ArticleBMC plant biology2025
Can nectary structure in Laeliinae promote or constrain nectar secretion?
Article in BMC plant biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The orchid subtribe Laeliinae has an assemblage of morphologically diverse taxa. The diversity in floral morphology of its members can be explained in terms of pollination ecology in that this subtribe contains both entomophilous and ornithophilous species. Given the wide range of pollinators, one would expect to find considerable differences in morphology of the floral nectaries. Fully developed nectaries appeared to be entirely non-functional in some taxa. The aim of this work was to compare the micromorphology of the inner nectary spur in selected representatives of Laeliinae in order to ascertain which structural features improve or reduce nectar secretion, and thereby contribute towards the evolutionary success of this subtribe. Here, we investigate the nectary structure of 48 species representing the genera Prosthechea, Encyclia, Epidendrum and Dinema. Of these, the nectary of Encyclia was of the narrow-tubular form (cuniculus-type), that of Prosthechea and Dinema was short and sac-like, whereas both nectary types were present in Epidendrum, the former type being the more common. Whereas the nectary of Dinema contained nectar, this was either absent or present in nectaries of the other three genera. Statistical analyses of the morphological and micromorphological characters of the nectary revealed that the probability of nectar being present was lower for the long, tubular nectaries (e.g. Encyclia and Epidendrum), whereas most Prosthechea spp. investigated, as well as Dinema, possessed sac-like, functional nectaries. Also, all investigated taxa, irrespective of the presence of nectar, shared a thick cuticle and thick epidermal and subepidermal cell walls (in the secretory layer). Analyses also showed that the probability of nectar being present increased with an increase in the thickness of the secretory layer. Furthermore, there was also a greater probability of the epidermal cells lining functional nectaries having a smooth cuticle. The occurrence, or otherwise, of nectar may indicate that the secretory capacity of this group of orchids is plastic, and not limited by structural constraints, thus allowing for the relatively easy turning on and off of the secretory process.
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.