Cognitive Ecology of Pollination: Behavioural responses of pollinators to variation in floral display size and their influences on the evolution of floral traits

114 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Visit larger displays but probe proportionally fewer flowers: counterintuitive behaviour of nectar-collecting bumble bees achieves an ideal free distribution (2002, methodology): “Our model (Ohashi & Yahara 1999; Ohashi & Yahara 2001) made unique predictions concerning the effects of plant density on the two types of pollinator response to variation in floral display size.”
Beyond floricentrism: The pollination function of inflorescences (2004, background): “Within a plant population, large floral displays typically attract more pollinators than small displays (reviewed by Ohashi & Yahara 2001); however, attractiveness increases in a decelerating manner with display size (e.g. Harder & Barrett 1995).”
The influence of Mimulus ringens floral display size on pollinator visitation patterns (2004, background): “From the bee’s point of view, there are several proximal and ultimate mechanisms that may explain why they so often probe a single flower on a plant (Hodges 1985; Cresswell 1990; Kadmon 1992; Snow et al. 1996; Ohashi & Yahara 2001); we cannot distinguish among these hypotheses using our data.”
Effects of floral display size and plant density on pollinator visitation rate in a natural population of Digitalis purpurea (2005, unknown): “The relationship was slightly accelerating, whereas most earlier studies have found this relation to be decelerating (reviewed by Iwasa, de Jong & Klinkhamer 1995; Ohashi & Yahara 2001).”