↓ Skip to main content

Can mechanism help explain insect host choice?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Evolutionary Biology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Can mechanism help explain insect host choice?
Published in
Journal of Evolutionary Biology, January 2012
DOI 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02435.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. P. Cunningham

Abstract

Evolutionary theory predicts that herbivorous insects should lay eggs on plants in a way that reflects the suitability of each plant species for larval development. Empirical studies, however, often fail to find any relationship between an adult insect's choice of host-plant and offspring fitness, and in such cases, it is generally assumed that other 'missing' factors (e.g. predation, host-plant abundance, learning and adult feeding sites) must be contributing to overall host suitability. Here, I consider an alternative theory - that a fitness cost inherent in the olfactory mechanism could constrain the evolution of insect host selection. I begin by reviewing current knowledge of odour processing in the insect antennal lobe with the aid of a simple schematic: the aim being to explain the workings of this mechanism to scientists who do not have prior knowledge in this field. I then use the schematic to explore how an insect's perception of host and non-host odours is governed by a set of processing rules, or algorithm. Under the assumptions of this mechanistic view, the perception of every plant odour is interrelated, and seemingly bad host choices can still arise as part of an overall adaptive behavioural strategy. I discuss how an understanding of mechanism can improve the interpretation of theoretical and empirical studies in insect behaviour and evolution.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 5 3%
Brazil 3 2%
Colombia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 145 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 32%
Researcher 27 17%
Student > Master 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 12 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 121 77%
Environmental Science 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 1%
Neuroscience 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 15 9%
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 27 November 2022.
All research outputs
#7,695,423
of 24,712,008 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Evolutionary Biology
#1,353
of 2,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,945
of 251,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Evolutionary Biology
#15
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,712,008 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 251,163 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.