Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38020672›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2023

Artificial flowers as a tool for investigating multimodal flower choice in wild insects.

Kathryn M Chapman, Freya J Richardson, Caitlyn Y Forster, Eliza J T Middleton, Thomas E White, Paul F Burke, Tanya Latty

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kathryn M ChapmanSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia.
Freya J RichardsonSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia.
Caitlyn Y ForsterSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4525-8545
Eliza J T MiddletonSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia.
Thomas E WhiteSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3976-1734
Paul F BurkeUTS Business School and Centre for Business Intelligence and Data Analytics University of Technology Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia.
Tanya LattySchool of Life and Environmental Sciences The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7469-8590
The University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Flowers come in a variety of colours, shapes, sizes and odours. Flowers also differ in the quality and quantity of nutritional reward they provide to entice potential pollinators to visit. Given this diversity, generalist flower-visiting insects face the considerable challenge of deciding which flowers to feed on and which to ignore. Working with real flowers poses logistical challenges due to correlations between flower traits, maintenance costs and uncontrolled variables. Here, we overcome this challenge by designing multimodal artificial flowers that varied in visual, olfactory and reward attributes. We used artificial flowers to investigate the impact of seven floral attributes (three visual cues, two olfactory cues and two rewarding attributes) on flower visitation and species richness. We investigated how flower attributes influenced two phases of the decision-making process: the decision to land on a flower, and the decision to feed on a flower. Artificial flowers attracted 890 individual insects representing 15 morphospecies spanning seven arthropod orders. Honeybees were the most common visitors accounting for 46% of visitors. Higher visitation rates were driven by the presence of nectar, the presence of linalool, flower shape and flower colour and was negatively impacted by the presence of citral. Species richness was driven by the presence of nectar, the presence of linalool and flower colour. For hymenopterans, the probability of landing on the artificial flowers was influenced by the presence of nectar or pollen, shape and the presence of citral and/or linalool. The probability of feeding increased when flowers contained nectar. For dipterans, the probability of landing on artificial flowers increased when the flower was yellow and contained linalool. The probability of feeding increased when flowers contained pollen, nectar and linalool. Our results demonstrate the multi-attribute nature of flower preferences and highlight the usefulness of artificial flowers as tools for studying flower visitation in wild insects.

Indexed as

dipteraflowerflower preferenceflower visitorshymenopteramultimodal choice

Identifiers

PMID38020672
PMCPMC10659823
OpenAlexW4388851789

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.