ArticleJournal of insect science (Online)2015
Pollination Services of Mango Flower Pollinators.
Article in Journal of insect science (Online), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Review on Phytochemistry, Ethnopharmacology, and Antiparasitic Potential ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Multiyear study of pollinator efficiency and importance of a wide array of pollinators in a field-cultivated strawberry plot.PloS one · 2024Article
- Ants are more than just curious bystanders to some flowers-they act as significant pollinators.Frontiers in insect science · 2023Review
- Colored sticky traps for monitoring phytophagous thrips (Thysanoptera) in mango agroecosystems, and their impact on beneficial insects.PloS one · 2022Article
- The Role of Flies as Pollinators of Horticultural Crops: An Australian Case Study with Worldwide Relevance.Insects · 2020Review
- A Review on Ethnopharmacological Applications, Pharmacological Activities, and Bioactive Compounds ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measuring wild pollinator services in agricultural production is very important in the context of sustainable management. In this study, we estimated the contribution of native pollinators to mango fruit set production of two mango cultivars Mangifera indica (L). cv. 'Sala' and 'Chok Anan'. Visitation rates of pollinators on mango flowers and number of pollen grains adhering to their bodies determined pollinator efficiency for reproductive success of the crop. Chok Anan failed to produce any fruit set in the absence of pollinators. In natural condition, we found that Sala produced 4.8% fruit set per hermaphrodite flower while Chok Anan produced 3.1% per flower. Hand pollination tremendously increased fruit set of naturally pollinated flower for Sala (>100%), but only 33% for Chok Anan. Pollinator contribution to mango fruit set was estimated at 53% of total fruit set production. Our results highlighted the importance of insect pollinations in mango production. Large size flies Eristalinus spp. and Chrysomya spp. were found to be effective pollen carriers and visited more mango flowers compared with other flower visitors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.