ArticleAnnals of botany2019
Flowers up! The effect of floral height along the shoot axis on the fitness of bat-pollinated species.
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 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A negative association between nectar standing crop and pollen transfer suggests nectar functions as a manipulator of pollinating bats.Annals of botany · 2023Article
- The interplay between spatiotemporal overlap and morphology as determinants of microstructure suggests no 'perfect fit' in a bat-flower network.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Disruptive selection via pollinators and seed predators on the height of flowers on a wind-dispersed alpine herb.American journal of botany · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsBat-pollination is an important system in terms of occurrence and distribution, although it remains little studied. Thus, the role of particular flower traits in this interaction remains uncertain. Flower height along the shoot axis, associated with flower exposure, has often been deemed a key trait in this system, but its effect on fitness has not previously been assessed. We aimed to test its role and propose that taller flowers attain higher fitness due to a higher degree of accessibility and conspicuity to foraging bats.
methodsWe assessed the effect of floral height on bat visiting rates to individual flowers of Crescentia cujete (Bignoniaceae), a cauliflorous model bat-pollinated species with a marked gradient in flower height along the shoot axis. Additionally, we tested the effect of this variable on seed/ovule ratio measurements from seven other species from different families along a herb-tree gradient. Hypotheses were tested through mixed-effect linear models. KEY
resultsBat visiting rates varied positively as a function of flower height in C. cujete, but significance was found only for the subset of flowers located on the trunk, closer to the ground. Similarly, seed/ovule ratios were positively correlated with flower height only for the three species with the shortest statures along the height gradient and shortest average floral heights. These results suggest that proximity to the ground, associated with herbaceous or bushy surrounding vegetation, may be an obstacle to the foraging of nectar-feeding bats, which in turn should explain the morphological convergence of inflorescence length and exposure strategies of short-statured bat-pollinated plants.
conclusionsFlower height has a species-specific effect on plant fitness. This study provides a novel numerical perspective to the role of an unexplored trait in bat-pollination, and has elucidated some aspects of the adaptive importance of flower height based on limitations imposed by ecologically complex pollinators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.