| Title |
Homing abilities of the tropical primitively eusocial paper wasp Ropalidia marginata
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00359-015-1019-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Souvik Mandal, Raghavendra Gadagkar |
| Abstract |
Compared to our extensive knowledge about the navigation and homing abilities of ants and bees, we know rather little about these phenomena in social wasps. Here, we report the homing abilities of the tropical primitively eusocial wasp Ropalidia marginata and the factors that affect their homing success. To determine from how far these wasps can return to their nests, we transported foragers blindfold and released them at gradually increasing distances from their nests in four cardinal directions. Their homing success was determined by checking their presence on their nests on three consecutive nights. All foragers (56 individuals, 115 releases) returned back from an area of 0.73 ± 0.25 km(2) on the day of release (minimal homing area), whereas 83.8 % of the foragers (217 individuals, 420 releases) returned when we enlarged the area of release to 6.22 ± 0.66 km(2) around their nests (maximal homing area). Of 66 releases, no wasps returned from beyond the maximal homing area. The minimal homing area might be familiar to the foragers because they probably routinely forage in this area and the maximal homing area represents the maximum distances from which the wasps are capable of returning to their nests, with or without familiarity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 17% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 44% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 26 May 2021.
All research outputs
#2,514,580
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#147
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,828
of 267,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 267,722 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.