| Title |
Time management and nectar flow: flower handling and suction feeding in long-proboscid flies (Nemestrinidae: Prosoeca)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Science of Nature, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00114-013-1114-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Florian Karolyi, Linde Morawetz, Jonathan F. Colville, Stephan Handschuh, Brian D. Metscher, Harald W. Krenn |
| Abstract |
A well-developed suction pump in the head represents an important adaptation for nectar-feeding insects, such as Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera and Diptera. This pumping organ creates a pressure gradient along the proboscis, which is responsible for nectar uptake. The extremely elongated proboscis of the genus Prosoeca (Nemestrinidae) evolved as an adaptation to feeding from long, tubular flowers. According to the functional constraint hypothesis, nectar uptake through a disproportionately elongated, straw-like proboscis increases flower handling time and consequently lowers the energy intake rate. Due to the conspicuous length variation of the proboscis of Prosoeca, individuals with longer proboscides are hypothesised to have longer handling times. To test this hypothesis, we used field video analyses of flower-visiting behaviour, detailed examinations of the suction pump morphology and correlations of proboscis length with body length and suction pump dimensions. Using a biomechanical framework described for nectar-feeding Lepidoptera in relation to proboscis length and suction pump musculature, we describe and contrast the system in long-proboscid flies. Flies with longer proboscides spent significantly more time drinking from flowers. In addition, proboscis length and body length showed a positive allometric relationship. Furthermore, adaptations of the suction pump included an allometric relationship between proboscis length and suction pump muscle volume and a combination of two pumping organs. Overall, the study gives detailed insight into the adaptations required for long-proboscid nectar feeding, and comparisons with other nectar-sucking insects allow further considerations of the evolution of the suction pump in insects with sucking mouthparts. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Hungary | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 47 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 5 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 27 | 54% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 June 2014.
All research outputs
#942,449
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from The Science of Nature
#139
of 2,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,532
of 306,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Science of Nature
#4
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.