Species_roles_yearly

Because of the large number of species, we present the roles in each group of webs in separate files. In all cases, position numbers are as in Fig. S7, Appendix S6. Species_roles_yearly.xls contains the roles of species in the yearly webs. All tentatively-dated observations were associated with a definite year; therefore there is only one version of species roles in yearly networks

Network_structure

Contains lists of motif frequencies by network. The frequencies presented in this file are the raw counts of each motif within each network. For all analyses, these frequencies were normalised by the total number of motifs within the network. Tentatively dated observations were handled as described above. As only the 1996 and 1997 monthly networks varied depending on the handling of these interactions, we present several versions of the network structure for these webs and a single version (contained in sheed monthly - n.d. year only) for the structure of the 2010 and 2011 monthly networks. Motif labels (e.g., 6, 14, and 8472) are as in the motif dictionary associated with the motif detection software mfinder (https://www.weizmann.ac.il/mcb/UriAlon/download/network-motif-software), produced by the Uri Alon lab

README

Overview of all files, including a summary of which Species_roles files are associated with which network and method of handling tentatively-dated observations

Lists_of_interactions

Contains lists of plants and pollinators (i.e., pollination networks) used in our analyses. There were no tentatively dated interactions (n.d.) in 2010 or 2011, so these networks were identical regardless of how these interactions were handled. For 1996 and 1997 networks, the yearly networks were identical in all cases and are therefore only included once (in the "n.d. year only" worksheets). For monthly networks, the "n.d. year only" worksheets describe networks which did not include any tentatively dated interactions, the "n.d. best-guess" worksheets describe networks in which tentatively dated interactions were included in months which included the best-guess date for each such observation (best-guess dates indicated in Dates_of_first_interaction.xls), and the "n.d. range" worksheets describe networks in which tentatively dated interactions were included in months which included any dates between the first and last definitely-dated observations of the same interaction

Species_roles_monthly_nd_bestguess

Because of the large number of species, we present the roles in each group of webs in separate files. In all cases, position numbers are as in Fig. S7, Appendix S6. Species_roles_monthly_nd_bestguess.xls contains the roles of species in the 1996 and 1997 monthly webs with tentatively dated observations included in webs containing the best-guess date. These are the roles used to generate the results presented in the main text. As there were no tentatively dated observations in 2010 or 2011, all roles in these webs were the same for all methods of handling tentatively dated observations. We therefore include them in only the file Species_roles_monthly_nd_yearonly.xls

Dates_of_first_interaction

Contains tables listing the date of first observed interactions for each insect (I) and plant (P) in 1996, 1997, 2010, and 2011. Also contains tables identifying which insects (I) and plants (P) had tentatively dated interactions in each year, as well as the best-guess dates associated with these observations

Species_roles_monthly_nd_yearonly

Because of the large number of species, we present the roles in each group of webs in separate files. In all cases, position numbers are as in Fig. S7, Appendix S6. Species_roles_monthly_nd_yearonly.xls contains the roles of species in the monthly webs, with tentatively dated observations excluded. This is the only monthly roles file containing species roles in 2010 or 2011 as there were no tentatively-dated observations in either year

Direct (A) and indirect (B) species linkage and time delays (days) between species pairs.

<p>Phenophases of species pairs are given as green and blue arrows, and linkage is here directed from green to blue. Red arrows show the temporal linkage path. Four kinds of indirect linkage are shown. In the first two, species phenophases are overlapping, whereas in the latter two they do not. Percentages are total sums for all 1– and 2–mode networks. a₀ and b₀ are starting dates of pollinator species A and B, respectively, whereas a_T and b_T are ending dates. TC's are temporal coupler species.</p

Strong Impact of Temporal Resolution on the Structure of an Ecological Network

<div><p>Most ecological networks are analysed as static structures, where all observed species and links are present simultaneously. However, this is over-simplified, because networks are temporally dynamical. We resolved an arctic, entire-season plant-flower visitor network into a temporal series of 1-day networks and compared the properties with its static equivalent based on data pooled over the entire season. Several properties differed. The nested link pattern in the static network was blurred in the dynamical version, because the characteristic long nestedness tail of flower–visitor specialists got stunted in the dynamical networks. This tail comprised a small food web of pollinators, parasitoids and hyper-parasitoids. The dynamical network had strong time delays in the transmission of direct and indirect effects among species. Twenty percent of all indirect links were impossible in the dynamical network. Consequently, properties and thus also robustness of ecological networks cannot be deduced from the static topology alone.</p></div

Comparison of static and dynamical networks.

<p>A core species has L>2 and a tail species has L≤2. L of a species is its number of links to other species. d, day number or number of days.</p