ARE NECTAR ROBBERS CHEATERS OR MUTUALISTS

By Joan E. Maloof, David I. Inouye. 2000

373 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b8180f42b366e945d254d69e1ca27486cd809a15

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. Alexandra-Maria Klein
2. T. Tscharntke
3. S. Potts
4. I. Steffan‐Dewenter
5. N. Blüthgen
6. P. Batáry
7. C. Kremen
8. J. Ness

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. T. Tscharntke
2. Alexandra-Maria Klein
3. I. Steffan‐Dewenter
4. S. Potts
5. J. Ness
6. P. Batáry
7. P. Willmer
8. N. Blüthgen

In Plant Science

1. Alexandra-Maria Klein
2. T. Tscharntke
3. S. Potts
4. I. Steffan‐Dewenter
5. P. Batáry
6. B. Howlett
7. N. Blüthgen
8. G. Stone

Citations in the corpus

• ATTRACTING ANTAGONISTS: DOES FLORAL NECTAR INCREASE LEAF HERBIVORY? (2004, neutral): “Common examples of such antagonists include nectar robbers and thieves that damage floral structures (Maloof and Inouye 2000, Galen and Cuba 2001, Irwin et al. 2001), floral herbivores (Nitao and Zangerl 1987, Zangerl and Rutledge 1996, Wolfe 1997), predispersal seed predators (Augspurger 1981,…”
• Larger pollinators deposit more pollen on stigmas across multiple plant species—A meta‐analysis (2020, background): “For example, some flower visitors may be partly or entirely nectar thieves according to their behaviour without making contact with the floral reproductive structures, and therefore avoid depositing pollen grains on stigmas (Maloof & Inouye, 2000; Junker et al., 2010).”
• The Evolution of Mutualistic Dependence (2020, background): “Moreover, the net fitness effect of nectar robbers on plants is highly variable, and in some cases they act as commensals or even mutualists (Maloof & Inouye 2000), suggesting that the selective pressure to evolve antirobbing mechanisms may be weak.”
• Floral volatiles controlling ant behaviour (2009, background): “Such effects will usually be detrimental, but can enhance outcrossing if ants make pollinators move more frequently between plants (see Maloof & Inouye 2000 ).”
• Pollination of Coffea canephora in relation to local and regional agroforestry management (2003, background): “(4) Social, stingless bees often damage flowers, so fruit set may be reduced (Maloof & Inouye 2000; Irwin, Brody & Waser 2001).”
• COMPETITION FOR COMPOSITION: LESSONS FROM NECTAR-FEEDING ANT COMMUNITIES (2004, background): “Clearly, the magnitude and direction of selection on odors that attract and repel nectar robbers will depend on the net costs and benefits of robbing to the plant (Maloof and Inouye 2000).”
• The dual role of floral traits: Pollinator attraction and plant defense (2004, neutral): “…studies suggests that floral larceny has an overall detrimental effect on female plant reproduction (Irwin et al. 2001), although individual studies find that nectar robbing can have a continuum of effects on plant reproduction, from positive to neutral to negative (Maloof and Inouye 2000).”
• ECOLOGICAL COSTS AND BENEFITS OF DEFENSES IN NECTAR (2005, neutral): “If nectar robbing also has little effect on plant reproduction (as in Maloof and Inouye 2000, Irwin et al. 2001), then the effects of nectar alkaloids on pollinator and nectar robber behavior may not translate into differences in fruit or seed production.”