Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30073014›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in plant science2018

Nectar in Plant-Insect Mutualistic Relationships: From Food Reward to Partner Manipulation.

Massimo Nepi, Donato A Grasso, Stefano Mancuso

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
22.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 182 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Phenolic Compounds in Nectar ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Specialized metabolites present inFrontiers in plant science · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. In Which Way Do the Flower Properties of the Specialist OrchidInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Massimo NepiDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Donato A GrassoDepartment of Chemistry, Life Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Stefano MancusoDepartment of Agrifood Production and Environmental Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
University of Florence · ITUniversity of Parma · ITUniversity of Siena · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been known for centuries that floral and extra-floral nectar secreted by plants attracts and rewards animals. Extra-floral nectar is involved in so-called indirect defense by attracting animals (generally ants) that prey on herbivores, or by discouraging herbivores from feeding on the plant. Floral nectar is presented inside the flower close to the reproductive organs and rewards animals that perform pollination while visiting the flower. In both cases nectar is a source of carbon and nitrogen compounds that feed animals, the most abundant solutes being sugars and amino acids. Plant-animal relationships involving the two types of nectar have therefore been used for a long time as text-book examples of symmetric mutualism: services provided by animals to plants in exchange for food provided by plants to animals. Cheating (or deception or exploitation), namely obtaining the reward/service without returning any counterpart, is however, well-known in mutualistic relationships, since the interacting partners have conflicting interests and selection may favor cheating strategies. A more subtle way of exploiting mutualism was recently highlighted. It implies the evolution of strategies to maximize the benefits obtained by one partner while still providing the reward/service to the other partner. Several substances other than sugars and amino acids have been found in nectar and some affect the foraging behavior of insects and potentially increase the benefits to the plant. Such substances can be considered plant cues to exploit mutualism. Recent evidence motivated some authors to use the term "manipulation" of animals by plants in nectar-mediated mutualistic relationships. This review highlights the recent background of the "manipulation" hypothesis, discussing it in the framework of new ecological and evolutionary scenarios in plant-animal interactions, as a stimulus for future research.

Indexed as

exploitationmutualistic relationshipsnectarpartner manipulationplant–animal interactionssecondary compounds

Identifiers

PMID30073014
PMCPMC6060274
OpenAlexW2883717703

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.