinators might be highly compromised.
authors: CEFE UMR 5175, CNRS-Université de Montpellier-Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier-EPHE campus CNRS, Montpellier, France; Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
authors: Julia
authors: J
authors: Astegiano
authors: CEFE UMR 5175, CNRS-Université de Montpellier-Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier-EPHE campus CNRS, Montpellier, France; Laboratoire GEPV, CNRS UMR 8198, Université Lille 1, Villeneuve d'Ascq, France.
authors: François
authors: F
authors: Massol
authors: Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
authors: Mariana Morais
authors: MM
authors: Vidal
authors: CEFE UMR 5175, CNRS-Université de Montpellier-Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier-EPHE campus CNRS, Montpellier, France.
authors: Pierre-Olivier
authors: PO
authors: Cheptou
authors: Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
authors: Paulo R
authors: PR
authors: Guimarães
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D017753:Ecosystem; D007313:Insecta / Q000502:physiology; D063148:Plant Dispersal; D054817:Pollination
references: Evolution. 2001 May;55(5):880-8
references: 11430648
references: Trends Plant Sci. 2002 Jun;7(6):270-7
references: 12049924
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2003 May 7;270(1518):955-61
references: 12803911
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Aug 5;100(16):9383-7
references: 12881488
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Dec 22;271(1557):2605-11
references: 15615687
references: Oecologia. 2006 Jun;148(3):365-72
references: 16514533
references: Science. 2006 Apr 21;312(5772):431-3
references: 16627742
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 2006 Apr;21(4):178-85
references: 16701083
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Aug 22;273(1597):2041-7
references: 16846911
references: Ecol Lett. 2006 Aug;9(8):968-80
references: 16913941
references: Ecol Lett. 2006 Mar;9(3):281-6
references: 16958893
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Feb 7;274(1608):303-13
references: 17164193
references: Nature. 2007 Aug 23;448(7156):925-8
references: 17713534
references: J Theor Biol. 2007 Nov 21;249(2):307-13
references: 17897679
references: Nature. 2009 Apr 23;458(7241):1018-20
references: 19396144
references: Am Nat. 2009 Jul;174(1):46-55
references: 19456266
references: Science. 2009 Jul 24;325(5939):416-9
references: 19628856
references: Ecol Lett. 2010 Apr;13(4):442-52
references: 20100244
references: Ecology. 2010 Jan;91(1):155-65
references: 20380205
references: Evolution. 2011 Feb;65(2):591-8
references: 21271998
references: Science. 2011 Feb 25;331(6020):1068-71
references: 21292938
references: Am J Bot. 2009 Jun;96(6):1168-76
references: 21628267
references: Ann Bot. 2012 Feb;109(3):633-41
references: 21685434
references: Nature. 2011 Sep 14;478(7368):233-5
references: 21918515
references: Nature. 2012 Feb 19;483(7388):205-8
references: 22343894
references: Science. 2012 Mar 23;335(6075):1486-9
references: 22442482
references: Nature. 2012 Jul 12;487(7406):227-30
references: 22722863
references: Ecol Lett. 2013 Jul;16(7):844-52
references: 23692559
references: Ecol Evol. 2013 Sep;3(9):2958-75
references: 24101986
references: Ecol Lett. 2014 Mar;17(3):350-9
references: 24386999
references: Ecol Lett. 2015 Feb;18(2):144-52
references: 25431016
references: Oecologia. 1987 Sep;73(3):321-333
references: 28311512
references: Evolution. 1967 Dec;21(4):853-856
references: 28563079
references: Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986 Mar 15;292(6522):746-50
references: 3082422