ArticleAnnals of botany2023
The role of within-plant variation in nectar production: an experimental approach.
Article in Annals of botany, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patterns of within- and among-plant variation in nectar production in the beetle-pollinated Amianthium muscaetoxicum.American journal of botany · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsNectar, a plant reward for pollinators, can be energetically expensive. Hence, a higher investment in nectar production can lead to reduced allocation to other vital functions and/or increased geitonogamous pollination. One possible strategy employed by plants to reduce these costs is to offer variable amounts of nectar among flowers within a plant, to manipulate pollinator behaviour. Using artificial flowers, we tested this hypothesis by examining how pollinator visitation responds to inter- and intra-plant variation in nectar production, assessing how these responses impact the energetic cost per visit.
methodsWe conducted a 2 × 2 factorial experiment using artificial flowers, with two levels of nectar investment (high and low sugar concentration) and two degrees of intra-plant variation in nectar concentration (coefficient of variation 0 and 20 %). The experimental plants were exposed to visits (number and type) from a captive Bombus impatiens colony, and we recorded the total visitation rate, distinguishing geitonogamous from exogamous visits. Additionally, we calculated two estimators of the energetic cost per visit and examined whether flowers with higher nectar concentrations (richer flowers) attracted more bumblebees. KEY
resultsPlants in the variable nectar production treatment (coefficient of variation 20 %) had a greater proportion of flowers visited by pollinators, with higher rates of total, geitonogamous and exogamous visitation, compared with plants with invariable nectar production. When assuming no nectar reabsorption, variable plants incurred a lower cost per visit compared with invariable plants. Moreover, highly rewarding flowers on variable plants had higher rates of pollination visits compared with flowers with few rewards.
conclusionsIntra-plant variation in nectar concentration can represent a mechanism for pollinator manipulation, enabling plants to decrease the energetic costs of the interaction while still ensuring consistent pollinator visitation. However, our findings did not provide support for the hypothesis that intra-plant variation in nectar concentration acts as a mechanism to avoid geitonogamy. Additionally, our results confirmed the hypothesis that increased visitation to variable plants is dependent on the presence of flowers with nectar concentration above the mean.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.