Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39417253›Full record

ArticleAnnals of botany2025

High frequency of ambophily in a Brazilian campos de altitude.

Amanda Pacheco, Pedro Joaquim Bergamo, Leandro Freitas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of botany, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Amanda PachecoInstituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 22460-030, Brazil.
Pedro Joaquim BergamoInstituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 22460-030, Brazil.
Leandro FreitasInstituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 22460-030, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-4146-2514

Funding

CNPQ 304458/2022-8FAPERJ E-26/201.867/2020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsAmbophily, an intriguing pollination system in which plant species present adaptations to both biotic and abiotic pollination, has been scarcely reported. Most studies have been conducted with a single or few related species from wind-pollinated genera. We here assess for the first time the frequency of ambophily at the community level.

methodsWe evaluated pollen carried by wind in 63 animal-pollinated species from a Brazilian campos de altitude. For those with pollen carried by wind, we evaluated the contribution of wind and animals to seed production with controlled pollination experiments, as well as floral traits and floral visitor assemblages. KEY

resultsPollen of 23 species was carried by wind (~37 %). Animals and wind contributed to the reproduction of seven species (~11 %), including one pollinated by hummingbirds, large bees and wind. These seven ambophilous species presented unrestrictive floral morphologies and generalist pollination.

conclusionsWe found a high frequency of ambophily in a single community (11 %), which represented an increment of ~5 % of species relative to all ambophilous species reported in the literature so far. Investigating pollen transport by wind in zoophilous species combined with controlled experiments helped detect ambophily in species that are usually ignored in wind pollination studies. Our results showed that putative zoophilous species may actually be ambophilous, suggesting that the selective pressures towards ambophily also occur in zoophilous lineages.

Indexed as

PollinationAltitudeAnimalsBirdsBrazilFlowersPollenWindCampos de altitudefloral traitsgeneralizationmixed pollination systemplant–pollinator interactionstropical mountain grasslands

Identifiers

PMID39417253
PMCPMC11897592

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.