NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Raw data of pollinators, reproductive output and nectar production

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27792v1/supp-1

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Claudia A. Antinao performed the experiments, analyzed the data, approved the final draft.

Gastón O. Carvallo conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Beatriz Vergara-Meriño performed the experiments, approved the final draft.

Cristian A. Villagra performed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Pablo C. Guerrero conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Field Study Permissions

The following information was supplied relating to field study approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

No permit required for doing field work on coastal area.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw measurements are available in the Supplemental Files. The raw data shows characterized pollinators and breeding systems.

Funding

This study was funded by Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico FONDECYT, Chile (Grants 1160583 to PCG and 11150301 to GOC), and by Fondo de Investigación del Bosque Nativo (FIBN) (Grant CONAF-009/2015). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies
  Visitors   Views   Downloads