Study
Nectar robbing: ecological and evolutionary perspectives
Irwin, Rebecca E.; Bronstein, Judith L.; Manson, Jessamyn S.; Richardson, Leif
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 2010
A review of animals that take nectar through a hole bitten in the side of a flower, bypassing the anthers and stigma, and of the measured consequences for plant reproduction.
- Studied in
- Bombus, Angiospermae
- Sample size
- review of nectar-robbing systems
Robbing is widespread and its effects on seed set range from strongly negative through neutral to occasionally positive. Where robbing depletes nectar it can push legitimate visitors to travel further between plants, which increases outcrossing — so the same behaviour can reduce or increase a plant’s reproductive output depending on the system.
What it means
The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.
How the authors put it
Nectar robbing is not straightforwardly antagonistic and its net effect must be measured system by system.
How NatureHQ reads it
A good corrective to the habit of sorting interactions into mutualism and parasitism. The bumblebee biting a hole in the back of a flower is doing something that looks like cheating and sometimes helps the plant, and there is no way to tell which without measuring seed set.
- A review of systems chosen for study, which are unlikely to be a random sample.
- Seed set responses are context-dependent and often measured over a single season.
- Whether robbing behaviour is learned or innate varies and is not fully resolved.
What this study is used for on NatureHQ
One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.
Published by: Elsevier journalsPublished in an Elsevier journal.
doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120330
This reference was resolved automatically against Crossref on 2026-08-11.
NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-08-10.