A global test of the pollination syndrome hypothesis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: 'Pollination syndromes' are suites of phenotypic traits hypothesized to reflect convergent adaptations of flowers for pollination by specific types of animals. They were first developed in the 1870s and honed during the mid 20th Century. In spite of this long history and their central role in organizing research on plant-pollinator interactions, the pollination syndromes have rarely been subjected to test. The syndromes were tested here by asking whether they successfully capture patterns of covariance of floral traits and predict the most common pollinators of flowers. METHODS: Flowers in six communities from three continents were scored for expression of floral traits used in published descriptions of the pollination syndromes, and simultaneously the pollinators of as many species as possible were characterized. KEY RESULTS: Ordination of flowers in a multivariate 'phenotype space' defined by the syndromes showed that almost no plant species fall within the discrete syndrome clusters. Furthermore, in approximately two-thirds of plant species, the most common pollinator could not be successfully predicted by assuming that each plant species belongs to the syndrome closest to it in phenotype space. CONCLUSIONS: The pollination syndrome hypothesis as usually articulated does not successfully describe the diversity of floral phenotypes or predict the pollinators of most plant species. Caution is suggested when using pollination syndromes for organizing floral diversity, or for inferring agents of floral adaptation. A fresh look at how traits of flowers and pollinators relate to visitation and pollen transfer is recommended, in order to determine whether axes can be identified that describe floral functional diversity more successfully than the traditional syndromes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some exceptions to associations between pollinator groups and flower color are due to pollinators exhibiting flexibility in color preference.
“Some of these exceptions are due to pollinators exhibiting flexibility in color preference.”
From Variation in context‐dependent foraging behavior across pollinators (2017) · cites this paper as Ollerton et al., 2009
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pichler, M., Boreux, V., Klein, A., Schleuning, M., & Hartig, F. (2020) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13329 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Variation in context‐dependent foraging behavior across pollinators
Briggs, H. M., Graham, S., Switzer, C. M., & Hopkins, R. (2017) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1101/210377 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ollerton, J., Alarcón, R., Waser, N. M., Price, M. V., Watts, S., Cranmer, L., Hingston, A., Peter, C. I., & Rotenberry, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Northampton (GB)
- University of California, Riverside (US)
- University of Tasmania (AU)
- Rhodes University (ZA)
- Venue
- Annals of Botany
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-02-14
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1471-1480
- ISSN
- 0305-7364 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-8290
- PMC
- PMC2701765
- OpenAlex
- W2125993511
- Cited by
- 484
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 22.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Annals of Botany (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UTAS Research Repository (acceptedVersion)
- eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Leverhulme Trust
- Royal Society
- U.S. Forest Service
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Insect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
- Keywords
- pollination syndromes, floral traits, plant-pollinator interactions, floral adaptation, floral phenotype, convergent evolution
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Models, Biological, Phenotype, Quantitative Trait, Heritable, Flowers, Pollination
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