Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33886638›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Inoculation of pear flowers with Metschnikowia reukaufii and Acinetobacter nectaris enhances attraction of honeybees and hoverflies, but does not increase fruit and seed set.

Agneta Colda, Sofie Bossaert, Christel Verreth, Bart Vanhoutte, Olivier Honnay, Wannes Keulemans, Bart Lievens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Diversity and sources of floral microbial communities.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Olfactory Responses ofInsects · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Potential effects of nectar microbes on pollinator health.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    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

7 authors.

Agneta ColdaDivision of Crop Biotechnics, Laboratory for Fruit Breeding and Biotechnology, Department of Biosystems, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8677-6421
Sofie BossaertLaboratory for Process Microbial Ecology and Bioinspirational Management, Department of Microbial and Molecular Systems, Center of Microbial and Plant Genetics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9111-0816
Christel VerrethLaboratory for Process Microbial Ecology and Bioinspirational Management, Department of Microbial and Molecular Systems, Center of Microbial and Plant Genetics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Bart VanhoutteResearch Center for Fruit Growing, Sint-Truiden, Belgium.
Olivier HonnayDivision of Ecology, Evolution and Biodiversity Conservation, Department of Biology, Plant Conservation and Population Biology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Wannes KeulemansDivision of Crop Biotechnics, Laboratory for Fruit Breeding and Biotechnology, Department of Biosystems, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Bart LievensLaboratory for Process Microbial Ecology and Bioinspirational Management, Department of Microbial and Molecular Systems, Center of Microbial and Plant Genetics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, one of the most important challenges is to provide sufficient and affordable food and energy for a fast-growing world population, alongside preserving natural habitats and maintaining biodiversity. About 35% of the global food production depends on animals for pollination. In recent years, an alarming worldwide decline in pollinators has been reported, putting our food production under additional pressure. Therefore, there is an urgent need to find sustainable ways to ensure this crucial ecosystem service. Recent studies have shown that floral nectar is generally colonized by microorganisms, specifically yeasts and bacteria, which may alter nectar chemistry and enhance attraction of pollinators. In this study, we investigated changes in pollinator foraging behavior and pollination success in European pear (Pyrus communis L.) cultivars 'Regal Red' and 'Sweet Sensation' (red sports of 'Doyenné de Comice') after flower inoculation with the typical nectar-inhabiting microorganisms Metschnikowia reukaufii and Acinetobacter nectaris, and a combination of both. Pollination success was monitored by measuring the number of flower visits, fruit set and seed set in two consecutive years, 2019 and 2020. Results revealed that application of a mixture of M. reukaufii and A. nectaris resulted in significantly higher visitation rates of honeybees and hoverflies. By contrast, no effects on flower visits were found when yeasts and bacteria were applied separately. Fruit set and seed set were not significantly affected by any of the inoculation treatments. The only factors affecting fruit set were initial number of flower clusters on the trees and the year. The absence of treatment effects can most likely be attributed to the fact that pollination was not a limiting factor for fruit set in our experiments. Altogether, our results show that inoculation of flowers with nectar microbes can modify pollinator foraging patterns, but did not lead to increased pollination success under the conditions tested.

Indexed as

Plant NectarPollinationAnimalsBeesFlowersFruitPyrusPlant Nectar

Identifiers

PMID33886638
PMCPMC8061982

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.