Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Making sense of nectar scents: the effects of nectar secondary metabolites on floral visitors of Nicotiana attenuata

Open access
Kessler, Danny, Baldwin, Ian T.·2007·The Plant Journal

Abstract

Summary: Flowers produce a plethora of secondary metabolites but only nectar sugars, floral pigments and headspace volatiles have been examined in the context of pollinator behavior. We identify secondary metabolites in the headspace and nectar of glasshouse‐ and field‐grown Nicotiana attenuata plants, infer within‐flower origins by analyzing six flower parts, and compare the attractiveness of 16 constituents in standardized choice tests with two guilds of natural pollinators (Manducasexta moths and Archilochus alexandri and Selasphorus rufus hummingbirds) and one nectar thief (Solenopsis xyloni ants) to determine whether nectar metabolites can ‘filter’ flower visitors: only two could. Moths responded more strongly than did hummingbirds to headspace presentation of nicotine and benzylacetone, the most abundant repellent and attractant compounds, respectively. For both pollinators, nectar repellents decreased nectaring time and nectar volume removed, but increased visitation number, particularly for hummingbirds. Fewer ants visited if the nectar contained repellents. To determine whether nicotine reduced nectar removal rates in nature, we planted transformed, nicotine‐silenced plants into native populations in Utah over 2 years. Plants completely lacking nicotine in their nectar had 68–70% more nectar removed per night by the native community of floral visitors than did wild‐type plants. We hypothesize that nectar repellents optimize the number of flower visitors per volume of nectar produced, allowing plants to keep their nectar volumes small.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-313x.2006.02995.x

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 34 references

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
Kessler, D., & Baldwin, I. T.
Venue
The Plant Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-02-20
Volume
49
Issue
5
Pages
840-854
ISSN
  • 0960-7412 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-313X
OpenAlex
W2146106193
Cited by
313
References
34
FWCI
19.98
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: Making sense of nectar scents: the effects of nectar secondary metabolites on floral visitors of Nicotiana attenuata. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-313x.2006.02995.x
The paper
Kessler, D., & Baldwin, I. T. (2007). Making sense of nectar scents: the effects of nectar secondary metabolites on floral visitors of Nicotiana attenuata. The Plant Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313x.2006.02995.x

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.