Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25858692›Full record

ArticleAoB PLANTS2015

Variation in reward quality and pollinator attraction: the consumer does not always get it right.

David E Carr, Ariela I Haber, Kathryn A LeCroy, De'Ashia E Lee, Rosabeth I Link

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AoB PLANTS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

David E CarrBlandy Experimental Farm, University of Virginia, 400 Blandy Farm Lane, Boyce, VA 22620, USA dec5z@virginia.edu.
Ariela I HaberDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
Kathryn A LeCroyDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
De'Ashia E LeeDepartment of Infectious Diseases, University of Georgia, 500 DW Brooks Drive, Athens, GA 30602, USA.
Rosabeth I LinkDepartment of Entomology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nearly all bees rely on pollen as the sole protein source for the development of their larvae. The central importance of pollen for the bee life cycle should exert strong selection on their ability to locate the most rewarding sources of pollen. Despite this importance, very few studies have examined the influence of intraspecific variation in pollen rewards on the foraging decisions of bees. Previous studies have demonstrated that inbreeding reduces viability and hence protein content in Mimulus guttatus (seep monkeyflower) pollen and that bees strongly discriminate against inbred in favour of outbred plants. We examined whether variation in pollen viability could explain this preference using a series of choice tests with living plants, artificial plants and olfactometer tests using the bumble bee Bombus impatiens. We found that B. impatiens preferred to visit artificial plants provisioned with fertile anthers over those provisioned with sterile anthers. They also preferred fertile anthers when provided only olfactory cues. These bumble bees were unable to discriminate among live plants from subpopulations differing dramatically in pollen viability, however. They preferred outbred plants even when those plants were from subpopulations with pollen viability as low as the inbred populations. Their preference for outbred plants was evident even when only olfactory cues were available. Our data showed that bumble bees are able to differentiate between anthers that provide higher rewards when cues are isolated from the rest of the flower. When confronted with cues from the entire flower, their choices are independent of the quality of the pollen reward, suggesting that they are responding more strongly to cues unassociated with rewards than to those correlated with rewards. If so, this suggests that a sensory bias or some level of deception may be involved with advertisement to pollinators in M. guttatus.

Indexed as

Bombus impatiensfloral rewardhonest signalinbreedingMimulus guttatusolfactionpollen qualitypollinator preference

Identifiers

PMID25858692
PMCPMC4417137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.