Species traits and abundances predict metrics of plant–pollinator network structure, but not pairwise interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant–pollinator mutualistic networks represent the ecological context of foraging (for pollinators) and reproduction (for plants and some pollinators). Plant–pollinator visitation networks exhibit highly conserved structural properties across diverse habitats and species assemblages. The most successful hypotheses to explain these network properties are the neutrality and biological constraints hypotheses, which posit that species interaction frequencies can be explained by species relative abundances, and trait mismatches between potential mutualists respectively. However, previous network analyses emphasize the prediction of metrics of qualitative network structure, which may not represent stringent tests of these hypotheses. Using a newly documented temporally explicit alpine plant–pollinator visitation network, we show that metrics of both qualitative and quantitative network structure are easy to predict, even by models that predict the identity or frequency of species interactions poorly. A variety of phenological and morphological constraints as well as neutral interactions successfully predicted all network metrics tested, without accurately predicting species observed interactions. Species phenology alone was the best predictor of observed interaction frequencies. However, all models were poor predictors of species pairwise interaction frequencies, suggesting that other aspects of species biology not generally considered in network studies, such as reproduction for dipterans, play an important role in shaping plant–pollinator visitation network structure at this site. Future progress in explaining the structure and dynamics of mutualistic networks will require new approaches that emphasize accurate prediction of species pairwise interactions rather than network metrics, and better reflect the biology underlying species interactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".