Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28960308›Full record

ArticleThe New phytologist2018

Nectar-inhabiting microorganisms influence nectar volatile composition and attractiveness to a generalist pollinator.

Caitlin C Rering, John J Beck, Griffin W Hall, Mitchell M McCartney, Rachel L Vannette

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The New phytologist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing 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

89 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Diversity and sources of floral microbial communities.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Review
  3. Using the Solitary PollinatorEcology and evolution · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Geographic variation in the microbiome of Varroa destructor in the neighbouring countries Slovakia and Czechia.International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Caitlin C ReringChemistry Research Unit, Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1700 SW 23rd Dr., Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA.
John J BeckChemistry Research Unit, Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1700 SW 23rd Dr., Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA.
Griffin W HallDepartment of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA, 95616, USA.
Mitchell M McCartneyMechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA, 95616, USA.
Rachel L VannetteDepartment of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA, 95616, USA.

Funding

USDA-ARS 6036-22000-028USDA-ARS HQ 0101-88888-016USDA Multistate Hatch CA-D-ENM-2354-RRUSDA Multistate Hatch NE1501
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The plant microbiome can influence plant phenotype in diverse ways, yet microbial contribution to plant volatile phenotype remains poorly understood. We examine the presence of fungi and bacteria in the nectar of a coflowering plant community, characterize the volatiles produced by common nectar microbes and examine their influence on pollinator preference. Nectar was sampled for the presence of nectar-inhabiting microbes. We characterized the headspace of four common fungi and bacteria in a nectar analog. We examined electrophysiological and behavioral responses of honey bees to microbial volatiles. Floral headspace samples collected in the field were surveyed for the presence of microbial volatiles. Microbes commonly inhabit floral nectar and the common species differ in volatile profiles. Honey bees detected most microbial volatiles tested and distinguished among solutions based on volatiles only. Floral headspace samples contained microbial-associated volatiles, with 2-ethyl-1-hexanol and 2-nonanone - both detected by bees - more often detected when fungi were abundant. Nectar-inhabiting microorganisms produce volatile compounds, which can differentially affect honey bee preference. The yeast Metschnikowia reukaufii produced distinctive compounds and was the most attractive of all microbes compared. The variable presence of microbes may provide volatile cues that influence plant-pollinator interactions.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteriaBeesFungiPlant NectarPollinationPrincipal Component AnalysisVolatile Organic CompoundsPlant NectarVolatile Organic CompoundsApis melliferafloral headspacemicrobial volatile (MVOC)nectar microbespollinationsemiochemicalvolatile organic chemicals (VOCs)yeast

Identifiers

PMID28960308

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.