Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41261455›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of botany2025

Do flowers with specialized morphologies produce more nectar and pollen?

Tamar Keasar, Levona Bodner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of botany, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

Tamar KeasarDepartment of Biology and the Environment, University of Haifa - Oranim, Tivon, 36006, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-4925-0823
Levona BodnerDepartment of Evolutionary and Environmental Biology, University of Haifa, Haifa, 3498838, Israel.ORCID 0000-0001-9758-2489

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

premiseFlower morphology influences the architecture of plant-pollinator interaction networks. Flowers with deep corolla tubes and bilateral symmetry have a narrower pollinator range, hence are considered more specialized than shallow radial flowers. Past interspecific comparisons revealed positive correlations between flower depth and nectar production rates in a few plant communities, suggesting that specialized flowers may allocate more resources into food rewards for pollinators.

methodsWe compiled a global data set of flower morphology vs. nectar sugar production rates (N = 494 plant species) and per-flower pollen counts (N = 164 species). We applied phylogenetically controlled mixed models to examine the effects of symmetry and tube length on floral rewards.

resultsCorolla tube lengths, symmetry type, and their interaction significantly predicted nectar production rates, with the larger effect attributed to tube length. Neither tube length nor symmetry predicted pollen number. Both nectar and pollen production were affected by phylogeny in a larger data set of 854 species that produce both pollen and nectar and 1040 species that produce only pollen as rewards for visitors. Genus explained more of the variation in nectar production and less of the variation in pollen production than family.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that visual signals associated with specialized flowers indicate nectar production, but not pollen rewards. Other visual and chemical family-specific floral displays potentially advertise pollen availability to pollinators. We propose experiments to test whether nectar foragers indeed use flower depth and symmetry as combined signals that guide their choices of nectar sources.

Indexed as

FlowersPlant NectarPollenAnimalsPhylogenyPollinationPlant Nectaractinomorphycorolla tube lengthhonest signalPGLMMzygomorphy

Identifiers

PMID41261455
PMCPMC12640470

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.