FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2165508289> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2165508289 endingPage "22" @default.
• W2165508289 startingPage "21" @default.
• W2165508289 abstract "A recent paper by van der Kooi et al. (2014a), entitled ‘Iridescent flowers? Contribution of surface structures to optical signaling’, has triggered debate about floral iridescence. Here, we summarize the primary issues, and reiterate our earlier point that more data are required before the significance and biological relevance of this phenomenon can be evaluated. van der Kooi et al. (2014a) presented optical analyses of the petals of six species of angiosperms. They investigated the flowers of 50 plant species (by scanning electron microscopy) and then selected four species with different surface structures (plus a further two in the Supporting Information) for optical characterization. Subsequently, van der Kooi et al. (2014b, in this issue of New Phytologist, pp. 18-20) repeated measurements of one of the species (Hibiscus trionum) and presented photographs of two of the species from their earlier paper (van der Kooi et al., 2014a), plus a further two previously unreported species. They did not record as iridescent any of the eight flowers that they optically characterized and/or photographed. By contrast, we presented optical characterization and photographs of H. trionum (taken in the laboratory, in daylight, with no flash), which we showed to be visibly and measurably iridescent, with an associated regular surface structure termed a diffraction grating in the central part of the flower (Vignolini et al., 2014). Although the distribution of floral iridescence within the 300 000 species of angiosperms remains to be explored (Vignolini et al., 2014), this phenomenon is likely to be relatively uncommon, hence the apparent lack of records before Whitney et al.'s (2009) paper. van der Kooi et al. (2014a,b) did not record floral iridescence in a sample of eight species. We are currently exploring this distribution in a phylogenetic context; so far we have identified iridescent flowers infrequently distributed across all major angiosperm groups. In H. trionum, we found the same measurable iridescence effect in the three independent lines we investigated – our laboratory stock sourced from Chiltern seeds (www.chilternseeds.co.uk), the line held by the Cambridge University Botanic Garden (maintained as selfed seed from germplasm supplied by Cluj-Napoca Botanic Garden in 1996), and a native New Zealand line grown from seed of Auckland Museum Herbarium voucher AK253689 (kindly supplied by Brian Murray). Our usual laboratory growth conditions are described in Vignolini et al. (2014), and the flower also develops well outdoors in sheltered glasshouse bays of the Cambridge University Botanic Garden (a relatively dry temperate habitat). The difference between our results and those of van der Kooi et al. (2014a,b) on this species could be due to one (or more) of several possible factors, but we currently lack details of their seed source or growth conditions to better resolve these discrepancies. (1) As they propose, they could be working with a distinct genetic lineage that lacks iridescence; the flower photographed in van der Kooi et al. (2014b) does appear morphologically distinct from our lines. (2) van der Kooi et al. (2014a,b) may lack access to fully developed specimens, since the flower of H. trionum only opens fully in optimal growth conditions. (3) There could be a temporal effect, because the flower of H. trionum lasts for only a few hours on the plant, and the iridescent effect deteriorates rapidly when the flower wilts after removal. Whatever the explanation for the lack of iridescence recorded by van der Kooi et al. (2014a,b), the photographs and optical measurements presented in Vignolini et al. (2014) demonstrate, unequivocally, that some flowers are iridescent. We are unable to support van der Kooi et al.'s (2014a,b) contention that ‘floral iridescence acting as a signalling cue to pollinators is presently untenable’. At present, we know two things about petal iridescence and pollinator behaviour. First, bumblebees can distinguish between the optical signals arising from a replica of an iridescent petal surface (obtained by casting the surface of the petal in a soft mould and reproducing the structure with optical epoxy) and those from an otherwise identical replica of a noniridescent petal surface. Second, they can be trained to use the signals arising from the iridescent surface as a cue to identify rewarding flowers (Whitney et al., 2009). In assessing the potential role of animal iridescence as a signal (e.g. as part of a mate-attracting or status-determining display on a beetle or a bird), scientists usually apply two criteria – visibility to target animals, and presence on those parts of the body used in displays (and absence from other parts of the body or from nondisplaying individuals (such as juveniles or females)) (e.g. Vulinec, 1997; Loyau et al., 2007; reviewed by Doucet & Meadows, 2009). Likewise, the optical signal produced by the surface structure of iridescent H. trionum is visible to bees, and present only on the adaxial surface of the petal. While some petals have additional roles in protecting the bud, the bud of H. trionum is protected by a hairy calyx while the delicate, showy petals are ephemeral and only displayed at floral anthesis – their primary function is the attraction of pollinators. van der Kooi et al. (2014b) commented that for a floral signal to influence pollinator foraging over more than a few centimetres, it must be several millimetres in size. We note that the iridescent colour in H. trionum overlies the red pigmented portion of the petal. The blue structural colour and the red pigment-based colour will therefore be visible over the same distances. Many flowers produce patterns of pigmentation in similar size ranges, and many of these have been shown previously to influence pollinator foraging (Waser & Price, 1983, 1985; Johnson & Midgley, 1997; Eckhart et al., 2006). Indeed, studies have also shown that pigmentary patterns on a much smaller scale, such as venation patterns, petal spots, and bulls-eye patterns of 2 mm diameter, can influence pollinator behaviour (Lunau et al., 2009; Hansen et al., 2012; Whitney et al., 2013). There is no reason to suppose that structurally-derived colour signals will influence animal behaviour to a lesser extent than pigment-derived colour signals. In conclusion, we reiterate that further integrated studies using a range of model and real flowers in controlled and natural environments will be important in defining with precision the role (if any) of floral iridescence in pollinator signalling. We look forward to further scientific debate on this topic after such data are published. Before such data are available, it is reasonable to hypothesize that this measurable optical signal (visible both to the human and bee eye, present at the same scale as pigment colouration, and present only on the petals, an organ whose primary function is in pollinator attraction) has a role in plant–pollinator signalling. The authors thank Heather Whitney (Bristol), Lars Chittka (Queen Mary University of London), Mathias Kolle (MIT, Cambridge, MA) and Richard Bateman (Kew, London) for helpful discussions. This work was funded by a grant from the Leverhulme Trust (PI Glover: F/09-741/G) and a Marie Curie IEF FP7 Grant (GFP301472)." @default.
• W2165508289 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2165508289 creator A5002910565 @default.
• W2165508289 creator A5026337001 @default.
• W2165508289 creator A5032180872 @default.
• W2165508289 creator A5050782114 @default.
• W2165508289 creator A5066561103 @default.
• W2165508289 creator A5068390797 @default.
• W2165508289 creator A5074127562 @default.
• W2165508289 date "2014-11-10" @default.
• W2165508289 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2165508289 title "Is floral iridescence a biologically relevant cue in plant–pollinator signalling? A response to van der Kooi <i>et al</i> . (2014b)" @default.
• W2165508289 cites W1977986300 @default.
• W2165508289 cites W1994349866 @default.
• W2165508289 cites W2021067696 @default.
• W2165508289 cites W2029063394 @default.
• W2165508289 cites W2030950602 @default.
• W2165508289 cites W2040650106 @default.
• W2165508289 cites W2040886364 @default.
• W2165508289 cites W2050353394 @default.
• W2165508289 cites W2114804484 @default.
• W2165508289 cites W2130349388 @default.
• W2165508289 cites W2135541934 @default.
• W2165508289 cites W2136321110 @default.
• W2165508289 cites W2165491062 @default.
• W2165508289 cites W2170656442 @default.
• W2165508289 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13178" @default.
• W2165508289 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25382718" @default.
• W2165508289 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2165508289 type Work @default.
• W2165508289 sameAs 2165508289 @default.
• W2165508289 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W2165508289 countsByYear W21655082892016 @default.
• W2165508289 countsByYear W21655082892017 @default.
• W2165508289 countsByYear W21655082892019 @default.
• W2165508289 countsByYear W21655082892021 @default.
• W2165508289 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2165508289 hasAuthorship W2165508289A5002910565 @default.
• W2165508289 hasAuthorship W2165508289A5026337001 @default.
• W2165508289 hasAuthorship W2165508289A5032180872 @default.
• W2165508289 hasAuthorship W2165508289A5050782114 @default.
• W2165508289 hasAuthorship W2165508289A5066561103 @default.
• W2165508289 hasAuthorship W2165508289A5068390797 @default.
• W2165508289 hasAuthorship W2165508289A5074127562 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConcept C102789151 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConcept C168197293 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConcept C206622957 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConcept C2780618852 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConcept C3018449070 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConcept C39743133 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConcept C95444343 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConceptScore W2165508289C102789151 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConceptScore W2165508289C104317684 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConceptScore W2165508289C168197293 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConceptScore W2165508289C18903297 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConceptScore W2165508289C206622957 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConceptScore W2165508289C2780618852 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConceptScore W2165508289C3018449070 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConceptScore W2165508289C39743133 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConceptScore W2165508289C54355233 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConceptScore W2165508289C86803240 @default.
• W2165508289 hasConceptScore W2165508289C95444343 @default.
• W2165508289 hasFunder F4320319993 @default.
• W2165508289 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2165508289 hasLocation W21655082891 @default.
• W2165508289 hasLocation W21655082892 @default.
• W2165508289 hasOpenAccess W2165508289 @default.
• W2165508289 hasPrimaryLocation W21655082891 @default.
• W2165508289 hasRelatedWork W1990639689 @default.
• W2165508289 hasRelatedWork W2116635570 @default.
• W2165508289 hasRelatedWork W2343864488 @default.
• W2165508289 hasRelatedWork W2379331219 @default.
• W2165508289 hasRelatedWork W2805529129 @default.
• W2165508289 hasRelatedWork W2811381415 @default.
• W2165508289 hasRelatedWork W3045147376 @default.
• W2165508289 hasRelatedWork W4292317591 @default.
• W2165508289 hasRelatedWork W4381426054 @default.
• W2165508289 hasRelatedWork W624251193 @default.
• W2165508289 hasVolume "205" @default.
• W2165508289 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2165508289 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2165508289 magId "2165508289" @default.
• W2165508289 workType "article" @default.