Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28873948›Full record

ReviewAnnals of botany2017

Understanding intraspecific variation of floral scent in light of evolutionary ecology.

Roxane Delle-Vedove, Bertrand Schatz, Mathilde Dufay

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of botany, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Resilience of floral scent emission after florivory.Plant biology (Stuttgart, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Pollination ecotypes and the origin of plant species.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. The Nighttime Fragrance ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Roxane Delle-VedoveUniversite de Lille, CNRS UMR 8198 Evo-Eco-Paleo, 59655 Villeneuve d'Ascq Cedex, France.
Bertrand SchatzCEFE (Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive), UMR 5175, CNRS, Université de Montpellier, Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier, EPHE, 1919 route de Mende, 34293 Montpellier, France.
Mathilde DufayUniversite de Lille, CNRS UMR 8198 Evo-Eco-Paleo, 59655 Villeneuve d'Ascq Cedex, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Among the various floral traits involved in pollinator attraction and potentially under selection mediated by pollinators, floral scent/fragrance has been less investigated than other components of floral phenotype. Whether or not pollinator-mediated selection impacts floral scents depends on the heritability of scent/fragrance and the occurrence of some variation within species. Although most studies have investigated how scent varies among species, growing amounts of data are available on variation at the intraspecific level. Methods: The results of 81 studies investigating intraspecific variation of floral scents in 132 taxa were reviewed. For each study, whether variation was found in either identity, proportion or absolute quantities of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was recorded, as well as information with the potential to explain variation, such as methodology, plant origin or pollination biology. Key Results: Variation was found for almost all investigated species, both among individuals (among and sometimes within populations) and within individuals across different temporal scales. Cases in which such variation is a possible result of pollinator-mediated selection were analysed, by discussing separately selection related to variation in pollinator identity/behaviour among populations or across time, deceit pollination and sex-specific selection. Not surprisingly, in many cases, pollinator-mediated selection alone does not explain the observed variation in floral scent. This led us to review current knowledge on less investigated factors, such as selection mediated by natural enemies, genetic drift and gene flow, environmental constraints, phylogenetic inertia, or biochemical constraints that could be invoked to explain scent variation. Conclusions: This review highlights the great potential of analysing floral scent variation and including it in integrated studies of floral phenotypes. We also have identified the current gaps in our understanding of this complex signal and we propose several methodological and conceptual future directions in this research area.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionOdorantsEcologyFlowersGenetic VariationPhylogenyPlantsPollinationVolatile Organic CompoundsVolatile Organic Compoundschemical ecologyevolutionintraspecific variationodourPollinationreproductive strategies

Identifiers

PMID28873948
PMCPMC5737645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.