Defence compounds in pollen: why do they occur and how do they affect the ecology and evolution of bees?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pollen plays two important roles in angiosperm reproduction, serving as a vehicle for the plant's male gametes, but also, in many species, as a lure for pollen-feeding animals. Despite being an important food source for many pollinators, pollen often contains compounds with known deterrent or toxic properties, as documented in a growing number of studies. Here we review these studies and discuss the role of pollen defensive compounds in the coevolutionary relationship between plants and bees, the preeminent consumers of pollen. Next, we evaluate three hypotheses that may explain the existence of defensive compounds in pollen. The pleiotropy hypothesis, which proposes that defensive compounds in pollen merely reflect physiological spillover from other plant tissues, is contradicted by evidence from several species. Although plants may experience selection to defend pollen against poor-quality pollinators, we also find only partial support for the protection-against-pollen-collection-hypothesis. Finally, pollen defences might protect pollen from colonisation by antagonistic microorganisms (antimicrobial hypothesis), although data to evaluate this idea are scarce. Further research on the effects of pollen defensive compounds on pollinators, pollen thieves, and pollen-colonising microbes will be needed to understand why many plants have chemically defended pollen, and the consequences of those defences for pollen consumers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".