ArticleScientific reports2019
Male flowers of Aconitum compensate for toxic pollen with increased floral signals and rewards for pollinators.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bumblebees learn to use antennal and tarsal taste to predict the presence of nectar rewards in flowers.The Journal of experimental biology · 2025Article
- High toxin concentration in pollen may deter collection by bees in butterfly-pollinated Rhododendron molle.Annals of botany · 2024Article
- Review
- Floral scent changes in response to pollen removal are rare in buzz-pollinated Solanum.Planta · 2024Article
- The known, unknown, and the intriguing about members of a critically endangered traditional medicinal plant genusFrontiers in plant science · 2023Review
- Bumblebees moving up: shifts in elevation ranges in the Pyrenees over 115 years.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020Article
- Full-length transcriptome sequencing provides insights into the evolution of apocarotenoid biosynthesis inComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020Article
- Toxicological Risk Assessment of the Accidental Ingestion of a Honeybee (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many plants require animal pollinators for successful reproduction; these plants provide pollinator resources in pollen and nectar (rewards) and attract pollinators by specific cues (signals). In a seeming contradiction, some plants produce toxins such as alkaloids in their pollen and nectar, protecting their resources from ineffective pollinators. We investigated signals and rewards in the toxic, protandrous bee-pollinated plant Aconitum napellus, hypothesizing that male-phase flower reproductive success is pollinator-limited, which should favour higher levels of signals (odours) and rewards (nectar and pollen) compared with female-phase flowers. Furthermore, we expected insect visitors to forage only for nectar, due to the toxicity of pollen. We demonstrated that male-phase flowers emitted more volatile molecules and produced higher volumes of nectar than female-phase flowers. Alkaloids in pollen functioned as chemical defences, and were more diverse and more concentrated compared to the alkaloids in nectar. Visitors actively collected little pollen for larval food but consumed more of the less-toxic nectar. Toxic pollen remaining on the bee bodies promoted pollen transfer efficiency, facilitating pollination.
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.