The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The combined effect of color and odor on flower choice behavior of bumble bees in flower mimicry systems
Open accessAbstract
Food-deceptive flowers are pollinated by animals that expect a reward but are cheated. Such plants profit from their similarity to rewarding plants and should develop signals that hinder discrimination. We use artificial rewarding model flowers and nonrewarding mimicking flowers that present similar visual cues. We test how additional scent cues change flower choice of the mimic by bumble bees (Bombus terrestris) in two situations: (1) both flower types are simultaneously present and can be compared by the pollinator, and (2) both flower types are encountered successively in the absence of each other. We find that in situation 1, discrimination learning is greater if scents are used as cues for identifying the mimic, whether the mimic has a different scent or if it is scentless while the model is scented. In situation 2, a generalization task, a scented mimic is avoided faster than a scentless one. Discrimination of the mimic is poorest if it has the same scent as the model, thus demonstrating a potential for scent mimicry, which has not yet been proved to exist among differently rewarding flowers. Thus, the best strategy for a mimic would be to have the same scent as the model, but this strategy may not be used due to evolutionary constraints. Alternatively, if there are several potential models, then having no scent would be a better strategy than mimicking just one of the models. In situation 1 flower discrimination by color cues is enhanced in the mere presence of scent, compared to unscented controls, even if the scent does not provide a distinguishable cue itself. The results indicate that the presence of scent may enhance color discrimination by improving attention towards visual cues and/or that combined color/odor cues may lead to better memory formation and retrieval.
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
Wake Up and Smell the Roses: The Ecology and Evolution of Floral Scent
Raguso, R. A. (2008) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095601 · Cited by 889
TREMBLAY, R. L., ACKERMAN, J. D., ZIMMERMAN, J. K., & CALVO, R. N. (2004) · Biological Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2004.00400.x · Cited by 758
Pollinator-mediated evolution of floral signals
Schiestl, F. P., & Johnson, S. D. (2013) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2013.01.019 · Cited by 623
Recognition of flowers by pollinators
Chittka, L., & Raine, N. E. (2006) · Current Opinion in Plant Biology · doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2006.05.002 · Cited by 494
Synergy between visual and olfactory cues in nectar feeding by naı̈ve hawkmoths, Manduca sexta
Raguso, R. A., & Willis, M. A. (2002) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1006/anbe.2002.4010 · Cited by 384
Metadata
- Authors
- Kunze, J.
- Venue
- Behavioral Ecology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-07-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 447-456
- ISSN
- 1045-2249 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-7279
- OpenAlex
- W2171332709
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: The combined effect of color and odor on flower choice behavior of bumble bees in flower mimicry systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/beheco/12.4.447
- The paper
- Kunze, J. (2001). The combined effect of color and odor on flower choice behavior of bumble bees in flower mimicry systems. Behavioral Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/12.4.447
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.