Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36989243›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Marvellous moths! pollen deposition rate of bramble (Rubus futicosus L. agg.) is greater at night than day.

Max Anderson, Ellen L Rotheray, Fiona Mathews

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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.

Max AndersonSchool of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0095-271X
Ellen L RotheraySchool of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Fiona MathewsSchool of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2580-2769

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Widespread concerns about declines of wild pollinating insects has attracted considerable research interest, largely directed towards identifying key nectar sources and assessing the contribution of pollinators towards ecosystem services. However, previous work has almost exclusively focussed on bees and other diurnal invertebrate taxa. This study aimed to assess the relative contribution of diurnal and nocturnal insects to the pollination of bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.), a common and widespread species aggregate across Europe, which has been identified as a key source of pollen and nectar for diurnal pollinators. Bramble flower visitation rates by diurnal and nocturnal insects were quantified by analysing over 380,000 interval photographs taken over a 3-day period across 10 sites. A pollinator exclusion experiment was also undertaken to assess the importance of diurnal and nocturnal insects for pollination by analysing pollen deposition on 480 bramble stigmas of nocturnally exposed, diurnally exposed and unvisited control flowers across all sites. Flower visitation was significantly higher during the day, comprising 83% of all visits made by a range of taxa. Nocturnal visitation was almost exclusively by moths. Crucially, pollen deposition rates of bramble were significantly higher during the night compared with the day. No relationship was detected between pollen counts and flower visitation rates, suggesting that moths are more efficient pollinators of bramble compared with diurnal insects. Overall, this work provides further evidence of the value of bramble as a resource for pollinators and demonstrates that moths likely play an important role in bramble pollination.

Indexed as

MothsRubusAnimalsBeesEcosystemInsectaPlant NectarPollenPlant Nectar

Identifiers

PMID36989243
PMCPMC10057810

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.