Checking billy barr’s snow log…
Nectar robbing has been thought to lead to a reduction in plant fitness, although there is conflicting evidence for this assumption. Little evidence has been done on whether or not primary, or initial, robbing has a differing effect on plant fitness than secondary robbing does. To test the possible differences in robbing type, artificial nectar robbing was conducted on sixty Ipomopsis aggregata plants over the course of 6 weeks to examine the response of hummingbird pollinators to primary and secondary robbed plants. Stigmas taken from treated plants showed a significant decline in pollen receipt between un-robbed and secondary robbed treatments (p = .0406). Significant differences were not seen between un-robbed and primary robbing treatments, or between primary robbing and secondary robbing treatments. Based on prior research, the difference between the two robbing varieties and un-robbed plants is possibly due to increased avoidance of secondarily robbed plants. However, preliminary results so not support this claim.
Knowledge graph centered on The Impact of Primary and Secondary Robbing on Hum with 43 nodes and 140 connections. Top connected: Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, Gothic, The terminology of floral larceny, Two-form Bumble Bee, Bumble Bees.
Items connected by shared entities, co-authorship, citations, or semantic similarity.
8 in Knowledge Commons, 6 external