Interactions between species are influenced by different ecological mechanisms, such as morphological matching, phenological overlap and species abundances. How these mechanisms explain interaction frequencies across environmental gradients remains poorly understood. Consequently, we also know little about the mechanisms that drive the geographical patterns in network structure, such as complementary specialization and modularity. Here, we use data on morphologies, phenologies and abundances to explain interaction frequencies between hummingbirds and plants at a large geographical scale. For 24 quantitative networks sampled throughout the Americas, we found that the tendency of species to interact with morphologically matching partners contributed to specialized and modular network structures. Morphological matching best explained interaction frequencies in networks found closer to the equator and in areas with low-temperature seasonality. When comparing the three ecological mechanisms within networks, we found that both morphological matching and phenological overlap generally outperformed abundances in the explanation of interaction frequencies. Together, these findings provide insights into the ecological mechanisms that underlie geographical patterns in resource specialization. Notably, our results highlight morphological constraints on interactions as a potential explanation for increasing resource specialization towards lower latitudes.

Aim: To investigate the role of alien plants in mutualistic plant–hummingbird networks, assessing the importance of species traits, floral abundance and insularity on alien plant integration.Location: Mainland and insular Americas.Methods: We used species‐level network indices to assess the role of alien plants in 21 quantitative plant–hummingbird networks where alien plants occur. We then evaluated whether plant traits, including previous adaptations to bird pollination, and insularity predict these network roles. Additionally, for a subset of networks for which floral abundance data were available, we tested whether this relates to network roles. Finally, we tested the association between hummingbird traits and the probability of interaction with alien plants across the networks.Results: Within the 21 networks, we identified 32 alien plant species and 352 native plant species. On average, alien plant species attracted more hummingbird species (i.e. aliens had a higher degree) and had a higher proportion of interactions across their hummingbird visitors than native plants (i.e. aliens had a higher species strength). At the same time, an average alien plant was visited more exclusively by certain hummingbird species (i.e. had a higher level of complementary specialization). Large alien plants and those occurring on islands had more evenly distributed interactions, thereby acting as connectors. Other evaluated plant traits and floral abundance were unimportant predictors of network roles. Short‐billed hummingbirds had higher probability of including alien plants in their interactions than long‐billed species.Main conclusions: Once incorporated into plant‐hummingbird networks, alien plants appear strongly integrated and, thus, may have a large influence on network dynamics. Plant traits and floral abundance were generally poor predictors of how well alien species are integrated. Short‐billed hummingbirds, often characterized as functionally generalized pollinators, facilitate the integration of alien plants. Our results show that plant–hummingbird networks are open for invasion.

Abundant pollinators are often more generalised than rare pollinators. This could be because abundant species have more chance encounters with potential interaction partners. On the other hand, generalised species could have a competitive advantage over specialists, leading to higher abundance. Determining the direction of the abundance–generalisation relationship is therefore a ‘chicken‐and‐egg’ dilemma. Here we determine the direction of the relationship between abundance and generalisation in plant–hummingbird pollination networks across the Americas. We find evidence that hummingbird pollinators are generalised because they are abundant, and little evidence that hummingbirds are abundant because they are generalised. Additionally, most patterns of species‐level abundance and generalisation were well explained by a null model that assumed interaction neutrality (interaction probabilities defined by species relative abundances). These results suggest that neutral processes play a key role in driving broad patterns of generalisation in animal pollinators across large spatial scales.