Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32606366›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Iridescence and hydrophobicity have no clear delineation that explains flower petal micro-surface.

Jair E Garcia, Mani Shrestha, Laura Ospina-Rozo, Chaitali Dekiwadia, Matthew R Field, Ji Sheng Ma, Nhiem Tran, Adrian G Dyer, Kate Fox, Andrew D Greentree

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jair E Garcia *Bio-Inspired Digital Sensing Solutions (BIDS) Lab, School of Media and Communication, RMIT University, Melbourne, 3001, Australia. jair.garcia@rmit.edu.au.
Mani Shrestha *Bio-Inspired Digital Sensing Solutions (BIDS) Lab, School of Media and Communication, RMIT University, Melbourne, 3001, Australia.
Laura Ospina-Rozo *School of Biosciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3053, Australia.
Chaitali DekiwadiaRMIT Microscopy and Microanalysis Facility (RMMF), RMIT University, Melbourne, 3001, Australia.
Matthew R FieldRMIT Microscopy and Microanalysis Facility (RMMF), RMIT University, Melbourne, 3001, Australia.
Ji Sheng MaMonash Centre for Electron Microscopy (MCEM), Monash University, Clayton, 3800, Australia.
Nhiem TranApplied Chemistry and Environmental Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, 3001, Australia.
Adrian G DyerBio-Inspired Digital Sensing Solutions (BIDS) Lab, School of Media and Communication, RMIT University, Melbourne, 3001, Australia.
Kate FoxSchool of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, 3001, Australia.
Andrew D GreentreeARC Centre of Excellence for Nanoscale BioPhotonics, School of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, 3001, Australia.
RMIT University · AUMonash University · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant organs including flowers and leaves typically have a variety of different micro-structures present on the epidermal surface. These structures can produce measurable optical effects with viewing angle including shifts in peak reflectance and intensity; however, these different structures can also modulate hydrophobic properties of the surfaces. For some species optical effects have been proposed to act as signals to enhance pollination interactions, whilst the ability to efficiently shed water provides physiological advantages to plants in terms of gas exchange and reducing infections. Currently, little is known about epidermal surface structure of flowering plants in the Southern Hemisphere, and how micro-surface may be related with either hydrophobicity or visual signalling. We measured four Australian native species and two naturalised species using a combination of techniques including SEM imaging, spectral sampling with a goniometer and contact angle measurements. Spectral data were evaluated in relation to published psychophysics results for important pollinators and reveal that potential visual changes, where present, were unlikely to be perceived by relevant pollinators. Nevertheless, hydrophobicity also did not simply explain petal surfaces as similar structures could in some cases result in very different levels of water repellency.

Indexed as

AustraliaFlowersHydrophobic and Hydrophilic InteractionsIridescenceMagnoliopsidaPigmentationPollination

Identifiers

PMID32606366
PMCPMC7326983
OpenAlexW3038662992

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.