↓ Skip to main content

Acaricide-impaired functional predation response of the phytoseiid mite Neoseiulus baraki to the coconut mite Aceria guerreronis

Overview of attention for article published in Ecotoxicology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Acaricide-impaired functional predation response of the phytoseiid mite Neoseiulus baraki to the coconut mite Aceria guerreronis
Published in
Ecotoxicology, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10646-015-1459-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. B. Lima, J. W. S. Melo, M. G. C. Gondim, R. N. C. Guedes, J. E. M. Oliveira, A. Pallini

Abstract

Acaricides may interfere with a myriad of interactions among arthropods, particularly predator-prey interactions. The coconut mite, Aceria guerreronis Keifer (Acari: Eriophyidae), and its phytoseiid predator, Neoseiulus baraki (Athias-Henriot) (Acari: Phytoseiidae), provide an opportunity to explore such interference because the former is a key coconut pest species that requires both predation and acaricide application for its management. The objective of the present study was to assess the effect of the acaricides abamectin, azadirachtin and fenpyroximate on the functional response of N. baraki to A. guerreronis densities. The following prey densities were tested: 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80 preys. The type of functional response and prey handling time (Th) were not altered by the acaricides. However, the attack rate (a') was modified by abamectin and fenpyroximate, and the consumption peak was reduced by abamectin. All of the acaricides allowed for the maintenance of the predator in the field, but exposure to abamectin and fenpyroximate compromised prey consumption.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Professor 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 59%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,807,084
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from Ecotoxicology
#571
of 1,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,937
of 264,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecotoxicology
#13
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,475 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 264,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.