The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The evolution of floral scent and insect chemical communication
Open accessAbstract
Ecology Letters(2010) 13: 643–656 Plants have evolved a range of strategies to manipulate the behaviour of their insect partners. One powerful strategy is to produce signals that already have a role in the animals’ own communication systems. To investigate to what extent the evolution of floral scents is correlated with chemical communication in insects, I analyse the occurrence, commonness, and evolutionary patterns of the 71 most common ‘floral’ volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in 96 plant families and 87 insect families. I found an overlap of 87% in VOCs produced by plants and insects. ‘Floral’ monoterpenes showed strong positive correlation in commonness between plants (both gymnosperms and angiosperms) and herbivores, whereas the commonness of ‘floral’ aromatics was positively correlated between angiosperms and both pollinators and herbivores. According to a multivariate regression analysis the commonness of ‘floral’ aromatics was best explained by their commonness in pollinators, whereas monoterpenes were best explained by herbivores. Among pollinator orders, aromatics were significantly more common in Lepidoptera than in Hymenoptera, whereas monoterpenes showed no difference among the two orders. Collectively, these patterns suggest that plants and insects converge in overall patterns of volatile production, both for attraction and defence. Monoterpenes seem to have evolved primarily for defence under selection by herbivores, whereas aromatics evolved signalling functions in angiosperms, primarily for pollinator attraction.
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
Cites
Comparing correlated correlation coefficients
Meng, X.-L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.172 · Cited by 2,472
Cited by
Multisensory integration of colors and scents: insights from bees and flowers
Leonard, A. S., & Masek, P. (2014) · Journal of Comparative Physiology A · doi:10.1007/s00359-014-0904-4 · Cited by 161
Williams, J., Stönner, C., Wicker, J., Krauter, N., Derstroff, B., Bourtsoukidis, E., Klüpfel, T., & Kramer, S. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep25464 · Cited by 105
Metadata
- Authors
- Schiestl, F. P.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-04-16
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 643-656
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W1534995759
- Cited by
- 471
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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 evolution of floral scent and insect chemical communication. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01451.x
- The paper
- Schiestl, F. P. (2010). The evolution of floral scent and insect chemical communication. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01451.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.