Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31463783›Full record

SynthesisOecologia2019

Pollinator or pedigree: which factors determine the evolution of pollen nutrients?

Fabian A Ruedenauer, Johannes Spaethe, Casper J van der Kooi, Sara D Leonhardt

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Oecologia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Nutrient niche dynamics among wild pollinators.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Pollen nutrition structures bee and plant community interactions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Fabian A RuedenauerDepartment of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, University of Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074, Würzburg, Germany.
Johannes SpaetheDepartment of Behavioral Physiology and Sociobiology, Biozentrum, University of Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074, Würzburg, Germany.
Casper J van der KooiGroningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 7, 9747 AG, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Sara D LeonhardtDepartment of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biozentrum, University of Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074, Würzburg, Germany. sara.leonhardt@uni-wuerzburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8154-9569
University of Würzburg · DEUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft LE 2750/5-1Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SP 1380/1-1NWO 016.Veni.181.025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A prime example of plant-animal interactions is the interaction between plants and pollinators, which typically receive nectar and/or pollen as reward for their pollination service. While nectar provides mostly carbohydrates, pollen represents the main source of protein and lipids for many pollinators. However, the main function of pollen is to carry nutrients for pollen tube growth and thus fertilization. It is unclear whether pollinator attraction exerts a sufficiently strong selective pressure to alter the nutritional profile of pollen, e.g., through increasing its crude protein content or protein-to-lipid ratio, which both strongly affect bee foraging. Pollen nutritional quality may also be merely determined by phylogenetic relatedness, with pollen of closely related plants showing similar nutritional profiles due to shared biosynthetic pathways or floral morphologies. Here, we present a meta-analysis of studies on pollen nutrients to test whether differences in pollen nutrient contents and ratios correlated with plant insect pollinator dependence and/or phylogenetic relatedness. We hypothesized that if pollen nutritional content was affected by pollinator attraction, it should be different (e.g., higher) in highly pollinator-dependent plants, independent of phylogenetic relatedness. We found that crude protein and the protein-to-lipid ratio in pollen strongly correlated with phylogeny. Moreover, pollen protein content was higher in plants depending mostly or exclusively on insect pollination. Pollen nutritional quality thus correlated with both phylogenetic relatedness and pollinator dependency, indicating that, besides producing pollen with sufficient nutrients for reproduction, the nutrient profile of zoophilous plants may have been shaped by their pollinators' nutritional needs.

Indexed as

NutrientsPollinationAnimalsBeesFlowersPedigreePhylogenyPollenNutrientsForagingMeta-analysisNutritionPlant–insect interactionsPollen qualityPollinationResource use

Identifiers

PMID31463783
OpenAlexW2970573471

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.