Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30059963›Full record

ArticleAnnals of botany2019

Spatiotemporal variation in the pollination systems of a supergeneralist plant: is Angelica sylvestris (Apiaceae) locally adapted to its most effective pollinators?

Marcin Zych, Robert R Junker, Massimo Nepi, Malgorzata Stpiczynska, Barbara Stolarska, Katarzyna Roguz

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of botany, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Complex Floral Scent Profile ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. In Which Way Do the Flower Properties of the Specialist OrchidInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  8. The role ofEcology and evolution · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Marcin ZychBotanic Garden, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, Aleje Ujazdowskie, Warszawa, Poland.
Robert R JunkerDepartment of Biosciences, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
Massimo NepiDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Siena, via Mattioli, Siena, Italy.
Malgorzata StpiczynskaBotanic Garden, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, Aleje Ujazdowskie, Warszawa, Poland.
Barbara StolarskaBotanic Garden, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, Aleje Ujazdowskie, Warszawa, Poland.
Katarzyna RoguzBotanic Garden, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, Aleje Ujazdowskie, Warszawa, Poland.
University of Warsaw · PLUniversity of Salzburg · ATUniversity of Siena · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: In terms of pollination systems, umbellifers (plants of the carrot family, Apiaceae) are regarded as generalists, since their (usually dichogamous) flowers are visited by a wide range of insects representing several taxonomic orders. However, recent analyses of insect effectiveness revealed that these plants may be pollinated effectively by a narrow assemblage of insect visitors. Of particular interest was whether populations of an umbellifer species varied in pollinator assemblages and whether this could lead to local specialization of the pollination system. We also explored whether variation in pollinator assemblages was associated with variation in floral traits, and whether this variation influences reproductive output. Methods: The focus was on Angelica sylvestris, a common European species visited by a taxonomically diverse insect assemblage. In three populations, located along an ~700-km transect, over three growth seasons insect visitors were identified, their effectiveness was assessed by surveying pollen loads present on the insect body, insect activity on umbels, nectar and scent composition was studied, and transplantation experiments were performed. Key Results: The populations investigated in this study differed in their nectar and scent profiles and, despite the similar taxonomic composition of insect visitor assemblages, were effectively pollinated by disparate pollinator morphogroups, i.e. flies and beetles. Although this suggested local adaptations to the most effective pollinators, analyses of body pollen loads and behaviour on umbels demonstrated functional equivalency of the visitor morphogroups, which is probably related to the fact that A. sylvestris bears few ovules per flower. The transplantation experiments confirmed that reproductive success was not related to the source of experimental plants and that the insects do not exhibit preferences towards local genotypes. Conclusions: Angelica sylvestris is morphologically well adapted to ecological generalization, and there is little evidence that the surveyed populations represent distinct pollination ecotypes. Most likely, the observed variation in floral characters can be interpreted as 'adaptive wandering'. Specialization in this family seems possible only under very special circumstances, for example when the pollinator community comprises insect visitor groups that clearly differ in their pollination capacity (e.g. due to differences in their functional morphology) and/or have different perceptional biases (e.g. for colour or scent). However, the barrier to the evolution of morphological adaptations resulting in the fine-tuning of the flower towards particular pollinator types may arise from the architectural constraints on the floral bauplan that make umbellifers so uniform in their floral displays and so successful in attracting large numbers of pollinators.

Indexed as

Adaptation, BiologicalAngelicaInsectaPollinationAnimalsOdorantsPlant NectarPlant Nectar

Identifiers

PMID30059963
PMCPMC6344219
OpenAlexW2886229130

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.