ArticlePloS one2024
Floral visitors of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.): Elucidating their nectar-robbing behaviour and impacts on the plant reproduction.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interactions of flower visitors with bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.) and effects of right target and wrong target flower visits on plant reproduction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nectar robbing is common in angiosperms, especially in long tubular flowers or flowers with spurs that keep nectar out of reach of visitors. However, the robbing behaviour of bees is less understood. Here, we studied the sesame visitors, their robbing behaviour, and the impacts of robbing on plant reproductive fitness. Diverse insect species (primarily members of Hymenoptera) visited sesame flowers. The most effective pollinators were Amegilla zonata, Apis cerana, Apis dorsata, Apis florea, Ceratina binghami, Halictus acrocephalus and Xylocopa amethystina. Almost all visitors with variable percentages revealed the nectar-robbing phenomenon. Robbing activity depended on a complex of multiple attributes, including the visitor's body size, the corolla tube length, the availability and accessibility of nectar, and the resource-collecting task allocation of bees. Robbing activity varied according to flower-visiting species, flowering period and daytime. Robbing was comparatively higher in the late flowering period at 10.00-14.00 h. In the case of robbing visits, flower handling time was lower, and the visitation rate remained higher than non-robbing visits. Robbing visits did not significantly affect fruit and seed sets of sesame. Therefore, we can interpret the nectar-robbing interactions on sesame as commensal, with pollinators benefitting without altering the plant's reproductive fitness.
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.