↓ Skip to main content

Copy if dissatisfied, innovate if not: contrasting egg-laying decision making in an insect

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Copy if dissatisfied, innovate if not: contrasting egg-laying decision making in an insect
Published in
Animal Cognition, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10071-018-1212-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryoga Otake, Shigeto Dobata

Abstract

The use of conspecific cues as social information in decision making is widespread among animals; but, because this social information is indirect, it is error-prone. During resource acquisition, conspecific cues also indicate the presence of competitors; therefore, decision makers are expected to utilize direct information from resources and modify their responses to social information accordingly. Here, we show that, in a non-social insect, unattractive egg-laying resources alter the behavioural response to conspecific cues from avoidance to preference, leading to resource sharing. Females of the adzuki bean beetle Callosobruchus chinensis avoid laying eggs onto beans that already have conspecific eggs. However, when we provided females with bean-sized clean glass beads with and without conspecific eggs, the females preferred to add their eggs onto the beads with eggs. The glass beads, once coated with water extracts of adzuki beans, enabled the females to behave as if they were provided with the beans: the females preferred bean-odoured glass beads to clean glass beads and they avoided the substrates with eggs. When females are provided with unattractive egg-laying substrates only, joining behaviour (i.e. copying) might be advantageous, as it takes advantage of information about positive attributes of the substrate that the focal animal might have missed. Our results suggest that given only unsatisfactory options, the benefits of copying outweigh the costs of resource competition. Our study highlights the importance of integrating multiple information sources in animal decision making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Researcher 3 11%
Professor 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 39%
Engineering 3 11%
Psychology 3 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 June 2021.
All research outputs
#6,518,487
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#881
of 1,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,925
of 334,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 334,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.