Data from: Empirical evidence for the ecological significance of interaction network indices within a mutualistic network
Data files
Jan 31, 2025 version files 12.95 KB
-
Arceo-Gomez_Carneiro_network_matrix.txt
6.79 KB
-
Arceo-Gomez_Carneiro_network_success_dataset.csv
1.91 KB
-
README.md
4.25 KB
Sep 30, 2025 version files 14.33 KB
Abstract
Community resilience and stability have often been considered outcomes of interaction network structure. These assumptions however have faced strong criticism given that the ecological outcomes of the interactions are often ignored, leading to the overinterpretation of network structural properties. Evaluating the link between network structure and components of reproductive success across species can thus help provide a more ecologically relevant understanding of the relationship between network structure and function (i.e., stability). Specifically, within pollination networks, there is a need to integrate knowledge of interaction network structure with pollination outcomes that reflect the full complexity of the pollination process. Here, we obtained and integrated data on network structural properties resulting from the interactions between 20 plant and 110 floral-visiting species, with multiple estimates of male and female reproductive success for all plant species. Network properties differentially affected male and female reproductive functions. An increase in plant species partner diversity and contribution to nestedness positively associated with the proportion of flowers receiving conspecific pollen but had no effect on pollen dispersal or tube formation. Specialization was the only network property that maximized both functions, suggesting this component play a larger role in long-term stability of plant communities. These results emphasize the need to incorporate empirical knowledge of interaction outcomes into our understanding of the functional consequences of network structure. This knowledge is key to overcoming fundamental limitations in network ecology providing meaningful insights into the resilience and stability of ecological systems.
https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.3n5tb2rv4
Description of the data and file structure
File 1: Arceo-Gomez_Carneiro_network_matrix_updated.txt
Matrix used to build the plant-pollinator network, containing the 20 plant species and 110 flower-visiting insect species/morphospecies.
File 2: Arceo-Gomez_Carneiro_network_success_dataset_updated.csv
Dataset containing 20 rows (plant species) and 16 columns — variables obtained at the species level, including: plant identification, number of flowers/styles sampled, number of flowers with CP, total number of CP, total number of pollen tubes, total number of HP, pollen loss, mean pollen dispersal, partner diversity, specialization d, contribution to nestedness, partner diversity (z, standardized), specialization d (z, standardized), contribution to nestedness (z, standardized), flower abundance, and log flower abundance (z, standardized).
Files and variables
File 1: Arceo-Gomez_Carneiro_network_matrix_updated.txt
Description:
Matrix
Plant acronyms as columns (20 plant species) and flower-visiting insect species/morphospecies as rows (110 insect species).
Plant acronyms | Plant species | Plant family |
---|---|---|
LAMI | Lagophylla minor | Asteraceae |
ZIVE | Zigadenus venenosus | Melanthiaceae |
CLCO | Clarkia concinna | Onagraceae |
MINU | Mimulus nudatus | Phrymaceae |
CETR | Centaurium trichanthum | Gentianaceae |
ANCO | Antirrhinum cornutum | Plantaginaceae |
ALFI | Allium fimbriatum | Amaryllidaceae |
DEUL | Delphinium uliginosum | Ranunculaceae |
ALAM | Allium amplectens | Amaryllidaceae |
CLGR | Clarkia gracilis | Onagraceae |
STBR | Streptanthus breweri | Brassicaceae |
ANVE | Antirrhinum vexillocalyculatum | Plantaginaceae |
MIGU | Mimulus guttatus | Phrymaceae |
CARU | Castilleja rubicundula | Orobanchaceae |
TROB | Trifolium obtusiflorum | Fabaceae |
TRPE | Triteleia peduncularis | Asparagaceae |
BREL | Brodiaea elegans | Asparagaceae |
MILA | Mimulus layneae | Phrymaceae |
TRLA | Triteleia laxa | Asparagaceae |
MINDO | Minuartia douglasii | Caryophyllaceae |
File 2: Arceo-Gomez_Carneiro_network_success_dataset_updated.csv
Description:
Variables
-
plant species: Plant species ID (see the table above for species names).
-
number of flowers sampled: Number of flowers (styles) collected to quantify conspecific pollen, heterospecific pollen and pollen tube formation.
-
number of flowers with CP: Total of sampled flowers per plant species having conspecific pollen.
-
total number of CP: Total number of conspecific pollen per plant species.
-
total number of pollen tubes: Total number of pollen tubes formed.
-
total number of HP: Total number of heterospecific pollen per plant species.
-
pollen loss: Total number of conspecific pollen found on heterospecific stigmas.
-
mean pollen dispersal: Mean number of pollen grains of a specific species dispersed by insects.
-
partner.diversity*: Plant species-level network metric quantifying Shannon diversity (when using logbase="e") or per-species generality/vulnerability (when using logbase=2) of the interactions of each species.
-
specialization.d*: Plant species-level network metric measuring specialization of each species based on its discrimination from random selection of partners.
-
contrib.to.nestedness*: Plant species-level network metric that estimates the degree to which the interactions of species increase or decrease community nestedness.
-
partner.diversity_z: Standardized form used in the models.
-
specialization.d_z: Standardized form used in the models.
-
contrib.to.nestedness_z: Standardized form used in the models.
-
flower abundance: Total number of flower abundance estimated for each species during the sampling period.
-
log_flower.abund_z: log-transformed flower abundance, standardized to be used as a covariate in the models.
*All network metrics were calculated using bipartite v.2.20 in R.
Version changes
List of changes made (30-Sept-2025)
- Sidalcea diploscypha (SIDI) had no value for flower abundance, so it was removed from the data set (file 2) as flower abundance is now a very important covariate in our study. This reduced the number of plant species (from 21 to 20) and flower-visiting insects (from 114 to 110) in the network matrix (file 1).
- Species-level network metrics were recalculated based now on the interactions among 20 plant species and 110 flower-visiting species. Standardized metrics were also added as columns. The same for log-transformed flower abundance.
This data set was used to evaluate the relationship between interaction network properties at species (strength, specialization and nestedness) and components of pollination successData collection was conducted at a serpentine seep meta-community in the McLaughlin Natural Reserve (38.8582º N, 122.4093º W) in Northern California, United States. To obtain network indices, we built a visitation-based plant-pollinator network containing 20 plants and 110 flower-visiting insect species, and calculated species strength, specialization (d') and contribution to nestedness for each plant species (n = 20). All flower-visiting insects contacting plant reproductive structures (i.e., anthers and stigmas) were collected by 2-3 people that simultaneously walked established trails between 09h00 and 15h00 using entomological nets from May 9th through June 1st, 2021 (˃ 120 hr of total observation). The following components of the pollination succes were quantified for each plant species during the same period: 1) proportion of flowers with conspecific pollen (CP), 2) mean pollen dispersal on pollinators, 3) proportion of pollen loss to heterospecific stigmas, 4) heterospecific pollen (HP) receipt, and 5) proportion of pollen tubes formed. For 1, 3, 4 and 5, we sampled 1319 flowers (styles), with a mean of 65.95 (± 32.62) styles per plant species. After appropriate processing, softening and staining, the total number of conspecific and heterospecific pollen grains on the stigmas were identified and counted. We also recorded the number of pollen tubes that reached the base of the style under a fluorescent microscope. For 2, we sampled the pollen loads carried by all 744 insects collected to estimate pollen dispersal success by counting and identifying pollen grains. Additionally, we estimated flower abundance in the flowering season using 40 plots (1x2-meter each) to understand their influence on the considered male and female components.