Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35491594›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2022

Potential effects of nectar microbes on pollinator health.

Valerie N Martin, Robert N Schaeffer, Tadashi Fukami

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Diversity and sources of floral microbial communities.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Review
  3. Using the Solitary PollinatorEcology and evolution · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Valerie N MartinDepartment of Biology, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7329-516X
Robert N SchaefferDepartment of Biology, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7930-6878
Tadashi FukamiDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5654-4785

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Floral nectar is prone to colonization by nectar-adapted yeasts and bacteria via air-, rain-, and animal-mediated dispersal. Upon colonization, microbes can modify nectar chemical constituents that are plant-provisioned or impart their own through secretion of metabolic by-products or antibiotics into the nectar environment. Such modifications can have consequences for pollinator perception of nectar quality, as microbial metabolism can leave a distinct imprint on olfactory and gustatory cues that inform foraging decisions. Furthermore, direct interactions between pollinators and nectar microbes, as well as consumption of modified nectar, have the potential to affect pollinator health both positively and negatively. Here, we discuss and integrate recent findings from research on plant-microbe-pollinator interactions and their consequences for pollinator health. We then explore future avenues of research that could shed light on the myriad ways in which nectar microbes can affect pollinator health, including the taxonomic diversity of vertebrate and invertebrate pollinators that rely on this reward. This article is part of the theme issue 'Natural processes influencing pollinator health: from chemistry to landscapes'.

Indexed as

BacteriaPlant NectarAnimalsPlantsSmellPlant Nectarnectar chemistrynectar microbeplant-pollinatorpollinator health

Identifiers

PMID35491594
PMCPMC9058548

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.