| Title |
Habitat complexity reduces parasitoid foraging efficiency, but does not prevent orientation towards learned host plant odours
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Oecologia, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00442-015-3346-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
H. M. Kruidhof, A. L. Roberts, P. Magdaraog, D. Muñoz, R. Gols, L. E. M. Vet, T. S. Hoffmeister, J. A. Harvey |
| Abstract |
It is well known that many parasitic wasps use herbivore-induced plant odours (HIPVs) to locate their inconspicuous host insects, and are often able to distinguish between slight differences in plant odour composition. However, few studies have examined parasitoid foraging behaviour under (semi-)field conditions. In nature, food plants of parasitoid hosts are often embedded in non-host-plant assemblages that confer both structural and chemical complexity. By releasing both naïve and experienced Cotesia glomerata females in outdoor tents, we studied how natural vegetation surrounding Pieris brassicae-infested Sinapis arvensis and Barbarea vulgaris plants influences their foraging efficiency as well as their ability to specifically orient towards the HIPVs of the host plant species on which they previously had a positive oviposition experience. Natural background vegetation reduced the host-encounter rate of naïve C. glomerata females by 47 %. While associative learning of host plant HIPVs 1 day prior to foraging caused a 28 % increase in the overall foraging efficiency of C. glomerata, it did not reduce the negative influence of natural background vegetation. At the same time, however, females foraging in natural vegetation attacked more host patches on host-plant species on which they previously had a positive oviposition experience. We conclude that, even though the presence of natural vegetation reduces the foraging efficiency of C. glomerata, it does not prevent experienced female wasps from specifically orienting towards the host-plant species from which they had learned the HIPVs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| Benin | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 75 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 29% |
| Researcher | 17 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 55 | 71% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 6% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 13 | 17% |
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 25 June 2019.
All research outputs
#14,557,279
of 23,313,051 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,108
of 4,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,682
of 268,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#36
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,313,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 268,887 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.