Abstract:Abstract Backgrounds and Aims The hypothesis that plants evolve features that protect accessible pollen from consumption by flower visitors remains poorly understood. Methods To explore potential chemical defence against pollen consumption, we examined the pollinator assemblage, foraging behaviour, visitation frequency and pollen transfer efficiency in Rhododendron molle, a highly toxic shrub containing rhodojaponin III. Nutrient (protein and lipid) and toxic components in pollen and other tissues were measured. Key Results Overall in the five populations studied, floral visits by butterflies and bumblebees were relatively more frequent than visits by honeybees. All foraged for nectar but not pollen. Butterflies did not differ from bumblebees in the amount of pollen removed per visit, but deposited more pollen per visit. Pollination experiments indicated that R. molle was self-compatible, but both fruit and seed production were pollen-limited. Our analysis indicated that the pollen was not protein-poor and had a higher concentration of the toxic compound rhodojaponin III than petals and leaves, this compound was undetectable in nectar. Conclusion Pollen toxicity in Rhododendron flowers may discourage pollen robbers (bees) from taking the freely accessible pollen grains, while the toxin-free nectar rewards effective pollinators, promoting pollen transfer. This preliminary study supports the hypothesis that chemical defence in pollen would be likely to evolve in species without physical protection from pollinivores.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The main problem that this paper attempts to solve is to explore whether plants have evolved chemical defense mechanisms to protect pollen that is easily accessible to flower - visitors. Specifically, the research focuses on Rhododendron molle to explore whether the high toxin concentration in its pollen can prevent flower - visitors such as bees from collecting pollen, and at the same time attract effective pollinators such as butterflies and bumblebees through non - toxic nectar, thereby promoting pollen transfer. ### Background and Purpose Plants rely on animals (usually insects) for pollination, and pollen is rich in protein and is often consumed by various insects, especially bees. In this case, plants face a conflict between the protection of pollen resources and reproduction. In order to reduce the over - utilization of pollen, plants may evolve physical or chemical protection mechanisms to protect pollen grains in order to achieve successful pollination. If pollen grains have no physical protection and are easily accessible, then these pollens should evolve chemical defense mechanisms to prevent pollen theft, unless they are nutritionally poor. The paper hypothesizes that in species where the main pollinators (such as nectar - sucking birds or Lepidoptera) do not consume pollen, the possibility of evolving pollen with repellent or toxic effects as an anti - theft strategy is greater. ### Methods Researchers explored potential chemical defense mechanisms by investigating the composition of flower - visitors, feeding behaviors, visit frequencies and pollen transfer efficiencies of Rhododendron molle, as well as measuring the nutrients (proteins and lipids) and toxic components in pollen and other tissues. ### Key Results - **Composition of flower - visitors**: In five study sites, the visit frequencies of butterflies and bumblebees were relatively high, while the visit frequency of bees was low. All flower - visitors collected nectar rather than pollen. - **Pollen transfer efficiency**: The amount of pollen removed per visit by butterflies and bumblebees was similar, but the amount of pollen deposited per visit by butterflies was significantly higher than that of bumblebees. - **Pollen component analysis**: The protein content in pollen was not low, and it contained a higher amount of the toxic compound rhodojaponin III than petals and leaves, while this compound was not detected in nectar. ### Conclusions The toxins in Rhododendron molle pollen may prevent pollen thieves such as bees from collecting easily accessible pollen grains, while non - toxic nectar rewards effective pollinators and promotes pollen transfer. This preliminary study supports the hypothesis that in species without physical protection, pollen may evolve chemical defense mechanisms to prevent pollen theft. ### Keywords Bee feeding behavior, Butterfly pollination, Chemical defense, Exposed pollen display, Rhododendron molle, Rhodojaponin III, Toxic pollen.

High toxin concentration in pollen may deter collection by bees in butterfly-pollinated Rhododendron molle

Strategies of flowering plants to avoid pollen collection by undesirable flower visitors. A commentary on 'High toxin concentration in pollen may deter collection by bees in butterfly-pollinated Rhododendron molle'

Tissue-Specific Emission of (E)-Α-bergamotene Helps Resolve the Dilemma when Pollinators Are Also Herbivores

Asteraceae Paradox: Chemical and Mechanical Protection of Taraxacum Pollen

Consequences of pollen defense compounds for pollinators and antagonists in a pollen‐rewarding plant

Pollen chemical and mechanical defences restrict host-plant use by bees

Better safe than sorry? A Fabaceae species exhibits unfavourable pollen properties for developing bee larvae despite its hidden anthers

Study on Reproductive Biology of Rhododendron Longipedicellatum: A Newly Discovered and Special Threatened Plant Surviving in Limestone Habitat in Southeast Yunnan, China

Nectar Attracts Foraging Honey Bees with Components of Their Queen Pheromones

Poisonous delicacy: Market-oriented surveys of the consumption of Rhododendron flowers in Yunnan, China

Floral traits and their connection with Pollinators and Climate

Do flowers removed of either nectar or pollen attract fewer bumblebee pollinators? An experimental test in Impatiens oxyanthera

Compound-Specific Behavioral and Enzymatic Resistance to Toxic Milkweed Cardenolides in a Generalist Bumblebee Pollinator

Why honeybees are poor pollinators of a mass‐flowering plant: experimental support for the low pollen quality hypothesis

High pesticide exposure and risk to bees in pollinator plantings adjacent to conventionally managed blueberry fields

Variation in Pesticide Toxicity in the Western Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Associated with Consuming Phytochemically Different Monofloral Honeys

Is non-host pollen suitable for generalist bumblebees?

Herbivory, plant traits and nectar chemistry interact to affect the community of insect visitors and pollination in common milkweed, Asclepias syriaca

The pollination of Habenaria rhodocheila (Orchidaceae) in South China: When butterflies take sides

Bumble bee parasite strains vary in resistance to phytochemicals

Composition of Strawberry Flower Volatiles and Their Effects on Behavior of Strawberry Pollinators, Bombus terrestris and Apis mellifera