Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 143–151 | Cite as

Plant–animal communication: past, present and future

  • Anne S. LeonardEmail author
  • Jacob S. Francis


Communication between plants and their animal partners underlies some of the planet’s most ecologically and economically important mutualisms. Study of communication in this context offers many opportunities to address fundamental questions about the costs and benefits of signal production, signal honesty, and receiver cognition. In this special issue, contributors highlight several key areas of current research, including how multiple receivers affect floral signaling, and how signaling may be related across different phases of reproduction. Visual signals are a particular emphasis, including how learning can mediate pollinator preferences, and the evolution of conspicuousness. In light of these focal areas, we summarize current trends towards the study of greater complexity both in terms of floral phenotypes and signaling/interaction networks.


Communication Floral signals Plant–animal interactions Pollination Herbivory Seed dispersal 



This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant IOS-1257762 to A.S.L.; Graduate Research Fellowship to J.S.F). Thank you to D. Picklum, D.L. Moseley and F. Muth for comments.


  1. Adler LS, Wink M, Distl M, Lentz AJ (2006) Leaf herbivory and nutrients increase nectar alkaloids. Ecol Lett 9:960–967. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00944.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bascompte J, Jordano P (2007) Plant–animal mutualistic networks: the architecture of biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:567–593. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.09581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (2011) The broader view: microbes, plants, and humans. In: Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (eds) Principles of animal communication, 2nd edn. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 651–678Google Scholar
  4. Bronstein JLL (1994) Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 9:214–217. doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(94)90246-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bukovac Z, Dorin A, Finke V et al (2016) Assessing the ecological significance of bee visual detection and colour discrimination on the evolution of flower colours. Evol Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10682-016-9843-6 Google Scholar
  6. Chittka L (1992) The colour hexagon: a chromaticity diagram based on photoreceptor excitations as a generalized representation of colour opponency. J Comp Physiol A 170:533–543. doi: 10.1007/BF00199331 Google Scholar
  7. de Jager ML, Willis-Jones E, Critchley S, Glover BJ (2016) The impact of floral spot and ring markings on pollinator foraging dynamics. Evol Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10682-016-9852-5 Google Scholar
  8. Endler JA (2012) A framework for analysing colour pattern geometry: adjacent colours. Biol J Linn Soc 107:233–253. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.01937.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Endler JA, Mielke PW (2005) Comparing entire colour patterns as birds see them. Biol J Linn Soc 86:405–431. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00540.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Francis JS, Muth F, Papaj DR, Leonard AS (2016) Nutritional complexity and the structure of bee foraging bouts. Behav Ecol 27:903–911. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arv229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaskett AC, Endler JA, Phillips RD (2016) Convergent evolution of sexual deception via chromatic and achromatic contrast rather than colour mimicry. Evol Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10682-016-9863-2 Google Scholar
  12. Hoffmeister M, Junker RR (2016) Herbivory-induced changes in the olfactory and visual display of flowers and extrafloral nectaries affect pollinator behavior. Evol Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10682-016-9875-y Google Scholar
  13. Hogendoorn K, Bartholomaeus F, Keller MA (2010) Chemical and sensory comparison of tomatoes pollinated by bees and by a pollination wand. J Econ Entomol 103:1286–1292. doi: 10.1603/EC09393 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Howe HF, Smallwood J (1982) Ecology of seed dispersal. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 13:201–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson MTJ, Campbell SA, Barrett SCH (2015) Evolutionary interactions between plant reproduction and defense against herbivores. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 46:191–213. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Junker RR, Parachnowitsch AL (2015) Working towards a holistic view on flower traits: how floral scents mediate plant–animal interactions in concert with other floral characters. J Indian Inst Sci 95:43–68. doi: 10.1016/S0305-1978(97)00010-0 Google Scholar
  17. Karban R (2015) Plant sensing and communication. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kessler A, Halitschke R (2009) Testing the potential for conflicting selection on floral chemical traits by pollinators and herbivores: predictions and case study. Funct Ecol 23:901–912. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01639.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knauer AC, Schiestl FP (2015) Bees use honest floral signals as indicators of reward when visiting flowers. Ecol Lett 18:135–143. doi: 10.1111/ele.12386 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Knauer AC, Schiestl FP (2016) The effect of pollinators and herbivores on selection for floral signals: a case study in Brassica rapa. Evol Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10682-016-9878-8 Google Scholar
  21. Leonard AS, Masek P (2014) Multisensory integration of colors and scents: insights from bees and flowers. J Comp Physiol A 200:463–474. doi: 10.1007/s00359-014-0904-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leonard AS, Papaj DR (2011) “X” marks the spot: the possible benefits of nectar guides to bees and plants. Funct Ecol 25:1293–1301. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2011.01885.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leonard AS, Dornhaus A, Papaj DR (2012) Why are floral signals complex? An outline of functional hypotheses. In: Patiny S (ed) Evolution of plant–pollinator relationships. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 261–282Google Scholar
  24. Leonard AS, Brent J, Papaj DR, Dornhaus A (2013) Floral nectar guide patterns discourage nectar robbing by bumble bees. PLoS ONE 8:e55914. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055914 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. McCall AC, Irwin RE (2006) Florivory: the intersection of pollination and herbivory. Ecol Lett 9:1351–1365. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00975.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. McGregor PK (ed) (2005) Animal communication networks. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Muth F, Papaj DR, Leonard AS (2015) Colour learning when foraging for nectar and pollen: bees learn two colours at once. Biol Lett 11:20150628. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0628 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Rodríguez-Rodríguez MC, Jordano P, Valido A (2015) Hotspots of damage by antagonists shape the spatial structure of plant–pollinator interactions. Ecology 96:2181–2191. doi: 10.1890/14-2467.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Russell AL, Newman CR, Papaj DR (2016) White flowers finish last: foraging bees show learned but not innate biases in a floral color polymorphism. Evol Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10682-016-9848-1 Google Scholar
  30. Schaefer HM, Ruxton GD (2011) Plant–animal communication. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sprengel CK (1793) Das Entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur in Bau und in der Befruchtung der Blumen. Viewveg, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stournaras KE, Schaefer HM (2016) Does flower and fruit conspicuousness affect plant fitness? Contrast, color coupling and the interplay of pollination and seed dispersal in two Vaccinium species. Evol Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10682-016-9864-1 Google Scholar
  33. Strauss SY, Whittall JB (2006) Non-pollinator agents of selection on floral traits. In: Harder LD, Barrett CH (eds) Ecology and evolution of flowers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 120–138Google Scholar
  34. Strauss SY, Conner JK, Rush SL (1996) Foliar herbivory affects floral characters and plant attractiveness to pollinators: implications for male and female plant fitness. Am Nat 147:1098–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Valenta K, Nevo O, Martel C, Chapman CA (2016) Plant attractants: integrating insights from pollination and seed dispersal ecology. Evol Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10682-016-9870-3 Google Scholar
  36. Vorobyev M, Osorio D (1998) Receptor noise as a determinant of colour thresholds. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 265:351–358. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations