↓ Skip to main content

Flower Iridescence Increases Object Detection in the Insect Visual System without Compromising Object Identity

Overview of attention for article published in Current Biology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
33 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Flower Iridescence Increases Object Detection in the Insect Visual System without Compromising Object Identity
Published in
Current Biology, March 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2016.01.026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather M. Whitney, Alison Reed, Sean A. Rands, Lars Chittka, Beverley J. Glover

Abstract

Iridescence is a form of structural coloration, produced by a range of structures, in which hue is dependent on viewing angle [1-4]. One of these structures, the diffraction grating, is found both in animals (for example, beetles [2]) and in plants (on the petals of some animal pollinated flowers [5]). The behavioral impacts of floral iridescence and its potential ecological significance are unknown [6-9]. Animal-pollinated flowers are described as "sensory billboards" [10], with many floral features contributing to a conspicuous display that filters prospective pollinators. Yet floral iridescence is more subtle to the human eye than that of many animal displays because the floral diffraction grating is not perfectly regular [5-9]. This presents a puzzle: if the function of petals is to attract pollinators, then flowers might be expected to optimize iridescence to increase showiness. On the other hand, pollinators memorize floral colors as consistent advertisements of reward quality, and iridescence might corrupt flower color identity. Here we tested the trade-off between flower detectability and recognition, requiring bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) to identify artificial flowers that varied in pigmentation and degree of iridescence. We find that iridescence does increase target detectability but that "perfect" iridescence (produced by an artificial diffraction grating) corrupts target identity and bees make many mistakes. However, "imperfect" floral iridescence does not lead to mistaken target identity, while still benefitting flower detectability. We hypothesize that similar trade-offs might be found in the many naturally "imperfect" iridescence-producing structures found in animal-animal, as well as other plant-animal, interactions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
Serbia 1 2%
Unknown 55 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 24%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Unspecified 5 8%
Other 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 14%
Unspecified 7 12%
Physics and Astronomy 5 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 4 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. 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 20 November 2017.
All research outputs
#140,293
of 12,298,349 outputs
Outputs from Current Biology
#770
of 9,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,055
of 286,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Biology
#38
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,298,349 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 286,437 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.