in

Global patterns in plant–pollinator specialization


Abstract

Pollination is a key ecological process sustaining biodiversity and food security, yet global patterns of plant–pollinator specialization remain unresolved. Using a global dataset of quantitative plant–pollinator networks (>3,400 networks, >110,000 interactions), we show that specialization is latitudinally structured, but not as a single directional pattern. We find no consistent monotonic increase or decrease in specialization towards the Equator. Instead, network-level and pollinator specialization peak at low northern latitudes near the tropical–subtropical boundary, whereas plant specialization is hemispherically asymmetric. Climate is most often the best-supported predictor of specialization compared with latitude, biodiversity and environmental productivity. Network-level specialization declines with increasing mean annual temperature, with strong group-specific differences. Precipitation exerts nonlinear effects: plant specialization peaks at intermediate precipitation but is lower at the wettest sites, whereas pollinator specialization is lower at intermediate precipitation, although often in interaction with temperature. Pollinator groups diverge strongly, especially in contrasting precipitation-related patterns between birds and insects. These findings show that global plant–pollinator specialization is structured by latitude and climate in complex and taxon-specific ways, with implications for uneven responses of pollination networks to future climatic change.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Hypothesized latitudinal patterns in interaction specialization.
Fig. 2: Conceptual workflow for analysing the LSG in plant–pollinator interactions.
Fig. 3: Global coverage and taxonomic composition of the analysed plant–pollinator networks.
Fig. 4: Latitudinal patterns in specialization of plant–pollinator interactions across datasets and metrics.
Fig. 5: Best-supported climatic predictor models for plant–pollinator specialization across datasets and metrics.

Data availability

All data used for modelling (all network characteristics, including specialization metrics, together with all explanatory variables and other metadata) are available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19118146 (ref. 71). Note that raw interaction matrices are not publicly available because they are often part of ongoing projects. Requests for access to these data should be directed to S.P.S. or R. Tropek, who will coordinate the request with the contributing authors, aiming to respond within a month. The contributing authors will collectively make access decisions.

Code availability

Complete R code used for this analysis is available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19118146 (ref. 71).

References

  1. Armbruster, W. S. & Muchhala, N. Associations between floral specialization and species diversity: cause, effect, or correlation? Evol. Ecol. 23, 159–179 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  2. Van Der Niet, T. & Johnson, S. D. Phylogenetic evidence for pollinator-driven diversification of angiosperms. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 353–361 (2012).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ollerton, J. Pollinator diversity: distribution, ecological function, and conservation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 48, 353–376 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kay, K. M. & Sargent, R. D. The role of animal pollination in plant speciation: integrating ecology, geography, and genetics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 637–656 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pinheiro, R. B. P., Felix, G. M. F., Bell, J. A. & Fecchio, A. The latitudinal specialization gradient of bird–malarial parasite networks in South America: lower connectance, but more evenly distributed interactions towards the equator. Ecography 2024, e06763 10.1111/ecog.06763 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hargreaves, A. L. Geographic gradients in species interactions: from latitudinal patterns to ecological mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 55, 369–393 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  7. Schleuning, M. et al. Specialization of mutualistic interaction networks decreases toward tropical latitudes. Curr. Biol. 22, 1925–1931 (2012).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  8. Moles, A. T. & Ollerton, J. Is the notion that species interactions are stronger and more specialized in the tropics a zombie idea? Biotropica 48, 141–145 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dobzhansky, T. Evolution in the tropics. Am. Sci. 38, 208–221 (1950).

    Google Scholar 

  10. MacArthur, R. H. Geographical Ecology: Patterns in the Distribution of Species (Harper & Row, 1972).

  11. Schemske, D. W., Mittelbach, G. G., Cornell, H. V., Sobel, J. M. & Roy, K. Is there a latitudinal gradient in the importance of biotic interactions? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 245–269 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pauw, A. Can pollination niches facilitate plant coexistence? Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 30–37 (2013).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brown, J. H. Why are there so many species in the tropics? J. Biogeogr. 41, 8–22 (2014).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  14. Vázquez, D. P. & Stevens, R. D. The latitudinal gradient in niche breadth: concepts and evidence. Am. Nat. 164, E1–E19 (2004).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  15. Luna, P., Villalobos, F., Escobar, F., Neves, F. S. & Dáttilo, W. Global trends in the trophic specialisation of flower-visitor networks are explained by current and historical climate. Ecol. Lett. 25, 113–124 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ollerton, J. & Cranmer, L. Latitudinal trends in plant-pollinator interactions: are tropical plants more specialised? Oikos 98, 340–350 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rahimi, E. & Jung, C. Assessing the relationship between latitude and plant-pollinator network specialization. J. Ecol. Environ. 48, 256–262 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dalsgaard, B. et al. Specialization in plant-hummingbird networks is associated with species richness, contemporary precipitation and quaternary climate-change velocity. PLOS One 6, e25891 (2011).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  19. Trøjelsgaard, K. & Olesen, J. M. Macroecology of pollination networks. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 22, 149–162 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  20. Vizentin-Bugoni, J. et al. Plant-pollinator networks in the tropics: a review. In Ecological Networks in the Tropics (eds Dáttilo, W. & Rico-Gray, V.) 73–91 (Springer, 2018).

  21. Pauw, A. & Stanway, R. Unrivalled specialization in a pollination network from South Africa reveals that specialization increases with latitude only in the Southern Hemisphere. J. Biogeogr. 42, 652–661 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cirtwill, A. R. et al. The latitudinal biotic interaction hypothesis revisited: contrasting latitudinal richness gradients in actively vs. passively accumulated interaction partners of honey bees. BMC Ecol. Evol. 25, 24 (2025).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gorostiague, P., Ollerton, J. & Ortega-Baes, P. Latitudinal gradients in biotic interactions: are cacti pollination systems more specialized in the tropics? Plant Biol. 25, 187–191 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  24. Olesen, J. M. & Jordano, P. Geographic patterns in plant-pollinator mutualistic networks. Ecology 83, 2416–2424 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ollerton, J., Killick, A., Lamborn, E., Watts, S. & Whiston, M. Multiple meanings and modes: on the many ways to be a generalist flower. Taxon 56, 717–728 (2007).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  26. Armbruster, W. S. The specialization continuum in pollination systems: diversity of concepts and implications for ecology, evolution and conservation. Funct. Ecol. 31, 88–100 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  27. Doré, M., Fontaine, C. & Thébault, E. Relative effects of anthropogenic pressures, climate, and sampling design on the structure of pollination networks at the global scale. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1266–1280 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  28. Brimacombe, C., Bodner, K. & Fortin, M.-J. How network size strongly determines trophic specialisation: a technical comment on Luna et al. (2022). Ecol. Lett. 25, 1914–1916 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  29. Classen, A. et al. Specialization of plant–pollinator interactions increases with temperature at Mt. Kilimanjaro. Ecol. Evol. 10, 2182–2195 (2020).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bailey, S. et al. Primary productivity and species richness: relationships among functional guilds, residency groups and vagility classes at multiple spatial scales. Ecography 27, 207–217 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  31. Vázquez, D. P., Blüthgen, N., Cagnolo, L. & Chacoff, N. P. Uniting pattern and process in plant-animal mutualistic networks: a review. Ann. Bot. 103, 1445–1457 (2009).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  32. Orr, M. C. et al. Global patterns and drivers of bee distribution. Curr. Biol. 31, 451–458 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  33. Elberling, H. & Olesen, J. M. The structure of a high latitude plant-flower visitor system: the dominance of flies. Ecography 22, 314–323 (1999).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  34. Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M. & West, G. B. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85, 1771–1789 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  35. Petanidou, T. et al. Climate drives plant–pollinator interactions even along small-scale climate gradients: the case of the Aegean. Plant Biol. 20, 176–183 (2018).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  36. Fenner, M. The phenology of growth and reproduction in plants. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 1/1, 78–91 (1998).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rafferty, N. E., CaraDonna, P. J. & Bronstein, J. L. Phenological shifts and the fate of mutualisms. Oikos 124, 14–21 (2015).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  38. Song, B. et al. Global analysis of floral longevity reveals latitudinal gradients and biotic and abiotic correlates. N. Phytol. 235, 2054–2065 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  39. Dzekashu, F. F. et al. Seasonal and elevational changes of plant-pollinator interaction networks in East African mountains. Ecol. Evol. 13, e10060 (2023).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  40. Glaum, P., Wood, T. J., Morris, J. R. & Valdovinos, F. S. Phenology and flowering overlap drive specialisation in plant–pollinator networks. Ecol. Lett. 24, 2648–2659 (2021).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  41. Maicher, V. et al. Flying between raindrops: strong seasonal turnover of several Lepidoptera groups in lowland rainforests of Mount Cameroon. Ecol. Evol. 8, 12761–12772 (2018).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  42. Aizen, M. A. Down-facing flowers, hummingbirds and rain. Taxon 52, 675–680 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Klomberg, Y. et al. Spatiotemporal variation in the role of floral traits in shaping tropical plant-pollinator interactions. Ecol. Lett. 25, 839–850 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lefebvre, V., Villemant, C., Fontaine, C. & Daugeron, C. Altitudinal, temporal and trophic partitioning of flower-visitors in Alpine communities. Sci. Rep. 8, 4706 (2018).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  45. Saunders, M. E. et al. Climate mediates roles of pollinator species in plant–pollinator networks. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 32, 511–518 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  46. Chmel, K. et al. Bird pollination syndrome is the plant’s adaptation to ornithophily, but nectarivorous birds are not so selective. Oikos 130, 1411–1424 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  47. Willmer, P. Pollination and Floral Ecology (Princeton Univ. Press, 2011).

  48. Bartomeus, I. et al. Climate-associated phenological advances in bee pollinators and bee-pollinated plants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20645–20649 (2011).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  49. Biella, P., Akter, A., Ollerton, J., Nielsen, A. & Klecka, J. An empirical attack tolerance test alters the structure and species richness of plant–pollinator networks. Funct. Ecol. 34, 2246–2258 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kudo, G. & Ida, T. Y. Early onset of spring increases the phenological mismatch between plants and pollinators. Ecology 94, 2311–2320 (2013).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  51. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2025).

  52. Poisot, T. et al. mangal – making ecological network analysis simple. Ecography 39, 384–390 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  53. Fortuna, M. A., Ortega, R. & Bascompte, J. The web of life. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1403.2575 (2014).

  54. Butterill, P., Jorge, L., Xing, S. & Fayle, T. LifeWebs: a (global) database of bipartite ecological interaction networks. Biodivers. Inf. Sci. Stand. 5, e75626 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Hijmans, R. J. et al. terra: spatial data analysis. R package version 1.9-25 (2025).

  56. Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  57. Didan, K. MODIS/terra vegetation indices 16-day L3 global 250m SIN Grid V006. NASA https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD13Q1.006 (2015).

  58. Cai, L. et al. Global models and predictions of plant diversity based on advanced machine learning techniques. N. Phytol. 237, 1432–1445 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  59. Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L. & Joppa, L. N. Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E2602–E2610 (2013).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  60. Daru, B. H. A global database of butterfly species native distributions. Ecology 106, e4462 https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.4462 (2025).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  61. Hijmans, R. J. et al. raster: geographic data analysis and modeling. R package version 3.6-32 (2025).

  62. Chamberlain, S. A. & Szöcs, E. taxize: taxonomic search and retrieval in R. F1000Res. 2, 191 (2013).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  63. GBIF Secretariat. GBIF backbone taxonomy. GBIF https://doi.org/10.15468/39OMEI (2023).

  64. Ollerton, J. Pollinators & Pollination: Nature and Society (Pelagic, 2021).

  65. Dormann, C. F., Gruber, B. & Fründ, J. Introducing the bipartite package: analysing ecological networks. R J. 8, 8–11 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Blüthgen, N., Menzel, F. & Blüthgen, N. Measuring specialization in species interaction networks. BMC Ecol. 6, 9 (2006).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  67. Blüthgen, N. & Staab, M. A critical evaluation of network approaches for studying species interactions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 55, 65–88 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  68. Chiu, C.-H., Chao, A., Vogel, S., Kriegel, P. & Thorn, S. Quantifying and estimating ecological network diversity based on incomplete sampling data. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 378, 20220183 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  69. Pedersen, E. J., Miller, D. L., Simpson, G. L. & Ross, N. Hierarchical generalized additive models in ecology: an introduction with mgcv. PeerJ 7, e6876 (2019).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  70. Wood, S. N. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 73, 3–36 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  71. Sakhalkar, S. P. et al. Modelling data and codebase for Sakhalkar, S.P. et al., (2026). Global patterns in plant–pollinator specialisation. Nature Ecology & Evolution (accepted). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19118146 (2026).

  72. Pianka, E. R. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity: a review of concepts. Am. Nat. 100, 33–46 (1966).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to everybody who assisted with sampling of the analysed datasets, especially to E. L. S. Bezerra, K. Chmel, J. Queiroz and P. Willmer; to O. Mottl for priceless statistical advice; and to S. D. Leonhardt, M. Volf, T. Kočárková, F. Papandreou, J. Oñate-Casado, R. Pernice and C. Charalambous for feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. We used GPT large language models (ChatGPT, OpenAI, models 4.5, 4o, 4-turbo, 5 and 5.2 from June 2024 to March 2026) to assist in improving the clarity, readability and stylistic refinement of the manuscript text.

Funding

This study was funded by the Czech Science Foundation grant no. 21-24186 M (to S.P.S., D.A., J.F., Š.J., I.N.K., A.S. and R. Tropek). Individual datasets and co-authors were supported by Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (grant no. 1134644), São Paulo Research Foundation (grant nos. 2023/03083-6, 2023/02881-6, 2023/17728-9) and Consulate General of France in São Paulo (all previous to M.A.R.M.); Bavarian State Ministry of Science and Art (to F.M.); Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (to L.V.D.); Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, CEPID–FAPESP (grant no. 2021/10639-5 to F.W.A. and C.S.B.); National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, CNPq (grant no. 308559/2022-3 to F.W.A., C.S.B.; grant no. 141736/2020-8 to A.C.P.M.; grant nos. 311665/2022-5, 400904/2019-5 and 423939/2021-1 to J.P.R.B.; grant no. 310508/2019-3 to I.C.M.; grant no. 309893/2023-2 to L.M.S.A.; grant no. 177005/2024-6 to V.H.D.S.; grant no. 305204/2024-6 to M.A.R.M; grant no. 311665/2022-5 to A.R.R.); CAPES (Finance Code 001; COOPBRASS: grant no. 88887.947041/2024-00 to A.C.P.M.; grant no. 177005/2024-6 to V.H.D.S.; PROEX grant no. 88882.347259/2019-01 to U.M.D.); Brazilian Biodiversity Fund, FunBio (grant no. 004/2021 to I.N.G.; grant no. 029/2022 to V.H.D.S.); Rufford Foundation (grant no. 377031 to I.N.G.; grant no. 28478-1 to U.M.D.); Czech Science Foundation (grant no. 19-14620S; T.M.F.); German Research Foundation DFG (grant no. 152112243 to F.L.-E.); Dirección General de Investigación, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala (grant no. 4.8.63.2.27–2012 to E.C. and N.E.K.; grant nos. 4.8.63.8.60–2018 and 4.8.63.4.41–2020 to P. Landaverde); FAPEMIG (grant no. RED-00039-23 to P.K.M. and A.R.R.); INCT Pollination (CNPq/CAPES/FAPERJ Call grant no. 58/2022 to P.K.M. and A.R.R.); Faculty for Future, Schlumberger Foundation (Q.B.C.-A., P. Landaverde); the Human Frontier Science Program (grant no. RGP023/2023 to C.J.v.d.K.); European Research Council ERC (grant no. 101054177 to A.T.; grant no. 819374 to Y.C., V.H. and T. Krausl); Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW grant no. 2019.0202 to A.D.B. and W.H.A.O.); LIFE project Olivares Vivos+ (LIFE20 grant no. NAT/ES/001487 to P.J.R.); Missouri Department of Conservation (grant no. K02442-PI0242-022 to R.N.A., M. Mayberry and A.L.R.); National Science Foundation (grant no. DGE-2244337 to L.A.D.); OAPN grant no. 014/2009 (to M. Méndez); CONAHCYT (grant no. CBF2023-2024-216 to W.D.); Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (grant nos. PID2021-127900NB-I00, PGC2018-098498-A-100 and RYC2021-032351-I to A.M.); Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection (grant no. 121-5-13 to T. Keasar); and funding of iDiv via the German Research Foundation DFG (FZT 118, grant no. 202548816 to T.M.K.). Computational resources were provided by the e-INFRA CZ project (ID:90254), supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

S.P.S. and R. Tropek conceived and designed the study, with substantial input from N.B.; S.P.S. collated and processed the datasets and performed the analyses under the supervision of R. Tropek, with feedback from N.B., B.D., C.F.D., C.N.K.-B., D.P.V., J.O., J.R., L.A.B., M.S., P.C. and T.M.K. S.P.S and R. Tropek prepared all visualizations, tables and supplementary materials, with contributions from D.A., J.F. and G.U.-G. S.P.S. and R. Tropek wrote the manuscript draft, with contributions from N.B., B.D., C.F.D., C.N.K.-B., D.P.V., J.O., J.R., L.A.B., M.S., P.C., T.M.K. and T.M.F. All authors contributed data, critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version for submission.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to
Sailee P. Sakhalkar or Robert Tropek.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks Mário Almeida-Neto and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Sampling completeness of the analysed networks.

(a–j) Kernel density distributions of sampling completeness (%) for the all networks dataset (a), the full networks dataset (f), and individual functional groups in the functional-group networks dataset (b–e, g–j); panel labels report sample sizes (n). (k) Latitudinal distribution of low-completeness networks, shown as the proportion of networks with sampling completeness ≤ 0.7 in 10° latitudinal bins for each dataset and functional group in the functional-group networks dataset. Credit: Silhouettes from PhyloPic (https://www.phylopic.org/) under a Creative Commons license: Halictus rubicundus (CC BY 4.0); Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris (CC0 1.0).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Latitudinal patterns in plant–pollinator specialisation metrics for the all networks dataset.

Panels show specialisation metrics: network-level H2’ (a); and community-mean species-level separated for pollinators (d’pollinators; b) and for plants (d’plants; c). Vertical dashed line marks the equator (0°), and vertical dotted lines mark the Tropics of Capricorn (-23.5°) and Cancer (23.5°). Curves are GAMM/HGAM fitted mean response smooths: black curves indicate overall latitudinal trends with 95% confidence intervals (grey shading), coloured curves represent significant functional group-specific trends (see legend). Coloured points are raw data. Curves are drawn only when the smooth term for latitude is significant, otherwise only points are shown. Adjusted R2 and exact p-values for the overall trend are reported in each panel (see Table S5 for full model summaries). We assessed the significance of smooth terms using two-sided approximate F-tests without correction for multiple comparisons. Credit: Silhouettes from PhyloPic (https://www.phylopic.org/) under a Creative Commons license: Onthophagus taurus, Darapsa myron (CC BY 3.0); Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris, Papilio machaon, Tachinidae, Eupeodes volucris, Vespula germanica (CC0 1.0).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Latitudinal distribution of plant–pollinator network descriptors.

Scatterplots show the values of climatic, environmental, and biotic descriptors for individual networks in the all networks dataset plotted against latitude; points are coloured by elevation. Descriptor definitions, abbreviations and units are given in Table S2. Credit: Silhouette from PhyloPic (https://www.phylopic.org/) under a Creative Commons license: Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris (CC0 1.0).

Extended Data Fig. 4 Mean annual temperature as a function of latitude and elevation for the analysed plant-pollinator interaction networks.

Sampling sites are coloured by their elevation. The reported adjusted R2 and significance (***p < 0.001) originate from a linear model predicting mean annual temperature from absolute latitude and elevation (F3,3492 = 8879).

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information (download PDF )

Supplementary Figs. 1–4, Tables 1–9 and References.

Reporting Summary (download PDF )

Peer Review File (download PDF )

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sakhalkar, S.P., Blüthgen, N., Burkle, L.A. et al. Global patterns in plant–pollinator specialization.
Nat Ecol Evol (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-026-03170-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-026-03170-7


Source: Ecology - nature.com

Redescription and revision of Georges Demoulin’s Eocene Baltic amber Heptageniidae (Insecta: Ephemeroptera)

Inhibitory effects of Cynodon dactylon from a reservoir drawdown zone on Microcystis aeruginosa and Scenedesmus quadricauda