Nectar guide

Abstract: Not all floral visitors attracted to flowers are pollinators. Instead, some visitors circumvent the floral opening, usually removing nectar without contacting the anthers and/or stigma. Here we review the evolutionary ecology of nectar robbing from both the plant and animal perspective. Effects of robbing on female and male components of plant reproduction range from negative to positive. Their underlying mechanisms are diverse, including direct effects and indirect effects mediated through changes in pollination. We detail how plants may be able to deter robbers through morphological and chemical traits. For the evolutionary ecology of robbing to move beyond a phytocentric perspective, studies must also address the causes of robbing and the consequences for both robbers and pollinators. We use an energetics approach to evaluate these causes and consequences. Finally, we highlight unanswered questions in need of further research.

Abstract: Summary Flowers produce a plethora of secondary metabolites but only nectar sugars, floral pigments and headspace volatiles have been examined in the context of pollinator behavior. We identify secondary metabolites in the headspace and nectar of glasshouse- and field-grown Nicotiana attenuata plants, infer within-flower origins by analyzing six flower parts, and compare the attractiveness of 16 constituents in standardized choice tests with two guilds of natural pollinators (Manducasexta moths and Archilochus alexandri and Selasphorus rufus hummingbirds) and one nectar thief (Solenopsis xyloni ants) to determine whether nectar metabolites can ‘filter’ flower visitors: only two could. Moths responded more strongly than did hummingbirds to headspace presentation of nicotine and benzylacetone, the most abundant repellent and attractant compounds, respectively. For both pollinators, nectar repellents decreased nectaring time and nectar volume removed, but increased visitation number, particularly for hummingbirds. Fewer ants visited if the nectar contained repellents. To determine whether nicotine reduced nectar removal rates in nature, we planted transformed, nicotine-silenced plants into native populations in Utah over 2 years. Plants completely lacking nicotine in their nectar had 68–70% more nectar removed per night by the native community of floral visitors than did wild-type plants. We hypothesize that nectar repellents optimize the number of flower visitors per volume of nectar produced, allowing plants to keep their nectar volumes small.

Abstract: Nectaries differ in many aspects but a common feature is some kind of advantage for the plant conferred by foraging of consumers which may defend the plant from predators in the case of extrafloral nectaries, or be agents of pollination in the case of floral nectaries. This minireview is concerned mainly with floral nectaries and examines the following characteristics: position in flower; nectary structure; origin of carbohydrates, aminoacids and proteins; manner of exposure of nectar; site of nectar presentation; volume and production of nectar in time; sexual expression of flower and nectary morphology; nectar composition and floral sexual expression; variability of nectar composition; fate of nectar; energy cost of nectar production. The species of certain large families, such as Brassicaceae, Lamiaceae and Asteraceae, resemble each other in nectary organisation; other families, such as Cucurbitaceae and Ranunculaceae, have various types of organisation. A scheme is presented to illustrate factors influencing nectary and nectar biodiversity.

Abstract: The majority of species of flowering plants rely on pollination by insects, so that their reproductive success and in part their population structure are determined by insect behaviour. The foraging behaviour of insect pollinators is flexible and complex, because efficient collection of nectar or pollen is no simple matter. Each flower provides a variable but generally small reward that is often hidden, flowers are patchily distributed in time and space, and are erratically depleted of rewards by other foragers. Insects that specialise in visiting flowers have evolved an array of foraging strategies that act to improve their efficiency, which in turn determine the reproductive success of the plants that they visit. This review attempts a synthesis of the recent literature on selectivity in pollinator foraging behaviour, in terms of the species, patch and individual flowers that they choose to visit. The variable nature of floral resources necessitate foraging behaviour based upon flexible learning, so that foragers can respond to the pattern of rewards that they encounter. Fidelity to particular species allows foragers to learn appropriate handling skills and so reduce handling times, but may also be favoured by use of a search image to detect flowers. The rewards received are also used to determine the spatial patterns of searches; distance and direction of flights are adjusted so that foragers tend to remain within rewarding patches and depart swiftly from unrewarding ones. The distribution of foragers among patchy resources generally conforms to the expectations of two simple optimal foraging models, the ideal free distribution and the marginal value theorem. Insects are able to learn to discriminate among flowers of their preferred species on the basis of subtle differences in floral morphology. They may discriminate upon the basis of flower size, age, sex or symmetry and so choose the more rewarding flowers. Some insects are also able to distinguish and reject depleted flowers on the basis of ephemeral odours left by previous visitors. These odours have recently been implicated as a mechanism involved in interspecific interactions between foragers. From the point of view of a plant reliant upon insect pollination, the behaviour of its pollinators (and hence its reproductive success) is likely to vary according to the rewards offered, the size and complexity of floral displays used to advertise their location, the distribution of conspecific and of rewards offered by other plant species, and the abundance and behaviour of other flower visitors.