RESEARCH ARTICLE Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks: Are we using the right measure? Roberto Novella-Fernandez ID1*, Anselm Rodrigo2,3, Xavier Arnan3, Jordi Bosch3 1 School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, England, United Kingdom, 2 Universitat Autònoma Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Catalunya, Spain, 3 CREAF, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Catalunya, Spain * R.Novella-Fernandez@soton.ac.uk a1111111111 a1111111111 Abstract a1111111111 a1111111111 Understanding how ecological networks are assembled is important because network struc- a1111111111 ture reflects ecosystem functioning and stability. Quantitative network analysis incorporates measures of interaction strength as an estimate of the magnitude of the effect of interaction partners on one another. Most plant-pollinator network studies use frequency of interaction between individual pollinators and individual plants (encounter) as a surrogate of interaction OPEN ACCESS strength. However, the number of flowers visited per encounter may strongly vary among pollinator and plant species, and therefore not all encounters are quantitatively equivalent. Citation: Novella-Fernandez R, Rodrigo A, Arnan X, Bosch J (2019) Interaction strength in plant- We sampled plant-pollinator interactions in a Mediterranean scrubland and tested whether pollinator networks: Are we using the right using a measure of interaction strength based on the number of flowers visited resulted in measure? PLoS ONE 14(12): e0225930. https:// changes in species (species strength, interaction species asymmetry, specialization) and doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 network descriptors (nestedness, H2’, interaction evenness, plant generality, pollinator gen- Editor: Kleber Del-Claro, Universidade Federal de erality) compared to the encounter-based measure. Several species (including some of the Uberlândia, BRAZIL most abundant ones) showed important changes in species descriptors, notably in speciali- Received: August 27, 2019 zation. These changes were especially important in plant species with large floral displays, Accepted: November 15, 2019 which became less specialized with the visit-based measure of interaction strength. At the Published: December 12, 2019 network level we found significant changes in all properties analysed. With the encounter- based approach plant generality was much higher than pollinator generality (high specializa- Copyright: © 2019 Novella-Fernandez et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms tion asymmetry between trophic levels). However, with the visit-based approach plant gen- of the Creative Commons Attribution License, erality was greatly reduced so that plants and pollinators had similar levels of generalization. which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and Interaction evenness also decreased strongly with the visit-based approach. We conclude reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. that accounting for the number of flowers visited per encounter provides a more ecologically relevant measure of interaction strength. Our results have important implications for the sta- Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information bility of pollination networks and the evolution of plant-pollinator interactions. The use of a files. visit-based approach is especially important in studies relating interaction network structure Funding: This study was supported by the Spanish and ecosystem function (pollination and/or exploitation of floral resources). MICINN, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (http:// www.ciencia.gob.es/); Projects CGL2005-00491, CGL2009-12646, CGL2013-41856 and CSD2008- 0040, and a Ramón y Cajal research grant to X.A. (RYC-2015-18448). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 December 12, 2019 1 / 15 Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks Competing interests: The authors have declared Introduction that no competing interests exist. One of the main aims of community ecology is to understand how interactions among species affect the structure, composition and distribution of biological communities [1]. This task may be complex, as communities are typically composed of tens or hundreds of species in each tro- phic level, and the number of potential interactions among them increases exponentially with the number of species. As empirical information on trophic and mutualistic relationships has accumulated over the last decades, network analysis has emerged as a useful approach to deal with the complexity of interaction networks (e.g. [2–4]). Interaction networks are composed of nodes (usually representing species) connected by links (representing interactions). Understanding how these networks are built is important because network structure reflects co-evolutionary processes [5], ecosystem functioning [6], and community stability [7–9]. Therefore, understanding network structure allows to predict ecosystem responses to changes in community structure (e.g. incorporation of new species [10,11] and extinctions [12]), as well as responses to disturbances (e.g. changes in land use [13–15] and climate change [16,17]. The use of network analysis to describe plant-pollinator interactions has rapidly evolved. Initial qualitative or binary networks reflecting the presence/absence of each potential interac- tion [18] have been replaced by quantitative networks, in which the link among species con- tains an estimation of the magnitude of the effect of species on one another (interaction strength; [19]. Since the first quantitative plant-pollinator network [20], a series of quantitative descriptors reflecting different aspects of network structure have been developed, including quantitative nestedness [21], network generalization-specialization [22,23], and interaction evenness (a measure of the uniformity of interaction strengths; [13]. Quantitative species descriptors have also been developed to describe the role of each species within the network. These include several specialization indexes [24], as well as indexes of species strength that measure the effect of a species on its partners (or how much the partners depend on this spe- cies) [8]. All the above metrics rely on interaction strength. Therefore, its estimation may strongly influence our perception of network structure and species roles. A good measure of interaction strength should reflect the effect of one species on the fitness of its interaction partner. This effect can be decomposed into a quantitative component that describes how frequently two species interact, and a qualitative component that describes the mutual per-encounter effect of the two species [25–27]. In plant-pollinator interactions, the qualitative component can be esti- mated by measuring the number of pollen grains deposited on the stigmatic surface of the flower and the amount of pollen collected per visit by the pollinator. However, due to the com- plexity to empirically measure the qualitative component of all interactions in a network, inter- action frequency alone is usually used as a surrogate of interaction strength. Different pollinator species deposit different amounts of pollen on the stigmas and remove different amounts of pollen/nectar per-visit (e.g. [25, 28–31]). However, some studies have shown that, at the population level, the impact of the qualitative component is often irrelevant and interac- tion frequency alone provides a good estimate of the effect of one species on another [27,32,33]. In most plant-pollinator network studies, interaction frequency is measured as the frequency of encounters between an individual pollinator and an individual plant (review in [34]). However, plant-pollinator interactions occur at the individual flower level, and thus, the trophic and reproductive interaction effects of one species on the other will be greater for encounters involving many flower visits. The number of flowers visited per encounter is known to vary across pollinator species [35–37] and to increase linearly with plant floral dis- play (number of open flowers) within a given plant species (review in [38]). We argue that a PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 December 12, 2019 2 / 15 Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks more ecologically meaningful measure of interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks should be based on the frequency of flowers visited, and that the use of such a measure may produce important changes in network structure. In this study, we sample plant-pollinator interactions in a scrubland community. We collect data on encounter frequency and on the number of flowers visited per encounter, and com- bine these two sources of information to obtain a visit-based measure of interaction frequency. Our aim is to assess whether the use of this visit-based interaction strength results in changes in network structure compared to the commonly used encounter-based measure. We have the following hypotheses: 1) At the plant interspecific level, the number of visits per encounter will increase with floral display; 2) The use of a visit-based measure of interaction strength will result in changes in species descriptors of both plants and pollinators, and, in relation to hypothesis 1, these changes will be greater in plant species with larger floral displays; 3) Because different plant species will be differently affected by the change in interaction strength measure (hypothesis 2), we expect the use of the visit-based measure to affect network structure. Methods Study area Field work was conducted in a ~ 1 ha plot located in a Mediterranean scrubland in Garraf Nat- ural Park (Barcelona, NE Spain, coordinates: 41.27˚N, 01.54˚E), at 340 m above sea level and 1700 m from the coastline. The park’s vegetation is dominated by Quercus coccifera, Pistacia lentiscus, Rosmarinus officinalis and Thymus vulgaris. Diputació de Barcelona allowed permis- sion to conduct field research in Garraf Natural Park. Terminology In the plant-pollinator literature, the terms “interaction” and “visit” have been given various meanings. We use the term “interaction” to describe the relationship between a pollinator spe- cies and a plant species, the term “encounter” to describe an individual pollinator visiting and individual plant [32], and the term “visit” to describe an individual pollinator visiting an indi- vidual flower. Therefore, each interaction includes one or more encounters and each encoun- ter one or more visits. Flower abundance and floral display In March-June 2006, we counted, once a week, the number of open flowers of each plant spe- cies in six 50 x 1 m transects forming a grid. Distance between adjacent parallel transects was 20 m. Bloom is virtually arrested in late June in coincidence with the summer drought. From these counts we obtained weekly flower density (flowers/m2), and floral display (mean number of open flowers per individual at peak bloom) of each plant species. Interaction survey Interaction surveys were conducted twice a week throughout the same period as flower counts. We surveyed the 19 most abundant entomophilous plant species, representing 99.96% of the flowers counted in the six transects. On each sampling day, we haphazardly selected 5–10 rep- resentative individuals of the plant species that were in bloom. These individuals were tagged and the number of open flowers on each of them was counted. Then, tagged plants were observed for 4-minute intervals, during which all encounters (pollinators observed on the flowers) were visually identified or captured. This procedure was repeated 5–6 times PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 December 12, 2019 3 / 15 Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks throughout the day, from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm. Total sampling time was 107 hours during which we recorded 4249 plant-pollinator encounters. Most pollinators were identified to species level. However, some closely-related species that cannot be distinguished in the field were grouped within the same morphotype (S1 Table). In addition, male and female bees of the same species were classed as different morphotypes because they collect different flower resources (males: nectar; females: nectar and pollen), which may result in differences in flower choice. For convenience we will refer to pollinator morphotypes as “species”. From these surveys we obtained a weekly measure of encounter frequency, calculated as the number of encounters observed in a week / number of open flowers surveyed in that week. Visits per encounter survey For each plant-pollinator interaction observed, we gathered data on the number of flowers vis- ited per encounter. To do this, we visually followed individual pollinators and, when they reached a plant, counted the number of flowers (inflorescences in Asteraceae) visited during a 4-minute period. It is important to note that our measure of visits per encounter is limited to 4 minutes, and therefore, for pollinator species spending longer periods of time on a given indi- vidual plant (e.g. coleopterans), we may have underestimated the number of visits per encoun- ter. These surveys were conducted in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011 and 2015. We gathered 4932 visits-per-encounter observations, corresponding to 294 of the 340 inter- actions observed (86.4%), and accounting for 99.5% of the encounter frequency of the net- work. With these data we estimated the mean number of visits-per-encounter for each interaction. For many of these interactions (177, representing 95.1% of the encounter fre- quency), this estimate was based on � 5 observations. There were 46 interactions (0.52% of the encounter frequency) for which we could not obtain data of visits per encounter. For 36 of these (0.49% of the encounter frequency) we used visits-per-encounter values from a function- ally similar pollinator species (usually a species of the same genus and with similar body size) on the same plant species. For 4 additional interactions (0.022% of the encounter frequency) we estimated mean visits-per-encounter using expert criteria (i.e., in plants with large flowers, coleopterans usually visited a single flower per encounter during the 4-minute observation period). Finally, for the remaining 6 interactions, we could not obtain any evidence-based esti- mate of number of visits per encounter and these interactions were excluded from all analyses. Interaction strength As mentioned, most plant-pollinator quantitative network studies use a measure of interaction strength based on the frequency of encounters recorded between each plant and pollinator species [34]. Because flower abundance at a given site varies widely among plant species and sampling effort is often not correlated to flower abundance, encounter frequency should be weighted by flower abundance [39]. Because flower abundance varies through time, our encounter-based interaction strength between plant species A and pollinator species B was cal- culated as the sum of weekly encounter frequencies (number of encounters between A and B observed in a week) divided by the number of open flowers of species A surveyed in that week, multiplied by the weekly flower abundance of species A. To obtain visit-based interaction strength, we multiplied the encounter-based strength by the mean number of flower visits per encounter of each interaction. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 December 12, 2019 4 / 15 Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks Species descriptors For each plant and pollinator species in the network, we calculated three species descriptors using the two interaction strength measures (encounter- and visit-based). Species strength. Pro- vides a quantitative measure of the importance of a species for its partners. It is calculated as the sum of the dependences of all the partners on that species [8]. Species interaction asymme- try. A measure of the imbalance between the effect that a species has on its partners and the dependence of that species on their partners. We use the Push-pull index [40], which ranges from -1 to 1. Positive values indicate that a species affects its interaction partners more strongly than it is affected by them (“pusher” species). Negative values indicate that a species experi- ences strong effects from its interaction partners but does not exert a strong reciprocal effect on them (“puller” species). 0 indicates total dependence symmetry. Generalization-specializa- tion. We use the d’ index [23], which measures the level of specialization of a species account- ing for the relative abundance of its partners, ranging from 0 (minimum specialization) to 1 (maximum specialization). Network descriptors We calculated five network descriptors with each of the two measures of interaction strength. Nestedness. A measure of the extent to which specialists interact with species that form perfect subsets of the species with which generalists interact. We use the weighted NODF index [21] as a measure of nestedness. Plant generality. The weighted mean number of pollinator species per plant species. Equivalent to vulnerability in food webs [22]. Pollinator generality. The weighted mean number of plant species per pollinator species [22]. Network specialization. We use H2' [23], which ranges from 0 (maximum generalization) to 1 (maximum specialization). Interaction Evenness. A measure of the uniformity of interaction strengths in the network [13]. All species and network descriptors were calculated with bipartite package 2.05 [41] in R v.3.2.4 statistical environment [42]. Statistical analyses All statistical analyses were conducted in R. Objective 1. We used a linear mixed model (function glmer in R package lme4 [43]) to test for differences in number of visits per encounter among plant species, using visits per encoun- ter as response variable and plant species as fixed factor. Each plant-pollinator species interac- tion was a replicate. Since the number of flowers that a pollinator species visits per encounter might be influenced by the pollinator group (ants, bees, Coleoptera, Diptera, Heteroptera, Lep- idoptera, Orthoptera and wasps) [35–37], pollinator group was added as a random factor. We then used a linear regression to test whether plant species with larger floral displays (predictor variable) received more visits per encounter (response variable: mean visits per encounter). Objective 2. To test whether changing the measure of interaction strength affected plant and pollinator species descriptors, we run a linear regression model for each species descriptor with the encounter-based value as the predictor variable, the visit-based value as the response variable, and species as replicates. A slope not significantly different from 1, in combination with a high coefficient of determination, would indicate that the species descriptor is not sub- stantially affected by the measure of interaction strength. To comply with normality assump- tions, species strengths (both encounter- and visit-based) were log-transformed and d’ specialization index of plants was arcsin (sqrt) transformed. We expected plant species with larger flower displays to be most affected by the change in the measure of interaction strength. Thus, for each plant species descriptor separately, we used linear regression models with change in the descriptor (ratio of the value obtained using the visit-based strength divided by PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 December 12, 2019 5 / 15 Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks the value obtained using the encounter-based strength) as the response variable, and floral dis- play as the predictor variable. Floral display for all descriptors and ratios of change of species strength were log-transformed. Ratio of change of d’ specialization index was square root transformed. Objective 3. To test whether the two interaction strength measures produced differences in network descriptors we used a bootstrapping approach. We randomly subsampled the original pool of observed encounters 100 times to obtain 100 random encounter-based networks. We then used visit-per-encounter data to transform these 100 networks into visit-based networks, thus obtaining 100 pairs of networks. Descriptors of the encounter-based and visit-based net- works were then compared with paired t-tests. Some network descriptors are sensitive to net- work size [41]. For this reason, this procedure was repeated three times with different subsampling intensities (25, 50 and 75% of the original number of encounters). Results We recorded 4249 encounters of pollinators with plants. The resulting network comprised 334 interactions between 19 plant and 122 pollinator species (39 bees, 27 Coleoptera, 20 Diptera, 15 Lepidoptera, 9 wasps, 8 ants, 3 Heteroptera and 1 Orthoptera; S1 Table). The encounter-based and the visit-based networks are represented in Fig 1. Both were char- acterized by a few very strong interactions and a large majority of weak interactions. In both matrices, the plant species with the highest interaction frequency were Cistus albidus, Rosmari- nus officinalis and Thymus vulgaris, and the two most-frequently interacting pollinator species were the beetle Lobonyx aeneus and the honey bee, Apis mellifera (Fig 1). However, the two networks showed marked differences in the interaction strength of the three main interactions. In the visit-based network, the interactions A. mellifera-R. officinalis and A. mellifera-T. vulga- ris became much stronger, whereas the interaction L. aeneus-C. albidus became much weaker (Fig 1). Visits per encounter (Objective 1) Different plant species received different numbers of visits per encounter (Linear mixed model; χ218: 291.3; p<0.0001; Table 1), and these differences were positively correlated to floral display (Linear regression model; F17 = 18.2, p = 0.0005, R2 = 0.49) (Fig 2). Species descriptors (Objective 2) Species strength. S1A Fig shows the strength of each plant species calculated based on the two interaction strength measures. The two measures of plant species strength were highly and positively related, and the slope of their relationship was not different from 1 (Linear regres- sion model: F17 = 1861.0, p<0.0001, R2 = 0.99, β±SE: 1.01±0.024; Fig 3A), thus indicating that species strength was not substantially affected by the measure of interaction strength used. Nonetheless, the magnitude of change from encounter-based species strength to visit-based species strength increased with floral display (Linear regression model: F17 = 7.5, p = 0.014, R2 = 0.26, Fig 4A). The strength of the 30 main pollinator species is shown in S1B Fig. Interestingly, the stron- gest species (Plagiolepis pygmaea, Rhodanthidium sticticum M and Rhodanthidium sticticum F) were not involved in the strongest interactions (Fig 1). The two measures of interaction strength were again highly and positively correlated, and the slope of their relationship was not different from 1 (F122 = 1092.0, p<0.0001, R2 = 0.90, β±SE: 1.01±0.031; Fig 3B). However, some of the strongest species experienced important changes when comparing the two interac- tion strength measures. For instance, A. mellifera strength increased 1.74-fold, and the strength PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 December 12, 2019 6 / 15 Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks Fig 1. The plant-pollinator network according to encounter-based (top) and visit-based (bottom) measures of interaction strength. Pollinator species in orange, plant species in green. Width of horizonal bars denotes interaction frequency of each species. Gray bar width denotes interaction strength. See Table 1 for plant species. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930.g001 of Rhodanthidium sticticum M and Plagiolepis pygmaea decreased 0.71- and 0.76-fold, respec- tively in the visit-based network (Fig 1). Interaction species asymmetry. We analysed species asymmetry with the push-pull index. Most plant species were "pushers" (had high positive index values; S2A Fig), indicating they had a strong effect on their pollinators but were not highly dependent on them. The val- ues of the push-pull index obtained with the two interaction strength measures were highly and positively correlated, and the slope of this relationship was not different from 1 (F17 = 362.6, p<0.0001, R2 = 0.95; β±SE: 1.00±0.053; Fig 3C). No species changed from pusher to puller or vice-versa (S2A Fig). However, changes in push-pull index tended to be greater in species with large floral displays (F17 = 5.5, p = 0.031, R2 = 0.20; Fig 4B). That is, species with greater floral displays increased their effect on pollinators and species with smaller displays became more dependent on pollinators. Most pollinator species were "pullers", depending strongly on certain plant species but barely affecting them (S2B Fig). The values of the push-pull index obtained with the two inter- action strength measures were again highly and positively correlated, and the slope of this rela- tionship was not different from 1 (Linear model: F122 = 17000, p<0.0001, R2 = 0.99; β±SE: 1.00 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 December 12, 2019 7 / 15 Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks Table 1. Number of pollinator species, mean ± SD number of visits per encounter (mean of all pollinator species) and floral display (mean number of open flowers at peak bloom) for each plant species surveyed. Code Plant species Pollinator Visits per encounter Floral display species (n) TVU Thymus vulgaris 19 11.3 ± 9.3 576 EFL Euphorbia flavicoma 17 7.6 ± 7.2 63 MNE Muscari neglectum 3 7.0 ± 3.7 9 SHI Sideritis hirsuta 11 6.2 ± 6.8 124 ROF Rosmarinus officinalis 15 5.6 ± 6.0 502 DHI Dorycnium hirsutum 25 5.2 ± 5.7 14 GAP Galium aparine 16 3.9 ± 2.8 294 BLA Biscutella laevigata 18 2.9 ± 2.5 19 CPA Centaurea paniculata 28 2.2 ± 1.5 7 ILU Iris lutescens 4 2.1 ± 1.4 10 OLA Orobanche latisquama 3 1.9 ± 0.9 62 RGR Ranunculus gramineus 16 1.8 ± 1.2 3 CAL Cistus albidus 22 1.7 ± 1.2 10 CSA Cistus salvifolius 20 1.6 ± 0.9 6 CLI Centeurea linifolia 25 1.5 ± 0.6 3 LCO Leuzea conifera 11 1.3 ± 0.5 2 PLY Phlomis lychnitis 12 1.3 ± 0.4 33 GIL Gladiolus illyricus 8 1.3 ± 0.3 2 CON Convolvulus althaeoides 21 1.2 ± 0.4 5 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930.t001 Fig 2. Relationship between mean number of visits per encounter (log-transformed) and floral display (log- transformed) (p = 0.0005; R2 = 0.49; n = 19 plant species). Shaded areas denote 95% confidence interval. See Table 1 for plant species names. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930.g002 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 December 12, 2019 8 / 15 Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks Fig 3. Relationship between encounter-based and visit-based measures of three species descriptors (species strength, push-pull index and d’ specialization index) for plants (a, c, e) and pollinators (b, d, f). Shaded areas denote 95% confidence intervals. Grey lines indicate slope = 1. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930.g003 ±0.008; Fig 3D). However, some of the pusher species experienced important changes (e.g. 2.78-fold in A. mellifera) (S2B Fig). As with plants, no species changed from pusher to puller or vice-versa. Generalization-specialization. Species specialization was characterized with the d’ index. For plants, specialization values obtained with the two measures of interaction strength were not significantly related (F17 = 1.4, p = 0.25; Fig 3E). For most species, specialization increased with the visit-based measure of interaction strength, but three species experienced strong declines (S3A Fig). The magnitude of the change in d’ decreased with floral display (Linear model: F17 = 12.9, p = 0.002, R2 = 0.40; Fig 4C). That is, plant species with larger floral displays tended to become more generalized in the visit-based network. Fig 4. Relationship between the magnitude of the change (ratio of the visit-based value divided by encounter-based value) of three species descriptors (species strength, push-pull index and d’ specialization index) and floral display of plant species. Shaded areas denote 95% confidence intervals. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930.g004 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 December 12, 2019 9 / 15 Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks Specialization of pollinator species with the two measures of interaction strength was signif- icantly and positively related, but the slope was significantly different from 1 (Linear model: F122 = 306.9, p<0.0001, R2 = 0.71; β±SE:0.80±0.046; Fig 3F). As with plants, some species expe- rienced strong (2-3-fold) changes when using the visit-based approach (S3B Fig). Network descriptors (Objective 3) We obtained consistent significant differences between paired encounter-based and visit- based subnetworks for all descriptors across the three subnetwork sizes (Table 2). The magni- tude of these differences was always comparable to the magnitude of the differences between the two original networks (Table 2). The magnitude of these changes varied greatly among descriptors (Table 2). Nestedness experienced a moderate increase and H2' a very small decrease. On the other hand, interaction evenness decreased markedly. Interestingly, plant generality decreased very strongly, whereas pollinator generality increases slightly. As a result, the large differences in generality between the plant and pollinator trophic levels obtained with the encounter-based measure (3.53 vs 1.88) almost disappeared with the visit-based measure (2.16 vs 2.03) (Table 2). Discussion Understanding how different approaches to estimate interaction strength may influence net- work structure has generated much debate in the interaction literature (e.g. [22,44–46]). The commonly used measure of interaction strength in plant-pollinator systems is based on the fre- quency of encounters between individual plants and pollinators. However, flower visits better quantify the number of events in which pollen deposition and/or floral resource uptake may occur, and thus a measure based on frequency of flower visits provides a more ecologically meaningful interaction strength measure. We show that using a visit-based measure results in important changes in interaction strength and network structure. The use of a visit-based approach is only justified if plant species show significant differ- ences in the number of visits-per-encounter. Thus, our first objective was to establish whether these differences occurred and whether they were related to floral display. Previous studies have shown that, within a plant species, the number of visits per encounter increases linearly with floral display [38,47,48]. At the interspecific level, the situation is more complex for two reasons. First, different plant species differ not only in floral display, but also in the amounts of pollen and nectar produced per flower. Second, different plant species are visited by different pollinators, and, within a plant species, different pollinator species are known to visit different proportions of the available open flowers [35–37]. Our results show that the positive and linear relationship between visits per encounter and floral display is maintained at the community level. Our second objective was to determine whether the use of a visit-based measure of interac- tion strength, as opposed to an encounter-based measure, would result in changes in species properties. We analysed changes in species strength, interaction species asymmetry (push-pull index), and specialization (d’ index). Species strength and interaction species asymmetry val- ues obtained with the two interaction strength measures were highly correlated. On the other hand, specialization values obtained with the two measures were correlated only for pollinators and then with a slope different from 1. Overall, several plant and pollinator species (including some with high interaction frequencies) experienced important changes in one or more of the metrics measured. For example, species strength of the honey bee, Apis mellifera, almost dou- bled, and specialization of Thymus vulgaris decreased more than two-fold. As predicted, PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 December 12, 2019 10 / 15 Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks Table 2. Descriptors of the original encounter-based and visit-based networks and of the networks obtained through bootstrapping (random subsamples of 25, 50 and 75% of the original interactions) (mean ± SD, n = 100). P-values of paired t-tests comparing encounter- and visit-based subsampled networks are shown. Network Interaction strength Original 25% subsample 50% subsample 75% subsample descriptor measure networks networks networks networks Mean ± SD P Mean ± SD P Mean ± SD P Nestedness (wNODF) Encounter 14.56 12.16 ± 0.99 <0.0001 13.19 ± 0.68 <0.0001 14.04 ± 0.49 <0.0001 Visit 16.05 13.67 ± 1.16 14.60 ± 0.78 15.42 ± 0.54 Interaction evenness Encounter 0.32 0.32 ± 0.02 <0.0001 0.32 ± 0.01 <0.0001 0.32 ± 0.01 <0.0001 Visit 0.22 0.22 ± 0.03 0.22 ± 0.01 0.22 ± 0.01 Network Specialization (H2’) Encounter 0.64 0.69 ± 0.04 0.0081 0.66 ±0.03 0.0009 0.64 ± 0.02 <0.0001 Visit 0.62 0.68 ± 0.06 0.65 ± 0.04 0.63 ± 0.02 Plant generality Encounter 3.53 3.06 ± 0.28 <0.0001 3.30 ± 0.17 <0.0001 3.45 ± 0.10 <0.0001 Visit 2.16 1.95 ± 0.25 2.07 ± 0.15 2.13 ± 0.10 Pollinator generality Encounter 1.88 1.75 ± 0.08 <0.0001 1.81 ± 0.05 <0.0001 1.85 ± 0.03 <0.0001 Visit 2.03 1.98 ±0.12 1.99 ± 0.08 2.02 ± 0.04 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930.t002 changes in plant species metrics tended to be greater in species with larger floral displays. Plant species with larger floral displays tended to become less specialized. Our third objective was to establish whether using a visit-based measure of interaction strength resulted in changes in the network structure. We found significant changes in the five metrics that we analysed. The encounter-based measure produced a strong asymmetry in spe- cialization between the two trophic levels, with pollinators being much more specialized than plants. However, plant generality strongly declined with the visit-based approach, resulting in similar levels of specialization in the two trophic levels. The visit-based approach also pro- duced a strong decline in interaction evenness. These structural changes have important eco- logical consequences for the stability of plant-pollinator communities. Specialization in pollination networks has been linked, both theoretically and empirically, to susceptibility to disturbances and extinction risk (e.g. [14,49]). Our results also have consequences on how we perceive the evolution of plant-pollinator interactions, as high levels of specialization facilitate the appearance of tight coevolutionary processes [5,50,51]. We conclude that accounting for the number of visits per encounter results in important changes in our perception of plant-pol- linator interactions. Such an approach provides a better measure of the number of events in which pollen deposition and/or floral resource uptake may occur, and therefore is particularly relevant in studies exploring the relationship between network structure and function. Supporting information S1 Table. Pollinator species (M: male; F: female) of the Garraf community. (DOCX) S1 Fig. Plant (a) and pollinator (b) species strength according to two measures of interaction frequency, an encounter-based measure and a visit-based measure. See Table 1 for plant spe- cies names. Only the 30 main pollinator species (based on encounter interaction strength) are represented. (DOCX) S2 Fig. Plant (a) and pollinator (b) species push-pull index according to two measures of interaction frequency, an encounter-based measure and a visit-based measure. Positive values indicate that a species is a “pusher” (species that affect their interaction partners more strongly than they are affected by them). Negative values indicate that the species is a “puller” (species PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 December 12, 2019 11 / 15 Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks that experience strong effects from their interaction partners but do not exert a strong recipro- cal effect on them). See Table 1 for plant species names. Only the 30 main pollinator species (based on encounter interaction strength) are represented. (DOCX) S3 Fig. Plant (a) and pollinator (b) specialization (d’ index) according to two measures of interaction frequency, an encounter-based measure and a visit-based measure. See Table 1 for plant species names. Only the 30 main pollinator species (based on encounter interaction strength) are represented. (DOCX) S1 Dataset. Plant-pollinator interactions in the network and their interaction strengths using the encounter and visit based measures. (CSV) S2 Dataset. Floral display of the plant species in the network. (CSV) Acknowledgments We are grateful to S. Reverté, H. Barril, M.A. Requesens, C. Primante and A.M. Martı́n-Gonzá- lez for their assistance during field work, and to C. Ruiz Arenas for his help with data manage- ment. We also thank J. M. Gómez (CSIC, Almerı́a) for his comments on an early draft of the manuscript. Finally, we thank Diputació de Barcelona for allowing us to work in the Garraf Natural Park. Author Contributions Conceptualization: Anselm Rodrigo, Xavier Arnan, Jordi Bosch. Data curation: Roberto Novella-Fernandez, Anselm Rodrigo. Formal analysis: Roberto Novella-Fernandez. Funding acquisition: Anselm Rodrigo, Jordi Bosch. Investigation: Anselm Rodrigo, Jordi Bosch. Methodology: Roberto Novella-Fernandez. Project administration: Anselm Rodrigo, Jordi Bosch. Supervision: Anselm Rodrigo, Xavier Arnan, Jordi Bosch. Writing – original draft: Roberto Novella-Fernandez. Writing – review & editing: Roberto Novella-Fernandez, Anselm Rodrigo, Xavier Arnan, Jordi Bosch. References 1. Johnson MTJ, Stinchcombe JR. An emerging synthesis between community ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007; 22: 250–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.01.014 PMID: 17296244 2. Bascompte J, Jordano P. Plant-Animal Mutualistic Networks: The Architecture of Biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2007; 38: 567–593. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095818 3. Vázquez DP, Bluthgen N, Cagnolo L, Chacoff NP. Uniting pattern and process in plant-animal mutualis- tic networks: A review. Ann Bot. 2009; 103: 1445–1457. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcp057 PMID: 19304996 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 December 12, 2019 12 / 15 Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks 4. Landi P, Minoarivelo HO, Brännström Å, Hui C, Dieckmann U. Complexity and stability of adaptive eco- logical networks: A survey of the theory in community ecology. Popul Ecol. 2018; 60: 319–345. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71486-8_12 5. Guimarães PR, Jordano P, Thompson JN. Evolution and coevolution in mutualistic networks. Ecol Lett. 2011; 14: 877–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01649.x PMID: 21749596 6. Gómez JM, Perfectti F, Jordano P. The Functional Consequences of Mutualistic Network Architecture. PLoS One. 2011; 6: 1435–1439. https://doi.org/10.1371/Citation 7. Jordano P, Bascompte J, Olesen JM. The ecological consequences of complex topology and nested structure in pollination webs. In: Waser N.M. & Ollerton J, editor. Complex plant-pollinator networks. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2006. pp. 173–199. Available: http://books.google.com/books? hl=ca&lr=&id=Fbl5c9fUxTIC&pgis=1 8. Bascompte J, Jordano P, Olesen JM. Asymetric Coevolutionary Networks Facilitate Biodiversity Main- tenance. Science (80-). 2006; 312: 431–433. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1123412 PMID: 16627742 9. Kaiser-Bunbury CN, Muff S, Memmott J, Müller CB, Caflisch A. The robustness of pollination networks to the loss of species and interactions: A quantitative approach incorporating pollinator behaviour. Ecol Lett. 2010; 13: 442–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01437.x PMID: 20100244 10. Lopezaraiza-Mikel ME, Hayes RB, Whalley MR, Memmott J. The impact of an alien plant on a native plant-pollinator network: An experimental approach. Ecol Lett. 2007; 10: 539–550. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01055.x PMID: 17542933 11. Aizen MA, Morales CL, Morales JM. Invasive mutualists erode native pollination webs. PLoS Biol. 2008; 6: 0396–0403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060031 PMID: 18271628 12. Memmott J, Waser NM, Price M V. Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions. Proc Biol Sci. 2004; 271: 2605–2611. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2909 PMID: 15615687 13. Tylianakis JM, Tscharntke T, Lewis OT. Habitat modification alters the structure of tropical host-parasit- oid food webs. Nature. 2007; 445: 202–205. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05429 PMID: 17215842 14. Weiner CN, Werner M, Linsenmair KE, Blüthgen N. Land-use impacts on plant-pollinator networks: Interaction strength and specialization predict pollinator declines. Ecology. 2014; 95: 466–474. https:// doi.org/10.1890/13-0436.1 PMID: 24669739 15. Osorio S, Arnan X, Bassols E, Vicens N, Bosch J. Local and landscape effects in a host-parasitoid inter- action network along a forest-cropland gradient. Ecol Appl. 2015; 25: 1869–1879. https://doi.org/10. 1890/14-2476.1 PMID: 26591453 16. Hegland SJ, Nielsen A, Lázaro A, Bjerknes AL, Totland Ø. How does climate warming affect plant-polli- nator interactions? Ecol Lett. 2009; 12: 184–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01269.x PMID: 19049509 17. Memmott J, Craze PG, Waser NM, Price M V. Global warming and the disruption of plant-pollinator interactions. Ecol Lett. 2007; 10: 710–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01061.x PMID: 17594426 18. Jordano P. Patterns of Mutualistic Interactions in Pollination and Seed Dispersal: Connectance, Depen- dence Asymetries, and Coevolution. Am Nat. 1987; 129: 657–677. 19. Laska MS, Wootton JT. Theoretical concepts and empirical approaches to measuring interaction strength. Ecology. 1998; 79: 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[0461:TCAEAT]2. 0.CO;2 20. Memmott J. The structure of a plant-pollination food web. Ecol Lett. 1999; 2: 276–280. 21. Almeida-Neto M, Ulrich W. A straightforward computational approach for measuring nestedness using quantitative matrices. Environ Model Softw. 2011; 26: 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010. 08.003 22. Bersier LF, Banašek-Richter C, Cattin MF. Quantitative descriptors of food-web matrices. Ecology. 2002; 83: 2394–2407. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2394:QDOFWM]2.0.CO;2 23. Blüthgen N, Menzel F, Blüthgen N. Measuring specialization in species interaction networks. BMC Ecol. 2006; 6: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-6-1 PMID: 16412253 24. Poisot T, Canard E, Mouquet N, Hochberg ME. A comparative study of ecological specialization estima- tors. Methods Ecol Evol. 2012; 3: 537–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00174.x 25. Herrera CM. Components of Pollinator “Quality”: Comparative Analysis of a Diverse Insect Assem- blage. Oikos. 1987; 50: 79–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/3565403 26. Herrera CM. Pollinator abundance, morphology, and flower visitation rate: analysis of the “quantity” component in a plant-pollinator system. Oecologia. 1989; 80: 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00380158 PMID: 28313114 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 December 12, 2019 13 / 15 Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks 27. Vázquez DP, Morris WF, Jordano P. Interaction frequency as a surrogate for the total effect of animal mutualists on plants. Ecol Lett. 2005; 8: 1088–1094. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00810.x 28. Wilson P, Thomson JD. Heterogeneity Among Floral Visitors Leads to Discordance Between Removal and Deposition of Pollen. Ecology. 1991; 72: 1503–1507. 29. Ne’Eman G, Jürgens A, Newstrom-Lloyd L, Potts SG, Dafni A. A framework for comparing pollinator performance: Effectiveness and efficiency. Biol Rev. 2010; 85: 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469- 185X.2009.00108.x PMID: 20015317 30. King C, Ballantyne G, Willmer PG. Why flower visitation is a poor proxy for pollination: Measuring sin- gle-visit pollen deposition, with implications for pollination networks and conservation. Methods Ecol Evol. 2013; 4: 811–818. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12074 31. Santiago-Hernández MH, Martén-Rodrı́guez S, Lopezaraiza-Mikel M, Oyama K, González-Rodrı́guez A, Quesada M. The role of pollination effectiveness on the attributes of interaction networks: from floral visitation to plant fitness. Ecology. 2019; 100: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2803 PMID: 31240696 32. Vázquez DP, Lomascolo SB, Belen Maldonado M, Chacoff NP, Dorado J, Stevani EL, et al. The strength of plant-pollinator interactions. Ecology. 2012; 93: 719–725. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1356.1 PMID: 22690622 33. Sahli HF, Conner JK. Characterizing ecological generalization in plant-pollination systems. Oecologia. 2006; 148: 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-006-0396-1 PMID: 16514533 34. Castro-Urgal R, Tur C, Albrecht M, Traveset A. How different link weights affect the structure of quanti- tative flower-visitation networks. Basic Appl Ecol. 2012; 13: 500–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae. 2012.08.002 35. Arnan X, Escolà A, Rodrigo A, Bosch J. Female reproductive success in gynodioecious Thymus vulga- ris: Pollen versus nutrient limitation and pollinator foraging behaviour. Bot J Linn Soc. 2014; 175: 395– 408. https://doi.org/10.1111/boj.12173 36. Herrera CM. Flower-to-seedling consequences of different pollination regimes in an insect-pollinated shrub. Ecology. 2000; 81: 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[0015:FTSCOD]2.0. CO;2 37. Thompson JD. How do visitation patterns vary among pollinators in relation to floral display and floral design in a generalist pollination system? Oecologia. 2001; 126: 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s004420000531 PMID: 28547453 38. Ohashi K, Yahara T. Effects of Variation in Flower Number on Pollinator Visits in Cirsium purpuratum (Asteraceae). Am J Bot. 1998; 85: 219–224. PMID: 21684905 39. Kaiser-Bunbury CN, Memmott J, Müller CB. Community structure of pollination webs of Mauritian heathland habitats. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst. 2009; 11: 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees. 2009.04.001 40. Vázquez DP, Melián CJ, Williams NM, Blüthgen N, Krasnov BR, Poulin R. Species abundance and asymmetric interaction strength in ecological networks. Oikos. 2007; 116: 1120–1127. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.2007.0030–1299.15828.x 41. Dormann CF, Frund J, Bluthgen N, Gruber B. Indices, Graphs and Null Models: Analyzing Bipartite Eco- logical Networks. Open Ecol J. 2009; 2: 7–24. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874213000902010007 42. R core team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Core Team; 2019. 43. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015; 67: 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 44. Berlow EL, Neutel AM, Cohen JE, De Ruiter PC, Ebenman B, Emmerson M, et al. Interaction strengths in food webs: Issues and opportunities. J Anim Ecol. 2004; 73: 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021- 8790.2004.00833.x 45. Jordano P. Sampling networks of ecological interactions. Funct Ecol. 2016; 30: 1883–1893. https://doi. org/10.1111/1365-2435.12763 46. Miranda PN, Ribeiro JEL da S, Luna P, Brasil I, Delabie JHC, Dáttilo W. The dilemma of binary or weighted data in interaction networks. Ecol Complex. 2019; 38: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom. 2018.12.006 47. Mitchell RJ, Karron JD, Holmquist KG, Bell JM. The influence of Mimulus ringens floral display size on pollinator visitation patterns. Funct Ecol. 2004; 18: 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2004. 00812.x 48. Miyake YC, Sakai S. Effects of number of flowers per raceme and number of racemes per plant on bum- blebee visits and female reproductive success in Salvia nipponica (Labiatae). Ecol Res. 2005; 20: 395– 403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-004-0035-4 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 December 12, 2019 14 / 15 Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks 49. Abramson G, Trejo Soto CA, Oña L. The role of asymmetric interactions on the effect of habitat destruc- tion in mutualistic networks. PLoS One. 2011; 6: e21028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021028 PMID: 21698298 50. Armbruster WS. The specialization continuum in pollination systems: diversity of concepts and implica- tions for ecology, evolution and conservation. Funct Ecol. 2017; 31: 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1365-2435.12783 51. Mitchell RJ, Irwin RE, Flanagan RJ, Karron JD. Ecology and evolution of plant–pollinator interactions. Ann Bot. 2009; 103: 1355–1363. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcp122 PMID: 19482881 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 December 12, 2019 15 / 15