Search

Copyright of American Journal of Botany is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Land use change is a major pressure on pollinator abundance, diversity and plant–pollinator interactions. Far less is known about how land‐use alters the structure of plant–pollinator networks and their robustness to plant–pollinator coextinctions.We analysed the structure of plant–pollinator networks sampled in 12 landscapes along an urbanisation and agricultural intensity gradient, from early spring to late summer 2021, and used a stochastic coextinction model to correlate plant–pollinator coextinction risk with network structure (species and network‐level metrics) and landscape context.Networks in intensively managed (i.e., agricultural and urban) landscapes had a lower risk of initiating a coextinction cascade, while networks in less intensively managed landscapes may be less robust. Network structure modulated the frequency and severity of coextinctions and species loss, while the strength of species interactions increased robustness.Urban networks were more species rich and symmetrical due to the high diversity of ornamental plants, while intensively managed agricultural landscapes had smaller, more tightly connected and nested networks.Network structure modulated the frequency of extinctions, which was decreased by greater linkage density, interaction asymmetry and interaction dependence in the networks, while once an extinction occurred, nestedness and linkage density propagated the degree of the coextinction cascade and species loss. At the species level, species strength was inversely correlated with extinction risk, implying that generalist species with a high number of interactions with specialists had the lowest extinction risk.An interplay between land‐use and network structure affects community robustness to coextinctions with implications for pollination services and plant reproduction. Land‐use change or other global change pressures by reorganising species interactions can alter communities and their potential functioning. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]