↓ Skip to main content

Fitness benefits of the fruit fly Rhagoletis alternata on a non-native rose host

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Fitness benefits of the fruit fly Rhagoletis alternata on a non-native rose host
Published in
Oecologia, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00442-015-3524-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kim Meijer, Christian Smit, Menno Schilthuizen, Leo W. Beukeboom

Abstract

Many species have been introduced worldwide into areas outside their natural range. Often these non-native species are introduced without their natural enemies, which sometimes leads to uncontrolled population growth. It is rarely reported that an introduced species provides a new resource for a native species. The rose hips of the Japanese rose, Rosa rugosa, which has been introduced in large parts of Europe, are infested by the native monophagous tephritid fruit fly Rhagoletis alternata. We studied differences in fitness benefits between R. alternata larvae using R. rugosa as well as native Rosa species in the Netherlands. R. alternata pupae were larger and heavier when the larvae fed on rose hips of R. rugosa. Larvae feeding on R. rugosa were parasitized less frequently by parasitic wasps than were larvae feeding on native roses. The differences in parasitization are probably due to morphological differences between the native and non-native rose hips: the hypanthium of a R. rugosa hip is thicker and provides the larvae with the possibility to feed deeper into the hip, meaning that the parasitoids cannot reach them with their ovipositor and the larvae escape parasitization. Our study shows that native species switching to a novel non-native host can experience fitness benefits compared to the original native host.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 5 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 28%
Student > Master 4 22%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 44%
Environmental Science 5 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Unknown 4 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 February 2017.
All research outputs
#17,782,514
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,574
of 4,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,832
of 393,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#57
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,221 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 393,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.