The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Comparison of the Amino Acid Complements of Floral and Extrafloral Nectars
Abstract
The amino acid complements of extrafloral nectars from 34 species of tropical- and temperate-zone flowering plants were analyzed. Comparisons were made between 33 of these and analyses of floral nectars from 248 species. Also, in 21 cases, direct comparisons were made between extrafloral and floral nectars from the same species. The extrafloral nectar always differed in its complement of amino acids from that of the floral nectar. Certain acids that are only moderately frequently represented in the floral nectars are more frequently represented in the extrafloral nectars, most notably the cysteine group and lysine, asparagine, and tyrosine. Differences between extrafloral and floral nectar complements presumably relate to the function of the latter in feeding ant or wasp "guards," which may have different nutritional requirements from those of pollinators. Nonprotein amino acids are represented more frequently in extrafloral nectars, possibly indicating chemical protection of exposed nectar from "thieves." In Campsis x tagliabuana (Bignoniaceae) there are four distinguishable groups of extrafloral nectaries-on petioles, sepals, petals, and developing fruits-as well as conventional floral nectaries. The amino acid complements were slightly different in each case, but no statistically significant differences were found between the frequencies of individual amino acids in nectars from 21 species where the producing nectaries are in a vegetative part of the plant and nectars from 12 species where the extrafloral nectaries are restricted to the inflorescence. Until the biological functions of extrafloral nectar can be elucidated for each species in which it is produced, the full significance of variation between the amino acid complements cannot be appreciated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Herbivory in Relation to Plant Nitrogen Content
Mattson, W. J. (1980) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.11.110180.001003 · Cited by 3,425
Protective Ant-Plant Interactions as Model Systems in Ecological and Evolutionary Research
Heil, M., & McKey, D. (2003) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132410 · Cited by 718
Explaining the Abundance of Ants in Lowland Tropical Rainforest Canopies
Davidson, D. W., Cook, S. C., Snelling, R. R., & Chua, T. H. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1082074 · Cited by 685
The ecological significance of toxic nectar
Adler, L. S. (2000) · Oikos · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.910301.x · Cited by 592
Suitability of (extra-)floral nectar, pollen, and honeydew as insect food sources
Wäckers, F. L. (2005) · Plant-Provided Food for Carnivorous Insects · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511542220.003 · Cited by 290
Metadata
- Authors
- Baker, H. G., Opler, P. A., & Baker, I.
- Venue
- Botanical Gazette
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1978-09
- Volume
- 139
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 322-332
- ISSN
- 0006-8071 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2056492404
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of the Amino Acid Complements of Floral and Extrafloral Nectars. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/337008
- The paper
- Baker, H. G., Opler, P. A., & Baker, I. (1978). A Comparison of the Amino Acid Complements of Floral and Extrafloral Nectars. Botanical Gazette. https://doi.org/10.1086/337008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.