Using the Literature to Test Pollination Syndromes — Some Methodological Cautions

“Pollination syndromes” are specific combinations of floral traits that are proposed to evolve convergently across angiosperm lineages in response to different types of animal pollinators. In spite of their long history, pollination syndromes have not been tested adequately–they rarely have been exa...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jeff Ollerton, André Rodrigo Rech, Nickolas M. Waser, Mary V. Price
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Enviroquest Ltd. 2015-08-01
Series:Journal of Pollination Ecology
Online Access:https://pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/339
id doaj-29881e3dba2b45d4806eb0a4785cfb43
record_format Article
spelling doaj-29881e3dba2b45d4806eb0a4785cfb432021-07-28T12:30:21ZengEnviroquest Ltd.Journal of Pollination Ecology1920-76032015-08-011611912510.26786/1920-7603(2015)17181Using the Literature to Test Pollination Syndromes — Some Methodological CautionsJeff Ollerton0André Rodrigo RechNickolas M. WaserMary V. PriceUniversity of Northampton, UK“Pollination syndromes” are specific combinations of floral traits that are proposed to evolve convergently across angiosperm lineages in response to different types of animal pollinators. In spite of their long history, pollination syndromes have not been tested adequately–they rarely have been examined critically to determine how well they describe floral trait diversity or predict pollinators. In a recent meta-analysis of data from the literature, Rosas-Guerrero et al. (2014) provide a welcome test that draws on insights from past studies. At the same time, their study illustrates several difficulties of meta-analysis approaches in general, and for pollination biology in particular. Here we discuss those difficulties and propose some solutions. We first consider how to gather studies from the literature without introducing unintended bias, such as the old-fashioned method of working backward from cited literature. We next consider how to deal with difficulties that invariably arise when extracting and analyzing often-incomplete information from heterogeneous studies. Finally we discuss issues of interpreting and presenting the results in the most informative manner. We conclude that although Rosas-Guerrero et al. (2014) and other studies such as Ollerton et al. (2009) have arrived at different conclusions about the utility of pollination syndromes, their results are not necessarily incompatible.https://pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/339
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jeff Ollerton
André Rodrigo Rech
Nickolas M. Waser
Mary V. Price
spellingShingle Jeff Ollerton
André Rodrigo Rech
Nickolas M. Waser
Mary V. Price
Using the Literature to Test Pollination Syndromes — Some Methodological Cautions
Journal of Pollination Ecology
author_facet Jeff Ollerton
André Rodrigo Rech
Nickolas M. Waser
Mary V. Price
author_sort Jeff Ollerton
title Using the Literature to Test Pollination Syndromes — Some Methodological Cautions
title_short Using the Literature to Test Pollination Syndromes — Some Methodological Cautions
title_full Using the Literature to Test Pollination Syndromes — Some Methodological Cautions
title_fullStr Using the Literature to Test Pollination Syndromes — Some Methodological Cautions
title_full_unstemmed Using the Literature to Test Pollination Syndromes — Some Methodological Cautions
title_sort using the literature to test pollination syndromes — some methodological cautions
publisher Enviroquest Ltd.
series Journal of Pollination Ecology
issn 1920-7603
publishDate 2015-08-01
description “Pollination syndromes” are specific combinations of floral traits that are proposed to evolve convergently across angiosperm lineages in response to different types of animal pollinators. In spite of their long history, pollination syndromes have not been tested adequately–they rarely have been examined critically to determine how well they describe floral trait diversity or predict pollinators. In a recent meta-analysis of data from the literature, Rosas-Guerrero et al. (2014) provide a welcome test that draws on insights from past studies. At the same time, their study illustrates several difficulties of meta-analysis approaches in general, and for pollination biology in particular. Here we discuss those difficulties and propose some solutions. We first consider how to gather studies from the literature without introducing unintended bias, such as the old-fashioned method of working backward from cited literature. We next consider how to deal with difficulties that invariably arise when extracting and analyzing often-incomplete information from heterogeneous studies. Finally we discuss issues of interpreting and presenting the results in the most informative manner. We conclude that although Rosas-Guerrero et al. (2014) and other studies such as Ollerton et al. (2009) have arrived at different conclusions about the utility of pollination syndromes, their results are not necessarily incompatible.
url https://pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/339
work_keys_str_mv AT jeffollerton usingtheliteraturetotestpollinationsyndromessomemethodologicalcautions
AT andrerodrigorech usingtheliteraturetotestpollinationsyndromessomemethodologicalcautions
AT nickolasmwaser usingtheliteraturetotestpollinationsyndromessomemethodologicalcautions
AT maryvprice usingtheliteraturetotestpollinationsyndromessomemethodologicalcautions
_version_ 1721278528117276672