Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35018412›Full record

ArticleAnnals of botany2022

Comparing the contents, functions and neonicotinoid take-up between floral and extrafloral nectar within a single species (Hemerocallis citrina Baroni).

Hong-Xia Zhou, Richard I Milne, Peng Cui, Wen-Jing Gu, Meng-Fang Hu, Xin-Yue Liu, Yue-Qin Song, Jun Cao, Hong-Guang Zha

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of botany, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Hong-Xia ZhouCollege of Life and Environment Sciences, Huangshan University, Huangshan 245041, China.
Richard I MilneInstitute of Molecular Plant Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JH, UK.
Peng CuiInstrumental Analysis Centre, Huangshan University, Huangshan 245041, China.
Wen-Jing GuCollege of Life and Environment Sciences, Huangshan University, Huangshan 245041, China.
Meng-Fang HuCollege of Life and Environment Sciences, Huangshan University, Huangshan 245041, China.
Xin-Yue LiuCollege of Life and Environment Sciences, Huangshan University, Huangshan 245041, China.
Yue-Qin SongCollege of Life and Environment Sciences, Huangshan University, Huangshan 245041, China.
Jun CaoYunnan Key Laboratory of Plant Reproductive Adaption and Evolutionary Ecology and School of Ecology and Environmental Science, Yunnan University, Kunming 650500, China.
Hong-Guang ZhaCollege of Life and Environment Sciences, Huangshan University, Huangshan 245041, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5671-3999
Huangshan University · CNUniversity of Edinburgh · GBYunnan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsMany angiosperms can secrete both floral (FN) and extrafloral (EFN) nectar. However, much remains unclear about how EFN and FN differ in secretion, composition and ecological function, especially when both FN and EFN are secreted on flowers of the same species.

methodsHemerocallis citrina flowers secrete both FN and EFN. The FN and EFN traits including volume, presentation pattern and temporal rhythms of secretion were compared by field observation. Sugar and amino acid contents were analysed using regular biochemical methods, whereas the proteome was investigated by combined gel-based and gel-free approaches. Animal feeders on FN and EFN were investigated by field observation. Hemerocallis citrina plants were exposed by soil drenching to two systemic insecticides, acetamiprid and imidacloprid, and the concentration of these in FN and EFN was measured by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. KEY

resultsHemerocallis citrina FN was concentrated and sucrose dominant, secreted in the mature flower tube and served as a reward for pollinators. Conversely, EFN was hexose rich, more dilute and less rich in sugar and amino acids. EFN was secreted on the outside of developing floral buds, and was likely to attract predatory animals for defence. EFN had fewer phenolics, but more pathogenesis-related components, such as chitinase and glucanase. A significantly different proteomic profile and enzymatic activities between FN and EFN suggest that they had different biosynthesis mechanisms. Both neonicotinoid insecticides examined became present in both nectar types soon after application, but in greater concentration within EFN; EFN also attracted a wider range of insect species than FN.

conclusionsHemerocallis citrina FN and EFN differed in production, composition and ecological function. The EFN pathway could be a significant way for neonicotinoids to enter the wild food chain, and must be considered when evaluating the risks to the environment of other systemic insecticides.

Indexed as

AntsHemerocallisInsecticidesAnimalsCarbohydratesFlowersNeonicotinoidsPlant NectarProteomicsSugarsCarbohydratesInsecticidesNeonicotinoidsPlant NectarSugarsExtrafloral nectarfloral nectarHemerocallis citrina Baroninectar proteomesystemic insecticides

Identifiers

PMID35018412
PMCPMC8944713
OpenAlexW4205559428

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.