Supporting Information of the article Pollinator richness, pollination networks, and diet adjustment along local and landscape gradients of resource diversity
16 pages. -- Table S1. Study sites, their coordinates, diversity at the local (flower richness) and landscape (landscape heterogeneity) scales. -- Table S2. Sampling completeness for pollinator and plant species and their interactions at each study site. -- Table S3. Pollinator community at each stu...
| Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | conjunto de datos |
| Publication Date: | 2022 |
| Country: | España |
| Institution: | Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) |
| Repository: | DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:digital.csic.es:10261/330613 |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10261/330613 |
| Access Level: | Open access |
| Summary: | 16 pages. -- Table S1. Study sites, their coordinates, diversity at the local (flower richness) and landscape (landscape heterogeneity) scales. -- Table S2. Sampling completeness for pollinator and plant species and their interactions at each study site. -- Table S3. Pollinator community at each study site. -- Table S4. Wild pollinator richness by guild at each study site. -- Table S5. Results of the GLM showing the relationships between flower richness and landscape heterogeneity and wild pollinator network metrics. -- Table S6. Correlations among the study network metrics and other metrics typically calculated in literature. -- Table S7. Functional traits of the plant species in the study sites. -- Table S8. Pollinator species included in the analyses of the breadth. -- Table S9. Akaike Information Criterion corrected for minimum sample sizes (AICc, Calcagno & de Mazancourt 2010) for best (italics) and alternative model ( ΔAIC < 2) of wild pollinator abundance. -- Table S10. Significance of network level metrics. -- Table S11. Results of the model showing the relationships between flower richness and landscape heterogeneity and wild pollinator richness by guild, with hoverflies and bee flies as separated groups from the rest of the flies. -- Fig. S1 Correlations among (A) the overall proportion of actively selected interactions (per study site) and raw values and z scores of functional complementarity; and (B) specialization (d’) of each pollinator guild per study site and the proportion of actively selected interactions. -- Fig. S2 Scatter plots for the relationships between landscape heterogeneity (landscape diversity) at different scales and flower richness (local diversity) or honeybee abundance. -- Fig. S3 Effect of local flower richness on wild pollinator richness by guild, with hoverflies and bee flies separated from the rest of the flies. |
|---|