New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Pollinators Shape Plants to Their Preference

In fewer than a dozen generations bumblebee-pollinated plants were coaxed to develop traits that made them even more pleasing to the bees. Christopher Intagliata reports.

Getty Images/iStockphoto/Thinkstock 

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!

Honeybees are the charismatic microfauna of the pollination world. But flies, bumblebees, butterflies and moths—they all pollinate, too. With varying degrees of success. The poorer ones are technically referred to as 'inefficient pollinators.' "Those that do visit but transfer very little pollen in their visit." Florian Schiestl, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Zurich. 

Schiestl and his colleague grew field mustard plants, and exposed them to two types of pollinators: efficient bumblebees and inefficient hoverflies. After just 11 generations, they found that the plants visited by bumblebees were taller, twice as fragrant, and reflected more UV light—a visual signal for bees. And those factors made the progeny even more attractive to bumblebees at the end of the experiment: a sign the plants had adapted to their pollinators' preferences.

But the plants that got a fly-by from the flies? They grew shorter. Less fragrant. And actually adapted to do more self-pollination. Because hoverflies are lousy pollinators. The study is in the journal Nature Communications. [Daniel D. L. Gervasi and Florian P. Schiestl, Real-time divergent evolution in plants driven by pollinators]


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.


So with honeybees in peril, what happens if we lose them? “This will trigger an evolutionary response in the plants. For example, if flies take over as more important pollinators, as they used to be in the past, then very likely we'll have some evolutionary change going on." 

And if the change is self-pollination, that could be trouble. "Self-pollination leads to reduction of genetic variability in the population, and this can be a problem for the plants, because they have a reduced ability to evolve resistance against diseases." Meaning that if we lose the pollinators, it’s the plants' genomes that may go to seed.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe