Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41101773›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental entomology2025

Pacific Northwest native plants and native cultivars part II: plant and pollinator traits.

Jen J-M Hayes, Nicole C S Bell, Lincoln R Best, Svea R Bruslind, Leo A Case, Devon O Johnson, Kailey N Legier, Mallory E Mead, Tyler S Spofford, Priyadarshini Chakrabarti and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental entomology, 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

12 authors.

Jen J-M HayesHorticulture Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.ORCID 0009-0006-6319-9370
Nicole C S BellHorticulture Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.
Lincoln R BestHorticulture Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.
Svea R BruslindHorticulture Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.
Leo A CaseHorticulture Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.ORCID 0009-0000-1536-6855
Devon O JohnsonHorticulture Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.
Kailey N LegierHorticulture Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.
Mallory E MeadHorticulture Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.
Tyler S SpoffordHorticulture Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.
Priyadarshini ChakrabartiHorticulture Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0489-8586
Lauren N BaugusDepartment of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Entomology and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-5503-0690
Gail A LangellottoHorticulture Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6705-2559

Funding

Garden Club of AmericaNative Plant Society of OregonY. Sherry Sheng and Spike Wadsworth
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of native plant cultivars in pollinator plantings is somewhat controversial. Although some cultivars originate from wild populations, others are bred for novel ornamental traits, which may have unintended impacts on floral rewards, such as nectar and pollen. It is unclear whether changes in floral displays and/or rewards may alter plant-pollinator relationships. We established an experimental garden of Pacific Northwest native plants and native cultivars to evaluate differences in their floral traits and bee communities. We used a combination of methodologies to quantify variation in plant traits that could influence pollinator foraging, including those associated with floral displays (eg petal color, corolla morphology) and floral rewards (pollen and nectar). We also measured changes in bee community composition (eg species associations, functional diversity) across plant groups. We found that cultivars varied significantly from native plants across multiple floral display or reward traits. No plants were bred for nectar or pollen traits, thus changes in rewards were likely pleiotropic. Nine out of 10 tested cultivars had dissimilar bee communities to their native plant counterpart, though minimally developed cultivars were associated with similar bee species and functional traits. Our results suggest that the development of native plant cultivars can come at the cost of pollinator functional richness, though some variation in bee composition may be expected among wild plant populations with diverse phenotypes. Plants with phenotypes consistent with wild-type plants tended to support functionally rich bee communities and should be emphasized in plantings to maximize potential benefits to pollinators.

Indexed as

FlowersPollinationAnimalsBeesIntroduced SpeciesPlant NectarPollenPlant Nectarbeesfloral morphologyfloral rewardsfunctional diversityornamental plants

Identifiers

PMID41101773
PMCPMC12716280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.