Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27064650›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in insect science2015

More than colour attraction: behavioural functions of flower patterns.

Natalie Hempel de Ibarra, Keri V Langridge, Misha Vorobyev

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in insect science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Bees, flowers and UV.Plant biology (Stuttgart, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Flower colour contrast, 'spectral purity' and a red herring.Plant biology (Stuttgart, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Flower Size as an Honest Signal in Royal Irises (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  14. Visual acuity ofInsects · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The role of colour patterns for the recognition of flowers by bees.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  19. Flower sharing and pollinator health: a behavioural perspective.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Review
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Natalie Hempel de IbarraUniversity of Exeter, Centre for Research in Animal Behaviour, Department of Psychology, Exeter, UK.
Keri V LangridgeUniversity of Exeter, Centre for Research in Animal Behaviour, Department of Psychology, Exeter, UK.
Misha VorobyevUniversity of Auckland, School of Optometry and Vision Science, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Flower patterns are thought to influence foraging decisions of insect pollinators. However, the resolution of insect compound eyes is poor. Insects perceive flower patterns only from short distances when they initiate landings or search for reward on the flower. From further away flower displays jointly form larger-sized patterns within the visual scene that will guide the insect's flight. Chromatic and achromatic cues in such patterns may help insects to find, approach and learn rewarded locations in a flower patch, bringing them close enough to individual flowers. Flight trajectories and the spatial resolution of chromatic and achromatic vision in insects determine the effectiveness of floral displays, and both need to be considered in studies of plant-pollinator communication.

Identifiers

PMID27064650
PMCPMC4804388

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.