This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
'), modularity, and functional complementarity were all positively related to floral richness and landscape heterogeneity, indicating niche segregation as the diversity of resources increases at both scales. Flower richness also increased the proportion of actively selected interactions (especially for wild bees and flies), whereas landscape heterogeneity had a weak negative effect on this variable. Overall, network-level metrics responded to larger landscape scales than pollinator-level metrics did. Higher floral richness resulted in a wider taxonomic and functional diet for all the study guilds, while functional diet increased mainly for beetles. Despite this, specialization in networks (d') increased with flower richness for all the study guilds, because pollinator species fed on a narrower subset of plants as communities became richer in species. Our study indicates that pollinators are able to adapt their diet to resource changes at local and landscape scales. However, resource homogenization might lead to poor and generalist pollinator communities, where functionally specialized interactions are lost. This study highlights the importance of including different scales to understand the effects of global change on pollination service through changes in resource diversity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martínez et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: