Waiting for the snow to melt…
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 33 nodes and 118 connections. Top connected: The terminology of floral larceny, Hummingbird, Bombus, Ipomopsis, Are nectar robbers cheaters or mutualists?.
Items connected by shared entities, co-authorship, citations, or semantic similarity.
8 in Knowledge Commons, 6 external