Skip to content
NatureHQ

Study

Mechanisms and evolution of deceptive pollination in orchids

Jersáková, Jana; Johnson, Steven D.; Kindlmann, Pavel

Biological Reviews, 2006

Peer-reviewednarrative reviewmixed

A review of orchid pollination by deception: how common it is, which forms it takes — generalised food deception, mimicry of specific rewarding flowers, brood-site deception, sexual deception — and what maintains it evolutionarily given that deceived pollinators learn.

Studied in
Orchidaceae
Sample size
review of deceptive pollination systems across the family

Roughly a third of orchid species offer no reward. Generalised food deception is the commonest form and sexual deception the most specific, involving chemical mimicry of insect sex pheromones. Deceptive species receive fewer visits than rewarding ones but achieve higher rates of outcrossing and lower rates of self-pollination, because deceived pollinators leave and travel further.

What it means

The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.

How the authors put it

Deception is maintained not despite reducing visitation but partly because of it: fewer, more widely spaced visits produce better-quality pollen transfer.

How NatureHQ reads it

The proportion is the number to hold onto: about a third, not all. Popular writing takes the most spectacular case — a flower reproducing a wasp’s sex pheromone — and generalises it to the family, which converts a remarkable specific finding into a wrong general one. Most orchids that deceive are simply advertising a reward that is not there.

  • The proportion offering no reward is an estimate extrapolated from studied genera.
  • Sexually deceptive systems are heavily over-represented in the literature relative to their frequency.
  • Outcrossing advantages are measured over short periods relative to orchid lifespans.

What this study is used for on NatureHQ

One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.

Published by: Wiley journalsPublished in a Wiley journal.

doi.org/10.1017/s1464793105006986

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.