Floral Scent's Polluted Descent

Chemical compounds in pollution interfere with the scent molecules produced by flowers, making it harder for pollinating insects to find their way. Karen Hopkin reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Podcast Transcript: Shakespeare once said a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. And that’s as true today as it was 400 years ago. What’s different now, though, is that their smell doesn’t travel as far as it used to. Or so say scientists in a study that appears online in the journal Atmospheric Environment.
 
Researchers at the University of Virginia made a mathematical model to show how the fragrance of flowers floats through the air. They found that the presence of pollution slows the scents down. Prior to the industrial revolution, the sweet smell of roses might drift for three-quarters of a mile. Now, downwind of a major city, a flower’s delicate bouquet can’t make it a full thousand feet. That’s because the scent molecules produced by flowers are volatile. They chemically react with ozone and other pollutants, and ka-bloomy. No more eau d’springtime.
 
The effect might pose a minor nuisance to modern poets, but it’s a major problem for flowering plants and the insects that pollinate them. Bumblebees find flowers by smelling them. Less aroma attracts fewer bees. Which ultimately means fewer flowers. So, stop and smell the roses. If you’re close enough.

—Karen Hopkin

60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe