Search

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.

Aim Global change, especially landscape simplification, is a main driver of species loss that can alter ecological interaction networks, with potentially severe consequences to ecosystem functions. Therefore, understanding how landscape simplification affects the rate of loss of plant–pollinator interaction diversity (i.e., number of unique interactions) compared to species diversity alone, and the role of persisting abundant pollinators, is key to assess the consequences of landscape simplification on network stability and pollination services. Location   France, Germany, and Switzerland. Methods   We analysed 24 landscape-scale plant–pollinator networks from standardised transect walks along landscape simplification gradients in three countries. We compared the rates of species and interaction diversity loss along the landscape simplification gradient and then stepwise excluded the top 1%–20% most abundant pollinators from the data set to evaluate their effect on interaction diversity, network robustness to secondary loss of species, and flower visitation frequencies in simplified landscapes. Results   Interaction diversity was not more vulnerable than species diversity to landscape simplification, with pollinator and interaction diversity showing similar rates of erosion with landscape simplification. We found that 20% of both species and interactions are lost with an increase of arable crop cover from 30% to 80% in a landscape. The decrease in interaction diversity was partially buffered by persistent abundant generalist pollinators in simplified landscapes, which were nested subsets of pollinator communities in complex landscapes, while plants showed a high turnover in interactions across landscapes. The top 5% most abundant pollinator species also contributed to network robustness against secondary species loss but could not prevent flowers from a loss of visits in simplified landscapes. Main Conclusions   Although