Electric field detection as floral cue in hoverfly pollination

2021 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream

UnclearLow evidencePaper 1048

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2021

Study typeanimal

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Electric field detection as floral cue in hoverfly pollination Khan SA, Khan KA, Kubik S, Ahmad S, Ghramh HA, Ahmad A, Skalicky M, Naveed Z, Malik S, Khalofah A, Aljedani DM. Electric field detection as floral cue in hoverfly pollination. Sci Rep. 2021 Sep 21;11(1):18781. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-98371-4. Abstract Pollinators can detect the color, shape, scent, and even temperature of the flowers they want to visit. Here, we present the previously unappreciated capacity of hoverflies (Eristalis tenax and Cheilosia albipila) to detect the electric field surrounding flowers. Using hoverflies as key dipteran pollinators, we explored the electrical interactions between flies and flowers-how a hoverfly acquired a charge and how their electrical sensing ability for target flowers contributed to nectar identification and pollination. This study revealed that rapid variations in a floral electric field were related to a nectar reward and increased the likelihood of the fly's return visits. We found that thoracic hairs played a role in the polarity of hoverfly charge, revealing their electro-mechanosensory capability, as in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). Electrophysiological analysis of the hoverfly's antennae did not reveal neural sensitivity to the electric field, which favors the mechanosensory hairs as putative electroreceptive organs in both species of hoverflies. Open access paper: nature.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeanimal

Effect directionunclear

PopulationHoverflies (Eristalis tenax and Cheilosia albipila)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 66% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The study reports that hoverflies (Eristalis tenax and Cheilosia albipila) can detect the electric field surrounding flowers. Rapid variations in the floral electric field were related to a nectar reward and increased the likelihood of return visits. Electrophysiological analysis of antennae did not show neural sensitivity to the electric field, suggesting mechanosensory hairs as putative electroreceptive organs.

Outcomes measured

Ability of hoverflies to detect electric field surrounding flowers
Association between rapid variations in floral electric field and nectar reward/return visits
Role of thoracic hairs in polarity of hoverfly charge (electro-mechanosensory capability)
Electrophysiological responses of hoverfly antennae to electric field (neural sensitivity)

Limitations

Sample size not reported in abstract
Exposure characteristics (field strength, waveform, frequency content) not reported in abstract
Study design details and statistical results not provided in abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "animal",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "floral electric field",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Hoverflies (Eristalis tenax and Cheilosia albipila)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Ability of hoverflies to detect electric field surrounding flowers",
    "Association between rapid variations in floral electric field and nectar reward/return visits",
    "Role of thoracic hairs in polarity of hoverfly charge (electro-mechanosensory capability)",
    "Electrophysiological responses of hoverfly antennae to electric field (neural sensitivity)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The study reports that hoverflies (Eristalis tenax and Cheilosia albipila) can detect the electric field surrounding flowers. Rapid variations in the floral electric field were related to a nectar reward and increased the likelihood of return visits. Electrophysiological analysis of antennae did not show neural sensitivity to the electric field, suggesting mechanosensory hairs as putative electroreceptive organs.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in abstract",
    "Exposure characteristics (field strength, waveform, frequency content) not reported in abstract",
    "Study design details and statistical results not provided in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.66,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electric field",
    "floral cue",
    "hoverfly",
    "Eristalis tenax",
    "Cheilosia albipila",
    "pollination",
    "nectar reward",
    "electroreception",
    "mechanosensory hairs",
    "antennae electrophysiology"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-98371-4
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library