Bridging Claims-Based and Clinical Frailty Assessment: Translation of the mFI-v10 to the Clinical Frailty Scale.

Pollinating insects are declining globally at an unprecedented rate because of land‐use intensification, habitat loss, climate change, and other anthropogenic pressures (Biesmeijer et al. ; Baldock et al. ; IPBES ; Dicks et al. ; Millard et al. ). Beyond altering abundance, diversity and community composition of species, these drivers can restructure plant‐pollinator interaction networks, with consequences for ecosystem functioning, stability and resilience (Tylianakis et al. ; Vanbergen and Insect Pollinators Initiative ). Environmental disturbances often shift communities toward dominance by a few generalist species, simplifying interaction networks and potentially increasing their vulnerability to further environmental change (Aizen and Feinsinger ; Spiesman and Inouye ). Because pollinator declines are linked to losses of floral resources or microhabitats required for nesting or larval development (Potts et al. ; Klein et al. ), understanding how land‐use drivers alter plant‐pollinator interactions through resource availability is essential for predicting the future stability of pollination services under global change. In grassland ecosystems, grazing regimes and nutrient inputs are among the most pervasive land‐use drivers shaping plant‐pollinator systems (Potts et al. ; Dicks et al. ). These processes primarily influence pollinator communities indirectly, by modifying plant community composition, vegetation structure, and floral resource availability (Burns et al. ; Johanson et al. ). Floral resource quantity and composition can be seen as predictors of pollinator abundance and foraging behavior (Roulston and Goodell ; Lázaro et al. ), and reductions in flowering plants can disrupt plant‐pollinator interactions and network stability (Winfree et al. ). Of these drivers, nutrient enrichment influences plant‐pollinator interactions mainly through bottom‐up effects on plant and flower communities (Burkle et al. ; David et al. ). In nutrient‐limited systems, increases in nutrient availability enhance primary productivity and floral display by increasing flower size and abundance, potentially attracting more flower‐visitors (Galen ; Schemske and Horvitz ; Makino et al. ). At the same time, nutrient enrichment often reduces flowering plant diversity by promoting competitive dominance of fast‐growing species, which are often wind‐pollinated such as graminoids (Campbell and Halama ; Wyka and Galen ; Wang et al. ; Nelson et al. ; Johanson et al. ). Nutrient enrichment can also modify pollen and nectar quality, with potential consequences for pollinator nutrition and foraging behavior (Vaudo et al. ; Carvalheiro et al. ; Carvalheiro et al. ). Consequently, while some plant species may experience higher visitation rates, overall interaction diversity often declines as pollinators concentrate on the most abundant or rewarding plant species, reducing per‐flower visitation and increasing pollen limitation (Munoz et al. ; Tadey ). Pollinator taxa often respond unevenly to flower resources; specialized pollinators may decline with the loss of preferred resources, whereas highly generalized taxa may persist or increase, leading to greater niche overlap, thereby altering network structure (Wang et al. ).