bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Dalsgaard, B.

Publications and source records attributed to Dalsgaard, B..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Climate-driven specialisation in plant-pollinator networks peaks outside the tropics

Pollination is a key ecological process sustaining biodiversity and food security, yet global patterns of plant-pollinator specialisation have remained unresolved. Using the largest global dataset of quantitative networks (>3,400 networks, >110,000 interactions), we show that the latitudinal specialisation gradient (LSG) exists, but it is non-linear, hemispherically asymmetric, and strongly taxon-dependent. Network-level and pollinator specialisation were lowest in the tropics and peaked at northern mid-latitudes, whereas plants tended to become more specialised toward higher latitudes. Climate consistently outperformed latitude, species richness, and environmental productivity as a predictor of these patterns. Specialisation declined with increasing temperature, rose with moderate rainfall before declining at the wettest sites, and increased with temperature seasonality, but plants and pollinators responded differently to these drivers. Functional groups diverged strongly: ectothermic insects were most specialised in cooler, seasonal climates, while birds showed weaker links to latitude but reduced specialisation in wetter regions. These findings demonstrate that climate, rather than latitude or species richness, structures global variation in specialisation. Because warmer and less seasonal climates promote generalisation, climate change is likely to disrupt the most specialised pollination systems, unevenly across taxa and regions, with important consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem stability.

ecology↗

Niche-based processes and neutrality influence patterns of indirect interactions in mutualistic networks

Indirect interactions are central to ecological and evolutionary dynamics in pollination communities, yet we have little understanding about the processes determining patterns of indirect interactions, such as those between pollinators through shared flowering plants. Instead, research has concentrated on the processes responsible for direct interactions and whole-network structures. This is partly due to a lack of appropriate tools for characterising indirect interaction structures, because traditional network metrics discard much of this information. The recent development of tools for counting motifs (subnetworks depicting interactions between a small number of species) in bipartite networks enable detailed analysis of indirect interaction patterns. Here we generate plant-hummingbird pollination networks based on three major assembly processes - neutral effects (species interacting in proportion to abundance), morphological matching and phenological overlap - and evaluate the motifs associated with each one. We find that different processes produce networks with significantly different patterns of indirect interactions. Neutral effects tend to produce densely-connected motifs, with short indirect interaction chains, and motifs where many specialists interact indirectly through a single generalist. Conversely, niche-based processes (morphology and phenology) produced motifs with a core of interacting generalists, supported by peripheral specialists. These results have important implications for understanding the processes determining indirect interaction structures.

ecology↗

Abundance drives generalisation in hummingbird-plant pollination networks

Abundant pollinators are often more generalised than rare pollinators. This could be because abundance drives generalisation: neutral effects suggest that more abundant species will be more generalised simply because they have more chance encounters with potential interaction partners. On the other hand, generalisation could drive abundance, as generalised species could have a competitive advantage over specialists, being able to exploit a wider range of resources and gain a more balanced nutrient intake. Determining the direction of the abundance-generalisation relationship is therefore a chicken-and-egg dilemma. Here we determine the direction of the relationship between abundance and generalisation in plant-hummingbird pollination networks sampled from a variety of locations across the Americas. For the first time we resolve the direction of the abundance-generalisation relationship using independent data on animal abundance. We find evidence that hummingbird pollinators are generalised because they are abundant, and little evidence that hummingbirds are abundant because they are generalised. Additionally, a null model analysis suggests this pattern is due to neutral processes: most patterns of species-level abundance and generalisation were well explained by a null model that assumed interaction neutrality. These results suggest that neutral processes play a key role in driving broad patterns of generalisation in animal pollinators across large spatial scales.\n\nDeclarationsFunding - BIS is supported by the Natural Environment Research Council as part of the Cambridge Earth System Science NERC DTP [NE/L002507/1]. JVB was funded by CERL - Engineer Research and Development Center. PKM was funded by the Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP grant #2015/21457-4). PAC was funded by the David Lack studentship from the British Ornithologists Union and Wolfson College, University of Oxford. CL was funded by the ESDEPED-UAT grant. MAM acknowledges the Consejo Nacional para Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnologicas (Costa Rica), German Academic Exchange Service and the research funding program LOEWE-Landes-Offensive zur Entwicklung Wissenschaftlicho konomischer Exzellenz of Hesses Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and the Arts (Germany). ROP was funded by CONACyT (project 258364). MAR was supported by the State of Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) within the BIOTA/FAPESP, The Biodiversity Institute Program (www.biota.org.br) and the Parcelas Permanentes project, as well as by Coordenacao de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES), Fundo de Apoio ao Ensino e a Pesquisa (FAEP)/Funcamp/Unicamp and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) of Brazil. LCR was supported by CNPq and Capes. MS was funded by CNPq (grant #302781/2016-1). AMMG is supported through a Marie Skodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2016-704409). LVD was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (grants NE/K015419/1 and NE/N014472/1). AMMG, JS, CR and BD thank the Danish National Research Foundation for its support of the Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate (grant no. DNRF96). WJS is funded by Arcadia.

ecology↗