Flowers with caffeinated nectar receive more pollination

Thomson, James D.; Draguleasa, Miruna A.; Tan, Marcus G.

doi:10.1007/s11829-014-9350-z

Cited by 78 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Caffeine in food also affects the fidelity and persistence of bees returning to food sources containing the compound (Couvillon et al . ; Thomson, Draguleasa & Tan ). However, they may continue to return to the source of caffeinated food after the food has been removed (Couvillon et al .…”

Section: Nectar Chemicals Mediating Behaviour Of Pollinatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant secondary metabolites in nectar: impacts on pollinators and ecological functions

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary1. The ecological function of secondary metabolites in plant defence against herbivores is well established, but their role in plant-pollinator interactions is less obvious. Nectar is the major reward for pollinators, so the occurrence of defence chemicals in the nectar of many species is unexpected. However, increasing evidence supports a variety of potential benefits for both plant and pollinator from these compounds. 2. Beneficial effects may include: (i) mediating specialization in plant-pollinator interactions, (ii) protecting nectar from robbery or larceny and (iii) microbial activity including preservation of nutrients in nectar from degradation and reduction in disease levels in pollinators. 3. Secondary metabolites in nectar can be toxic or repellent to flower visitors, but equally they can go undetected or even make nectar more apparent or attractive. These biological effects are concentration dependent, so must be considered at a range of ecologically relevant doses. For example, caffeine occurs in nectar and improves honeybee memory for odours associated with food rewards, which enhances pollen transfer at naturally occurring concentrations but is repellent to honeybees at higher concentrations. 4. This review synthesizes evidence from recent literature that supports selection for secondary metabolites in floral nectar as an adaptation that drives the co-evolution between plants and their pollinators. However, their presence in nectar could still simply be a consequence of their defensive role elsewhere in the plant (pleiotropy). We highlight the need for more studies demonstrating measurable benefits to the plant, the importance of exposure levels and effects on target species beyond the current emphasis on alkaloids and bees.

show abstract

Section: Nectar Chemicals Mediating Behaviour Of Pollinatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant secondary metabolites in nectar: impacts on pollinators and ecological functions

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Nicolson et al . ; Thomson, Draguleasa & Tan ). In certain instances, consumption of nectar toxins may in fact confer physiological benefits to pollinators.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant toxin levels in nectar vary spatially across native and introduced populations

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Secondary compounds in nectar can function as toxic chemical defences against floral antagonists, but may also mediate plant–pollinator interactions. Despite their ecological importance, few studies have investigated patterns of spatial variation in toxic nectar compounds in plant species, and none outside their native range. Grayanotoxin I (GTX I) occurs in nectar of invasive Rhododendron ponticum where it is toxic to honeybees and some solitary bee species. We examined (i) geographic variation in the composition of nectar GTX I, as well as GTX III (which is not toxic to these species), in the native and introduced range of R. ponticum, (ii) how their expression is structured at patch and landscape scales within ranges, and (iii) whether climatic and environmental factors underpin spatial patterns. While both GTXs varied within ranges, variation in GTX I, but not GTX III, was detected between ranges. GTX I expression was thus markedly lower or (in 18% of cases) absent from nectar in introduced plants. Spatial autocorrelation was apparent at both patch and landscape scales and in part related to heat load interception by plants (a function of latitude, aspect and slope). As expression of nectar GTXs was generally robust to environmental variation, and aggregated in space, this trait has the potential to be spatially discriminated by consumers. Given the specificity of change to GTX I, and its differential toxicity to some bee species, we conclude that its expression was likely to have been influenced during invasion by interaction with herbivores/consumers, either via pollinator‐mediated selection or enemy release from floral antagonists. Synthesis. As the first demonstration of large‐scale geographic variation and spatial structure in toxic nectar compounds, this work deepens our understanding of the chemical ecology of floral interactions in native and introduced species. Spatially explicit studies of nectar secondary compounds are thus required to show how the extent and structure of spatial variation may affect floral ecology. Future development of invasion theory should incorporate a holistic view of plant defence, beyond antagonistic interactions, which integrates the consequences of chemically defended mutualist rewards.

show abstract

“…18[29] Social behavior of zebrafish in response to varying stimuliZebrafish ( Danio rerio )Predatory fish model robot shoals comprising 3 zebrafish that varied in body size plus anchoring materials biologically-inspired zebrafish replicaABS plasticABS plasticABS plastic14 shoals1[68][28] [45] Influence of female body size on mate choice by malesNorthern map turtles ( Graptemys geographica )Replicas of female turtles that differed in body sizeABS plastic4[32] Evaluation of 3D printing as suitable method for field predation model studiesBrown anole ( Anolis sagrei )Lizard models using 2 print media, covered in clay, and field-tested for predationABS plastic, plastic-wood hybrid filament17This studyThermal ecology Comparing thermodynamics of 3D printed and copper lizard modelsTexas horned lizard ( Phrynosoma cornutum )Thermal models of lizardsABS plastic10[13]Tools—experimental areas Evaluation of 3D printed soil as suitable for fungal colonizationPlant pathogenic fungus ( Rhizoctonia solani )Artificial soil from 3D scans of soil with varying micropore structureNylon 1210[33] Comparing hydraulic properties of 3D printed soil relative to real soilSoilArtificial soil from 3D scans of soilResin (Visijet Crystal EX 200 Plastic Material)14[34] Microscale bacterial cell–cell interactions Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphlylococcus aureus “Designer” bacterial ecosystems that vary in size, geometry and spatial distance with exact starting quantities of P. aeruginosa and S. aureus GelatinNR[47, 48] Effect of interstitial space on predator–prey interactionsBlue crab ( Cal...…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For testing hypotheses in both lab and field conditions, 3D printing may be incredibly useful for making precise, repeatable models. Three-dimensional printing has already been used to create precise models of bird eggs to test egg rejection behavior in the context of brood parasitism [27], zebrafish shoals to test the effect of body size on zebrafish shoaling preferences [28], artificial flower corollas to test the effect of floral traits on pollinator visitation [29–31], and female turtle decoys to test the effect of body size on mate choice [32] (Table 1). In these studies, 3D printing was chosen for its ability to create identical experimental stimuli because alternative methods, such as constructing models by hand, could introduce unintentional variation that makes it difficult to determine whether study subjects are responding to intentional or unintentional variation in experimental stimuli.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits and limitations of three-dimensional printing technology for ecological research

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEcological research often involves sampling and manipulating non-model organisms that reside in heterogeneous environments. As such, ecologists often adapt techniques and ideas from industry and other scientific fields to design and build equipment, tools, and experimental contraptions custom-made for the ecological systems under study. Three-dimensional (3D) printing provides a way to rapidly produce identical and novel objects that could be used in ecological studies, yet ecologists have been slow to adopt this new technology. Here, we provide ecologists with an introduction to 3D printing.ResultsFirst, we give an overview of the ecological research areas in which 3D printing is predicted to be the most impactful and review current studies that have already used 3D printed objects. We then outline a methodological workflow for integrating 3D printing into an ecological research program and give a detailed example of a successful implementation of our 3D printing workflow for 3D printed models of the brown anole, Anolis sagrei, for a field predation study. After testing two print media in the field, we show that the models printed from the less expensive and more sustainable material (blend of 70% plastic and 30% recycled wood fiber) were just as durable and had equal predator attack rates as the more expensive material (100% virgin plastic).ConclusionsOverall, 3D printing can provide time and cost savings to ecologists, and with recent advances in less toxic, biodegradable, and recyclable print materials, ecologists can choose to minimize social and environmental impacts associated with 3D printing. The main hurdles for implementing 3D printing—availability of resources like printers, scanners, and software, as well as reaching proficiency in using 3D image software—may be easier to overcome at institutions with digital imaging centers run by knowledgeable staff. As with any new technology, the benefits of 3D printing are specific to a particular project, and ecologists must consider the investments of developing usable 3D materials for research versus other methods of generating those materials.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12898-018-0190-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Flowers with caffeinated nectar receive more pollination

Cited by 78 publications

References 24 publications

Plant secondary metabolites in nectar: impacts on pollinators and ecological functions

Plant secondary metabolites in nectar: impacts on pollinators and ecological functions

Plant toxin levels in nectar vary spatially across native and introduced populations

Benefits and limitations of three-dimensional printing technology for ecological research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About