If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | ||
![]() The Plant JournalVolume 49 Issue 5, Pages 840 - 854 Published Online: 20 Feb 2007 Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the Society for Experimental Biology Published in association with the Society for Experimental Biology
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 868K) | Supporting Information | Related Articles | Citation Tracking Making sense of nectar scents: the effects of nectar secondary metabolites on floral visitors of Nicotiana attenuata Copyright 2007 The Authors Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd KEYWORDS pollinators • nectar constituents • putrescine N-methyl transferase • secondary compounds • nicotine • VOCs ABSTRACTFlowers 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. Received 18 August 2006; revised 13 October 2006; accepted 19 October 2006. |